Extreme tolerance: how and why did homosexuality become the norm?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The currently accepted point of view in industrialized countries that homosexuality is not subject to clinical assessment is conditional and devoid of scientific validity, since it reflects only unjustified political conformism, and not a scientifically reached conclusion.

Youth protest

The scandalous vote of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to exclude homosexuality from the list of mental disorders took place in December 1973. This was preceded by the social and political events of 1960-1970. Society is tired of America's protracted intervention in Vietnam and the economic crisis. Youth protest movements were born and became incredibly popular: the movement for the rights of the black population, the movement for the rights of women, the anti-war movement, the movement against social inequality and poverty; the hippie culture flourished with its deliberate peacefulness and freedom; the use of psychedelics, especially LSD and marijuana, became widespread. Then all the traditional values and beliefs were questioned. It was a time of rebellion against any authority [1].

All of the above took place in the shadow of the inflated threat of overpopulation and the search for birth control.

US population growth has become an important national issue

Preston Cloud, representing the National Academy of Sciences, demanded an intensification of population control "by any feasible means" and recommended that the government legalize abortion and homosexual unions. [2]

Kingsley Davis, one of the central figures in the development of birth control policy, along with the popularization of contraceptives, abortion and sterilization, proposed the promotion of "Unnatural forms of intercourse":

In the heated atmosphere of this critical period, when the revolutionary (and not only) masses were seething with might and main, the infusions of Moore, Rockefeller and Ford intensified the political campaign for the recognition of homosexuality as a normal and desirable way of life [4]. A previously taboo topic has moved from the realm of the unthinkable to the realm of the radical, and a lively debate unfolded in the media between supporters and opponents of the normalization of homosexuality.

In 1969, in his address to Congress, President Nixon called population growth "one of the most serious problems for the fate of mankind" and called for urgent action. [5] In the same year, the vice-president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) Frederic Jaffe issued a memorandum in which "promoting the growth of homosexuality" was listed as one of the methods of reducing the birth rate [6]. Coincidentally, three months later, the Stonewall riots broke out, in which militant gay groups carried out riots, vandalism, arson and clashes with the police for five days. Metal rods, stones and Molotov cocktails were used. In a book by homosexual author David Carter, recognized as the "Ultimate Resource" for the history of the events, activists blocked Christopher Street, stopping vehicles and attacking passengers if they were not homosexuals or refused to express solidarity with them. An unsuspecting taxi driver who accidentally turned into the street died of a heart attack when a raging crowd began to rock his car. Another driver was beaten after he got out of the car to resist vandals jumping on it. [7]

In the immediate aftermath of the riots, activists created the Homosexual Liberation Front, similar to the National Liberation Front in Vietnam.

Having declared psychiatry the # 1 enemy, for three years they carried out shock actions, disrupted APA conferences and speeches by professors who considered homosexuality to be a disease, and even called them at night with threats.

As a direct participant in those events writes in his article, one of those who dared to defend a scientific position and resist attempts to introduce homosexuality into the norm, an expert in the field of the psychology of sexual relations, Professor Charles Socarides:

Militant groups of homosexual activists have launched a real campaign of persecution of specialists who put forward arguments against excluding homosexuality from the list of deviations; they infiltrated conferences where the problem of homosexuality was discussed, made a riot, insulted speakers, and disrupted performances. A powerful homosexual lobby in public and specialized media promoted the publication of materials directed against the advocates of the physiological concept of sex drive. Articles with conclusions drawn from an academic scientific approach have been ridiculed and clichéd as "a meaningless jumble of prejudice and misinformation." These actions were supported by letters and phone calls with insults and threats of physical violence and even terrorist attacks [8].

In May 1970, activists, infiltrating a meeting of the APA national convention in San Francisco, began to behave defiantly shouting and insulting speakers, as a result of which embarrassed and confused doctors began to leave the audience. The chairman was forced to interrupt the course of the conference. Surprisingly, there was no reaction from the guards or law enforcement officers. Encouraged by their impunity, activists disrupted another APA meeting, this time in Chicago. Then, during a conference at the University of Southern California, activists again thwarted a talk on homosexuality. Activists have threatened to completely sabotage the upcoming annual conference in Washington if the section on homosexuality studies does not consist of representatives of the homosexual movement. Instead of bringing threats of violence and unrest to the knowledge of law enforcement agencies, the organizers of the APA conference went to meet the extortionists and created a commission not on homosexuality, but from homosexuals [9].

Gay activists at the 125th APA conference in 1972

Gay activists who spoke demanded that psychiatry:

1) abandoned her previous negative attitude towards homosexuality;

2) publicly renounced the "theory of disease" in any sense;

3) began an active campaign to eradicate widespread "prejudices" on this issue, both through work to change attitudes and legislative reforms;

4) consulted on an ongoing basis with representatives of the homosexual community.

Our themes are "Gay, proud and healthy" and "Gay is good." With or without you, we will work vigorously to embrace these commandments and fight those who are against us [10].

There is a well-founded opinion that these riots and actions were nothing more than a spectacle played out by actors and a handful of activists, whose actions would have been immediately suppressed without protection from above. This was necessary only to create a media hype around the "rights of the oppressed minority" and the subsequent justification of the depathologization of homosexuality for the general public, while at the top everything was already a foregone conclusion.

The granddaughter of APA President John Spiegel, who later came out, described how, setting the stage for an internal coup in the APA, he gathered like-minded people who called themselves "GAPA" in their homes, where they discussed strategies to promote young homophile liberals to key positions instead of gray-haired Orthodox [11]. Thus, the ideologues of homosexuality had a powerful lobby in the leadership of the APA.

Here is how the famous American scientist and psychiatrist Professor Jeffrey Satinover describes the events of those years in his article "Neither Scientific nor Democratic" [12]:

In 1963, the New York Academy of Medicine commissioned its Public Health Committee to prepare a report on the issue of homosexuality, driven by fears that homosexual behavior was spreading rapidly in American society. The committee reached the following conclusions:

“… Homosexuality is indeed a disease. A homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who is incapable of forming normal heterosexual relationships … Some homosexuals have gone beyond a purely defensive position and argue that such a deviation is a desirable, noble and preferred way of life …"

After only 10 years, in 1973, without the presentation of any significant scientific research data, without relevant observations and analysis, the position of the propagandists of homosexuality became a dogma of psychiatry (see how radically the course changed in just 10 years!).

In 1970 Socarides attempted to create a group to study homosexuality from a purely clinical and scientific point of view, contacting the New York branch of the APA. The head of the department, Professor Diamond, supported Socarides, and a similar group was formed of twenty psychiatrists from various clinics in New York. After two years of work and sixteen meetings, the group prepared a report that unequivocally spoke about homosexuality as a mental disorder and proposed a program of therapeutic and social assistance for homosexuals. However, Professor Diamond died in 1971, and the new head of the APA New York branch was a supporter of homosexual ideology. The report was rejected, and its authors were given an unequivocal hint that any report that did not recognize homosexuality as a normal variant would be rejected. The group was disbanded.

Robert Spitzer, who excluded homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, worked on the editorial board of the DSM, a diagnostic guide to mental disorders, and had no experience with homosexuals. His only exposure to the matter was to talk to a gay activist named Ron Gold, who insists that he was not sick, who then took Spitzer to a party at a gay bar, where he discovered high-ranking APA members. Struck by what he saw, Spitzer concluded that homosexuality in itself does not meet the criteria for a mental disorder, since it does not always cause suffering and is not necessarily associated with universally generalized dysfunction other than heterosexual. “If the inability to function optimally in the genital area is a disorder, then celibacy should also be considered a disorder,” he said, ignoring the fact that celibacy is a conscious choice that can be stopped at any time, but homosexuality is not. Spitzer sent a recommendation to the APA's board of directors to remove homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders, and in December 1973, 13 of the 15 board members (most of whom were newly appointed GayP's henchmen) voted in favor. Dr. Satinover, in the aforementioned article, cites the testimony of a former homosexual who was present at a party in the apartment of one of the APA councilors, where he celebrated the victory with his lover.

It is impossible to prove the normality of homosexuality from a biomedical point of view, you can only vote for it. This "scientific" method was last used in the Middle Ages when deciding whether the earth was round or flat. Dr. Socarides described the APA's decision as "the psychiatric deception of the century."The only such decision, which could shock the world more, would be if the delegates to the convention of the American Medical Association, in consultation with lobbyists of medical and hospital insurance companies, voted to declare that all forms of cancer are harmless and therefore do not need treatment.

However, APA noted the following:

Homosexual activists will no doubt argue that psychiatry has finally recognized homosexuality as just as "normal" as heterosexuality. They will be wrong. Removing homosexuality from the list of psychiatric diseases, we only admit that it does not meet the criterion for defining a disease … which does not mean that it is as normal and fulfilling as heterosexuality [13].

Thus, the diagnosis "302.0 ~ Homosexuality" was replaced by the diagnosis "302.00 ~ Egodystonic homosexuality" and transferred to the category of psychosexual disorders. According to the new definition, only homosexuals who are uncomfortable with their attraction will be considered sick. “We will no longer insist on labeling the disease to individuals claiming to be healthy and not showing generalized impairments in social performance,” APA said. However, no valid reasons, compelling scientific arguments or clinical evidence were provided to justify such a change in the medical attitude towards homosexuality. Even those who supported the decision admit this. For example, Columbia University professor Ronald Bayer, who is a specialist in medical ethics, noted that the decision to depathologize homosexuality was dictated not by "reasonable inferences based on scientific truths, but by the ideological sentiments of the time":

The whole process violates the most basic principles of solving scientific questions. Instead of looking at the data impartially, psychiatrists found themselves thrown into political controversy [14].

“Mother of the gay rights movement” Barbara Gittings, twenty years after her speech at the APA conference, frankly admitted:

Evelyn Hooker's commissioned study, which is usually presented as "scientific" proof of the "normality" of homosexuality, did not meet scientific standards, since its sample was small, not random and unrepresentative, and the method itself left much to be desired. In addition, Hooker did not try to prove that homosexuals as a group are as normal and well-adjusted people as heterosexuals. The purpose of her research was to provide an answer to the question: "Is homosexuality necessarily a sign of pathology?" In her words, "All we need to do is find one case in which the answer is no." That is, the purpose of the study was to find at least one homosexual who has no mental pathology.

Hooker's study included only 30 homosexuals who were carefully selected by the Mattachine Society. This gay organization conducted preliminary tests and selected the best candidates. After testing the participants with three projective tests (Rorschach Spots, TAT and MAPS) and comparing their results with the “heterosexual” control group, Hooker concluded:

It is not surprising that some homosexuals are seriously impaired, and indeed to such an extent that homosexuality can be assumed to be a defense against overt psychosis. But what is difficult for most doctors to accept is that some homosexuals can be very ordinary individuals, indistinguishable, except for sexual tendencies, from ordinary heterosexual people. Some may not only be devoid of pathology (if not insist that homosexuality itself is a sign of pathology), but also represent perfectly excellent people, functioning at the highest level [16].

That is, the criterion of "normality" in her study was the presence of adaptation and social functioning. The presence of such parameters, however, does not at all exclude the presence of pathology. Therefore, even without taking into account the inadequate statistical power of the sample size, the results of such a study cannot serve as proof that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Hooker herself acknowledged the "limited results" of her work and said that comparing groups of 100 people would likely make a difference. She also noted the strong dissatisfaction of homosexuals in personal relationships, which sharply distinguished them from the control group.

In late 1977, 4 years after the events described, an anonymous survey was conducted in the scientific journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality among American psychiatrists who are members of the APA, according to which 69% of psychiatrists surveyed agreed that “homosexuality, as a rule, is a pathological adaptation, as opposed to normal variation,”and 13% were unsure. Most also stated that homosexuals tend to be less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). In total, 70% of psychiatrists said that the problems of homosexuals are more related to their own internal conflicts than to stigma from society [17].

It is noteworthy that in 2003 the results of an international survey among psychiatrists about their attitude to homosexuality showed that the overwhelming majority consider homosexuality as deviant behavior, although it was excluded from the list of mental disorders [18].

In 1987, the APA quietly removed all references to homosexuality from its nomenclature, this time without even bothering to vote. The World Health Organization (WHO) simply followed in the footsteps of the APA and in 1990 also removed homosexuality from its classification of diseases, retaining only its egodystonic manifestations in section F66. For reasons of political correctness, this category, to the great absurdity, also includes heterosexual orientation, which "the individual wishes to change in connection with the accompanying psychological and behavioral disorders."

ICD-10

At the same time, it should be remembered that only the policy of diagnosing homosexuality has changed, but not the scientific and clinical base describing it as a pathology, i.e. painful deviation from the normal state or developmental process. If doctors vote tomorrow that the flu is not a disease, this does not mean that patients will be cured: the symptoms and complications of the disease will not go anywhere, even if it is not on the list. In addition, neither the American Psychiatric Association nor the World Health Organization are scientific institutions. WHO is simply a bureaucratic agency at the UN that coordinates the activities of national structures, and APA is a trade union. WHO is not trying to argue otherwise - this is what is written in the preface to the classification of mental disorders in the ICD-10:

Present descriptions and instructions do not carryin itself a theoretical meaning and do not pretendon a comprehensive definition of the current state of knowledge of mental disorders. They are simply groups of symptoms and comments about which a large number of advisers and consultants in many countries around the world agreedas an acceptable basis for defining category boundaries in the classification of mental disorders.

From the standpoint of science of science, this statement looks absurd. Scientific classification should be based on strictly logical grounds, and any agreement between specialists can only be the result of the interpretation of objective clinical and empirical data, and not dictated by any ideological considerations, even the most humanitarian ones. A look at a particular problem becomes generally recognized solely by virtue of its evidence, and not by a directive from above. When it comes to a treatment method, it is usually implemented as an experiment in one or more institutions. The results of the experiment are published in the scientific press, and on the basis of this message, doctors decide whether to use this technique further. Here, anti-scientific political interests took over scientific impartiality and objectivity, and the clinical and empirical experience of more than a hundred years, unequivocally indicating the pathological etiology of homosexuality, was discarded. The unprecedented after the Middle Ages way of solving complex scientific problems with a show of hands discredits psychiatry as a serious science and, once again, presents an example of the prostitution of science for the sake of certain political forces. Even the Oxford Historical Dictionary of Psychiatry notes that if in some areas, such as the genetics of schizophrenia, psychiatry strove to be as scientific as possible, then in matters related to homosexuality, psychiatry behaved like a “servant of its cultural and political masters” [19].

World standards in the field of sexuality are set by the 44th division of the APA, known as the Society for the Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, which is almost entirely made up of LGBT activists. On behalf of the entire APA, they are spreading unsubstantiated statements that "homosexuality is a normal aspect of human sexuality."

Dr. Dean Bird, former president of the National Association for the Study and Therapy of Homosexuality, accused the APA of scientific fraud:

The APA has grown into a political organization with a gay activist program in its official publications, although it positions itself as a scientific organization presenting scientific evidence in an impartial manner. The APA suppresses studies and research reviews that contradict its political position and intimidates members in its ranks who oppose this abuse of the scientific process. Many were forced to remain silent so as not to lose their professional status, others were ostracized and their reputation damaged - not because their research lacked accuracy or value, but because their results were contrary to the official "policy" [twenty].