Raj sent this to me a while back. Back in 2002 PRI and NPR’s This American Life ran an hour long show revealing the story of how homosexuality was removed from the DSM.
The theme of the story was that change came largely at the request of gay people who formed a secret alliance and helped put sympathetic leaders into power at the APA. It’s EXACTLY the sort of conspiracy theory the religious right is always screaming about but this story also has a pivotal turning point that very much hinged on sympathy of one straight man.
Oh but also included, a tirade of tired dead gender stereotypes courtesy of Charles Socarides. For a professional member of NARTH I really expected something a bit more relevant and intelligent than what he adds to the story.
Archived broadcast audio (real audio)
Broadcast description of 81 Words
Oddly,No-one (on that side) seems interested in asking why homosexuality was even included in the first place. Or mentioning the political and religious forces that attempted to keep homosexuality in the DSM. Socarides was right in the middle of that anti-gay activism; indeed it was he derailed the usual process of review and who caused the ballot of the APA membership. (a process so embarrassing that the APA changed their procedures afterwards to prevent such a highjacking again).Exactly what science was behind declaring homosexuality a mental illness in the first DSM (in 1952)? As seems more clear today, that first edition simply reflected the popular but ignorant prejudice of the day; wrapped in psychoanalytic speculation dating back to the 19th Century.Socarides’ notions should be politely ignored — he’s a dinosaur who developed his ideas when few people had any idea about the broad range of the people they were “discussing”. His understanding — and that of others — were invented in the closed World of the clinic and the asylum; and that meant the vast majority of gay men and women who never stepped foot inside such a place were never considered. Instead, the rest of us were simply lumped in — without scientific foundation — with the “crazies”.Socarides (or more particularly, Rado’s) ideas were challenged in the late 1950’s, examined in the 1960’s and died in the 1970’s. Today they account for nothing, professionally.Given that, why did a program from 2001 feel these flat-earthers deserved to be treated so generously?
RE: grantdale
Its what I like to call the “eww yuck” factor; the idea that if one finds something “eww yuck”, then obviously anyone doing that particular past time must be, by their definition, ‘crazy’, when in actual fact, its nothing more than one person trying to unilaterally impose their values, their ‘turn on’s’, and claim what they like as ‘mainstream’ and anything else is a ‘perversion’.
If a person likes dressing up in female clothes when having sex with their wife, is it considered crazy? of course not, to him, its an fun and interesting way to spice up his sex life with his wife or partner.
The problem is also that many people only think in black and white, right and wrong, they fail to take into account that there is a VERY big grey area, where something is neither right or wrong, it just is. You could say that this ‘black and white’ approach to issues is merely a result of the type of society that we create – the parents of today, are merely a byproduct of the previous generation.
As much as people would love to say they’re open minded, most people are conservative by nature, even the most liberal, tree hugging, gay marriage supporting democrat will be honest in that he or she doesn’t want a gay child – its a sad fact of life unfortunately.
You could say that it is conformity by societal intimidation rather than state imposed conformity as with the case of Communism.
Hi kaiwai,No, crazy would be a guy dressing in women’s clothing and having sex with his wife in front of me (I’m riding the tram home from work at the time…)
RE: grantdale
Crazy to you, maybe 😀 then again, I’ve seen stranger things in the public from supposedly ‘normal’ men and women’ – Normality is a relative concept, to what society dictates is ‘normal’ and what the individual considers normal.
There are many things in society, which society considers ‘normal’ and what I consider being either plan stupid or crazy.
“Exactly what science was behind declaring homosexuality a mental illness in the first DSM (in 1952)?”
There is weak, controversial science behind putting homosexuality in the DSM, but there is also weak, controversial science behind the inclusion of the rest of the so called “diseases” in the DSM.
For example, did you know that there is still considerable debate as to what constitutes attention deficit disorder? All we have are a bunch of subjective opinions from various biased researchers who operate from very specific schools of thought. Further, some debate the very existence of ADD, as well as its inclusion in the DSM.
The social sciences are murky. That’s why we call it a pseudo-science, my friend.
Science does not tell us what constitutes a “mental disease.” This ain’t the hard sciences. This isn’t physics or chemistry.
It’s society and the ruling social paradigm of the day which governs what is considered a disorder and what isn’t. You ought to read up on Thomas Kuhn regarding his philosophy of Science.
Science NEVER has the final say, with regard to matters of the human spirit.
The decision to include and REMOVE homosexuality from the DSM was a-scientific. For starters, check out the book “Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm.” One of the authors, who played a pivotal role, along with Spitzer, inremoving homosexuality from the DSM, admitted that the decision was based more on kindness and compassion than on any detailed, super scientific investigation.
Kaiwai,
“… will be honest in that he or she doesn’t want a gay child – its a sad fact of life unfortunately.”
Usually true, I’m sure.
However, I have a friend who was raised to be gay. His mother wanted a gay kid and when one of her twin sons was a bit sensative, she hopefully assumed the best. She raised them to be comfortable with their sexuality.
Well, he ended us straight. But the kind of straight that is as comforable in a gay environment as a straight one.
As it turned out, he met a stunning young actress (truly the most beautiful women I’ve ever met) who had one criterion before dating anyone: the guy had to be comforable around her best friend, a gay guy… They’ve been happily married for a few years now.
And, since guys who are secure about their sexuality are more open and easy to be around, he’s also very successful in his business.
So although his mother was disappointed and has no gay kids of her own, she did raise two sons to be truly decent people. Maybe PFOX should take note.
I think I should add something to what Dan posted.
81 words that changed the world is, indeed, an remarkable broadcast. It is an hour-long PRI/This American Life broadcast detailing the process by which the APA (the psychiatrists) determined to delist “homosexuality” as a “mental disorder” in their DSM. There are several other interesting issues covered in the program–why homosexuality became listed in the DSM in the first place. A bit of the history can be discerned from https://www.priory.com/psych/disparat.htm And a bit can be discerned from the 81 Words program.
What appears to have happened was that Bieber, a psychiatrist, when in the military during and following WWII, noted the distress of some of his homosexual patients from a religious standpoint, tried to figure out a way to convert the religious distress into a clinical issue. They presumed that homosexuality was inherently distressful. So they included the “81 Words” in DSM2 in the 1950s. They tried convert it from a moral (religious) issue into a clinical issue to remove the moral aspect. It didn’t work. They tried to figure out why people were gay, and they came upon the distant father and overbearing mother theory. From a personal note, this theory upsets me to no end, because they would be attacking my parents, and I don’t like that–and it isn’t true, either.
The issue hit the fan when it became necessary to revise the DSM in the early 1970s. That’s the story detailed in the This American Life broadcast.
Two BTWs. First, a link that to a page that is of interest on the history is https://www.priory.com/psych/disparat.htm
Second, it is interesting to note that Socarides’s son (by his second of–I believe–four wives) is gay. One of the theories by the NARTHians is that male homosexuality is caused by bad parenting. I’ll eschew commenting further, but you get the drift.
Just to let you know, I have come to the unremarkable conclusion that there are two bases for the antipathy towards homosexuals–particularly male homosexuals. The primary one is sexism. One thing you should recognize is that most antipathy is towards gay males–there is little antipathy towards lesbianism. I have come to the conclusion that much of the antipathy against gay males is rooted in sexism. Indeed more than a few people with whom I’ve chatted on conservative web sites do not consider “tops” to be homosexuals, only the “bottoms.” (Sorry to have to be explicit.) Homophobia is very much rooted in sexism.
The second thing is an apparent fascination among some hetero males with lesbianism. I don’t understand it, but it’s true.
I heard this ep of “This American Life” when it first aired on my local NPR affiliate. Thank you for sharing the news of it — this is one amazing, touching piece of broadcast journalism. If you have not done so, you really need to hear it, whatever your stand on the issue of homosexuality.
raj,
“Second, it is interesting to note that Socarides’s son (by his second of–I believe–four wives) is gay. One of the theories by the NARTHians is that male homosexuality is caused by bad parenting.”
I didn’t know that… but it doesn’t surprise me.
In fact, I have a new theory of my own: The root cause of NARTHianism (or any other anti-gay activism) is parents unable to cope with having a gay child.
Help me out here folks: Are there ANY anti-gay activists that don’t have a gay kid?
Grantdale,
If you have any links substantiating your assertions about Charles Socarides’ politicization of the APA, please share.
Tim, Socarides’s son was an official in the Clinton administration.
raj,
the list of anti-gay activists with gay kids is almost to big to believe. I’m trying to think of any (maybe Dobson?) that aren’t simply fighting their internal family squabbles in public on a grand scale.
I don’t think we ever heard back from Doc Throck if Rebekah Throckmorton is a child/relative.
Maybe when I have some spare time I’ll try to come up with a comprehensive list.
Even one of Crazy Lou Sheldon’s sons hit on a friend of mine in college (although that really doesn’t mean anything).
Years ago Gore Vidal commented on psychiatry by saying it had ‘the intellectual credibility of phrenology’. Which struck me then, and still does now, as a very accurate view of the subject. So, that eventually the more aware members of the profession moved to clean up the truly messy heritage and present a better image should not be surprising. Again refering to Vidal, he characterizes psychiatry as ‘Leviticus science’ in the way the Creationists do Genesis science. Which seems a viable way of looking at the subject.
RE: Timothy
I think the most accurate thing Chris Rock said during a stand up comedy show, “who ever you hate, will end up in your family”. The more bigoted the family, the greater the number of gays, and people converting away from Christianity.
Just take Terry Randells combo – Gay son and a Muslim daughter, neither of then want any contact with their father – and what does the father do? divorce the wife for some new pussy after preaching the need to work through difficulties and preserving marriage.
I wouldn’t mind them preaching their values, if they weren’t so hypocritical.
Hi Mike,I’ve sent through a long post — but it looks like it’s gone into XGW’s nether regions.Among others, refernced was an article written by Socarides himself for the Journal of Psychohistory in 1992. He’s more circumspect that Bayer, but his central role is clear (along with Bieber) dating back to BEFORE the pro-gay activists began their disruptions.To be honest, I had thought Socarides’ role to be common knowledge around the 1973 decision. It’s mentioned literally ‘everywhere’. But I’m happy to dig all the links out again (but not activate them… something odd’s going on here with posts!)OK, fingers crossed… Preview, Post
Eww, imagine Wildmon as a father-out-law.And yes, Richard Socarides is Charles Socarides son. He was a Whitehouse liaison something or other during the Clinton admin, as raj mentioned.
Mike, try:https://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/homopolo.htmThe Issue Of Homosexuality by Charles W. SocaridesIt’s long and convoluted, but you’ll get the gist.
One thing that amuses me is that the NARTHians believe that homosexuality is caused by bad parenting. The fact that Socarides’s son is gay would obviously suggest that Socarides was a bad parent.
BTW, Socarides had a couple of minutes in the 81 Words broadcast.
Two further points. I won’t paraphrase, I’ll just link to the articles. I’m willing to discuss the points if anyone is interested.
https://www.indegayforum.org/authors/varnell/varnell9.html
https://hem.passagen.se/nicb/quinn.htm
Actually a third point
https://reason.com/9810/ed.vp.shtml
BTW, Mike, I noticed that you are webmaster over at IndeGayForum. I beat up on Miller a lot over there. He needs to chill out. You might encourage him to.
And you might see if you could get Postrel’s post (third point) on IndeGayForum. It is excellent.
Two further points. I won’t paraphrase, I’ll just link to the articles. I’m willing to discuss the points if anyone is interested.
https://www.indegayforum.org/authors/varnell/varnell9.html
https://hem.passagen.se/nicb/quinn.htm
Actually a third point
https://reason.com/9810/ed.vp.shtml
BTW, Mike, I noticed that you are webmaster over at IndeGayForum. I beat up on Miller a lot over there. He needs to chill out. You might encourage him to.
And you might see if you could get Postrel’s post (third point) on IndeGayForum. It is excellent.
Hi again Mike,I’m having a mad few days with work, but have dropped by for this: not written for a history lesson; but it’s probably the most succinct summary/timeline — “The 1973 decision in one easy read” if you will.https://ralliance.org/TVC_APA.html