The death of Charles W. Socarides reminded libertarian lawyer Jonathan Rowe of opposing social factions’ efforts, over the decades, to misuse the concept of “mental illness” to enforce the factions’ preferred moral or social norms.
Rowe says:
[P]roperly understood, categorizing something as a “mental disorder” cuts against the moral and social stigma of that condition, and cuts in favor of social neutrality and civil rights protection of the underlying “disorder.”
Those who would today classify homophobia as a mental disorder might want to reconsider.
As should those who resent the removal of homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM. They forget that politics added homosexuality to the DSM in the first place — and they overlook the privileges that “disordered” homosexuals might enjoy under modern disability laws.
(XGW: Socarides Dies)
“As should those who resent the removal of homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM. They forget that politics added homosexuality to the DSM in the first place — and they overlook the privileges that “disordered” homosexuals might enjoy under modern disability laws.”
Not true. Gender identity disorder is in the DSM, yet we were purposely left out of the Americans With Disabilities Act. In 1989 the U.S. Senate amended the ADA to specifically exclude transsexuals.
Two points.
Paul Varnell has an article up at Independent Gay Forum, in which he mentions that Thomas Szasz, professor (or possibly former professor) of psychiatry at Columbia U described psychiatry as follows:
Szasz returned to the mistreatment of gays in 1970 in “The Manufacture of Madness,” where he argued with numerous historical examples that modern psychiatry is best understood as a continuation of the Catholic Inquisition but using pseudo-scientific language.
Link, https://www.indegayforum.org/authors/varnell/varnell9.html
Szasz was, of course, referring to psychoanalysis, which then dominated psychiatry.
It should be clear that psychiatry, as then practiced was either pre- or a-scientific.
Regarding the comment about GID (gender identity disorder), the comments on the page entitled “The Disparate Classification of Gender and Sexual Orientation in American Psychiatry” https://www.priory.com/psych/disparat.htm might be of interest. Actually, that page also has a good deal of information as to how “homosexuality” was classified as a “mental disorder” and subsequently removed. Further information is available through the audio webcast “81 Words” from This American Life available from https://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/02/204.html
Lastly, it has been a long time since I read the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) but, if memory serves, the ADA specifically excludes homosexuality as a disability. Good move.
I read Jon Rowe’s post. I believe that he is missing something, perhaps because Thomas Szasz was also missing something. Szasz was writing in an era in which psychiatry was dominated by psycho-analysts. The “couch&talk” people. Since then, more than a few of the maladies have been determined to be physical maladies, which could be dealt with by medical care. Drugs & so forth.
The over-riding issue, though, is whether a condition that some might consider to be a physical malady should be considered a malady or something serious enough to be worthy of treating. I’ll give a relevant example. Over the last number of years, some of us have commented on, if a pill were available that could make a gay person straight, would you take it? I won’t opine.
Thanks.
— Not true. Gender identity disorder is in the DSM, yet we were purposely left out of the Americans With Disabilities Act. In 1989 the U.S. Senate amended the ADA to specifically exclude transsexuals. —
I was going to reference this in my post. Yes, in the ADA, Congress exempted a whole slew of things which people argue are “disorders” that also raise “moral issues.” However, they realized that they had to specifically exclude things like drug addiction, homosexuality, kleptomania, because absent this precautionary measure, you could indeed make an argument that “mental disorders” like “homosexuality” are entitled to civil rights protection as disabilities.
“As should those who resent the removal of homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM. They forget that politics added homosexuality to the DSM in the first place — and they overlook the privileges that “disordered” homosexuals might enjoy under modern disability laws.”
Said privileges including being subjected to unwanted brainwashing to “cure” the “disorder,” as still happens to children today under the Childhood GID diagnosis.
I’ll leave a similar post to the one I left at IGF.
Some mental and emotional behaviors are anxiety inducing on their own.
The person who has it, also can inflict annoyance or harm to someone else.
The difference between kleptomaniacs and robbers.
Both are thieves, one by compulsion, the other for profit.
But both take something from another person.
And it’s hurtful to that person.
But kleptos and robbers are not disqualified from the job of their choice, marriage or bearing children-by Constitutional amendment.
They are protected at least to pursue LEGALLY sanctioned and common social connections.
It’s not their BEHAVIOR that’s protected.
But they cannot suffer undue harm, tyranny and exclusion BECAUSE they steal.
The point being: unless and until they actually harm another person through their behavior, they can enjoy equal respect (or due process) in the law.
Homosexuality (or GID) for that matter, doesn’t do any harm or cause undue costs to others.
Heterosexuals are TAUGHT to be averse to gay people.
Big difference.
Heterosexuals want to take unfair control of the lives of gay people. Heterosexuals produce the anxiety and disturbance early in young gay lives and in their heterosexual peers.
Most of all: gays and lesbians aren’t held to the same standards as heterosexuals. Ever.
Not those of mental, physical and emotional health. Not those of marriage and family.
Not those of professional and religious choice.
When gay people ARE held to the same standards, it’s known that there is the ability to adhere to them.
It’s those who are seriously disturbed or immoral who CAN’T.
This isn’t rocket science. I think I get it.
And I think that once truth and honesty and not arrogance are brought to this discussion, empathy and sympathy will prevail.
The difference between a gay person and a non gay person, is so tiny and infinitesimal…
Beyond genetic anamoly and social engineering to stop it or hide it.
Ignoring and hating the PROOF of that has gotten us nowhere, nor improved lives with any positive significance.
Mental health professionals like Socarides aren’t maintaining the standards within their field…and literally with homosexuals being the ONLY exception to their interest in mental health over all.
I think I’ve mentioned it before:
What do you call the condition that no matter what proof and evidence someone is presented with (normalcy of homosexuality for example), they refuse to acknowledge it or respect it? Even though they have to venture into the realms of fantasy and conjecture to deny it?
Like throwing in an intangible as their license, like God for instance?
Yet, not leaving the judgement UP to God, but to the whims of earthly men?
An outsider like me, having read books and talked to the likes of Joseph Nicolosi personally-I have to wonder at their unhealthy obsession with making something into what it’s not.