From mental disorder to civil-rights cause

  • Thread starter Thread starter fix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By the early '70s, Judd Marmor was on his way to the vice presidency of the American Psychiatric Association. He and a number of allies in the APA arranged to have outside gay activists disrupt APA meetings to protest the persistence of homosexuality as a diagnostic category within the APA’s list of disorders. Eventually, these protests led to a series of meetings with the APA’s “nomenclature committee” at which “research” was presented purportedly demonstrating no connection between homosexuality and psychopathology. These presentations were tendentious, the “research” consisting largely of Hooker’s bogus work and Kinsey’s data. With that, along with political pressure and the “civil-rights” argument, homosexuality was removed from the diagnostic manual.
 
Basically, he’s taking other people’s research and exhibiting the facts he would like to promote while providing no means of authentication (i.e. references).
 
40.png
fix:
By the early '70s, Judd Marmor was on his way to the vice presidency of the American Psychiatric Association. He and a number of allies in the APA arranged to have outside gay activists disrupt APA meetings to protest the persistence of homosexuality as a diagnostic category within the APA’s list of disorders. Eventually, these protests led to a series of meetings with the APA’s “nomenclature committee” at which “research” was presented purportedly demonstrating no connection between homosexuality and psychopathology. These presentations were tendentious, the “research” consisting largely of Hooker’s bogus work and Kinsey’s data. With that, along with political pressure and the “civil-rights” argument, homosexuality was removed from the diagnostic manual.
Click to expand...
What basis was used to discredit Hooker’s work? What were the problems with the study?
 
40.png
tcay584:
Basically, he’s taking other people’s research and exhibiting the facts he would like to promote while providing no means of authentication (i.e. references).
Click to expand...
This is an article in a non scientific publication, not a defense of a doctoral thesis. 'What do you dispute? The diagnosis was removed for political reasons and this can be proven from other independent sources.
 
Homosexuality is now being used as a ‘cause’ for political leverage. The homosexual agenda is to have themselves redesignated as oppressed minority, gain legal recognition as somesort of minority, gain civil rights under the law as an oppressed minority, they use that legal leverage for all sorts of social engineering.

It is my observation that it is not homosexuals themselves who are organizing and leading the ‘Gay’ Rights movement! Just as it was not the Southern Negro which organized and led the Civil Rights movement in the '60s.

So homosexuals are being used as a front for political leverage by another group with a covert political agenda. [My own personal conspiracy theory 🙂 ].
 
40.png
fix:
This is an article in a non scientific publication, not a defense of a doctoral thesis. 'What do you dispute? The diagnosis was removed for political reasons and this can be proven from other independent sources.
Click to expand...
Then it’s an opinion and should be treated as such. In which case I have as much right to disagree with this gentleman’s opinion as you have to promote it. I was just wondering what his problem was the research he referred to. Is it such a big deal to include one little line saying “Sample size too small, questions inherently biased, subjects all nuts”?
 
I was a psych major in college in the late 70s. The change in the diagnostic category was already complete. We had some reference material at that time (sorry, I don’t have it now) that contained some of the tricky tactics pulled on the voting members of the APA. Many of them were interviewed later and stated that they did not realize that this vote would take homosexuality out of the category of psychiatric disorder. What they wanted (and thought they were getting) was a recognition that homosexuality was not purely treatable through traditional psychiatric methods of the day. They thought that the reclassification would give them more treatment options. But it was too late. 😦
 
40.png
kmktexas:
I was a psych major in college in the late 70s. The change in the diagnostic category was already complete. We had some reference material at that time (sorry, I don’t have it now) that contained some of the tricky tactics pulled on the voting members of the APA. Many of them were interviewed later and stated that they did not realize that this vote would take homosexuality out of the category of psychiatric disorder. What they wanted (and thought they were getting) was a recognition that homosexuality was not purely treatable through traditional psychiatric methods of the day. They thought that the reclassification would give them more treatment options. But it was too late. 😦
Click to expand...
Thank you, thank you, thank you. That’s all I wanted.
 
The Annals of Homosexuality
Code: 
 *To keep the historical record straight against the threat of psychological revisionism, NARTH will from time to time, publish articles which document pivotal events in the history of psychoanalytic and psychological thinking. *
*This 1978 article by NARTH past-president Charles Socarides describes the intellectual confusion and diagnostic inconsistency which led to the removal of homosexuality from the diagnostic manual. Those changes rendered chaotic, Dr. Charles Socarides notes, some very fundamental truths about unconscious dynamics.
*

In 1972, during his induction of the national meeting in Dallas, a vice-president of the American Psychiatric Association took the occasion to criticize severely any psychiatrist who practiced psychotherapy that attempted to change homosexuality to heterosexuality. According to a report in the June 7 issue of Psychiatric News, he labeled such colleagues cruel, inhuman, and a “disgrace to the profession.” (8)

In early 1973, a group superheaded by several leaders of the A.P.A., other psychiatrists, and members of the Gay Activists Alliance, the Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis undertook to influence the Nomenclature Committee of the A.P.A. at a closed meeting at Columbia University Psychiatric Institute by requesting deletion of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual(9).

It was a credit to psychiatrists in general that in the referendum (marred by hidden lobbying by homosexual activists) held months later, more than 3700 psychiatrists (40% of the bare majority who voted) in the United States believed that there were no legitimate scientific reasons for the A.P.A.'s change in fundamental psychiatric theory. Only a handful, however, have continued to work for the reversal of this decision.

Aftermath

The removal of homosexuality from the DSM II was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also of a number of other serious studies by groups of psychologists, psychiatrists, and educators over the past seventy years (the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry Report, 1955; the New York Academy of Medicine Report, 1964; the Task Force Report of the New York County District Branch A.P.A. 1970-72). It was a disheartening attack upon psychiatric research and a blow to many homosexuals who looked to psychiatry for more help, not less.

narth.com/docs/annals.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top