Homosexuality was listed in the original, 1952 edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association, as a “sociopathic personality disorder”. In the 1968 revision (DSM-II), it was removed from the list of “sociopathic personality disorders” and listed instead with the “sexual deviations.” In 1973, homosexuality was officially “depathologized”, and listed in the DSM-III as a disorder only when it was ego-dystonic – it was only considered a problem worthy of diagnosis and treatment when a person’s sexual orientation was dissatisfying to them, or caused them significant distress. Through the subsequent three revisions (we are now to the text revision of the fourth edition of the classification system), treatment for ego-dystonic homosexuality has been permissible under the diagnosis, “Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified”, which is appropriate for individuals who experience “marked and persistent distress about sexual orientation”.

“Treatment” for homosexuality is a sad chapter in the history of mental health treatment, with vestiges of such abhorrent practices as aversive conditioning (including plethysmograph-triggered genital shocking following exposure to homoerotic stimulus) still found in select backwaters of the mental health treatment world. But the religious prohibition against homosexuality has ensured that individuals will continue to experience profound conflicts about their sexual preference, and practitioners (almost exclusively affiliated with a major religious institution) have continued to devise methods for “treating” homosexuality.

The most prevalent model, “Reparative Therapy”, was developed by Joseph Nicolosi, director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic. Though this approach was roundly criticized as a religious intervention operating under the guise of mental health treatment, a thriving population of conflicted gay Christians seeking relief from their “sinful” orientation provided the impetus for a cottage industry in “treatment” for their homosexuality. This approach soon came under fire, however, after a variety of high-profile cases in which parents had sought “treatment” for their adolescent children, eventually leading the American Psychological Association (the other “APA”) to draft a resolution in 1997 decrying this re-pathologizing of homosexuality, and disavowing coercive treatments for this supposed “disorder”.

But proponents of “Reparative Therapy” have remained active, and have generated some sympathy among powerful professionals, most notably Dr. Robert Spitzer, who as chair of the committee revising the third edition of the DSM was instrumental in the de-listing of homosexuality from the catalogue of mental disorders.

One of the most vocal of the remaining proponents for Reparative Therapy is Dr Kenneth Zucker. Needless to say, news that he has been appointed chair of the committee on Gender Identity Disorders for the fifth revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders has created some outrage among members of the LGBT and mental health communities, and interested members of the public.

If you feel the same way, please join us in protesting this appointment, and mitigate the insanity that apparently persists at the American Psychiatric Association.

[Cross-posted at Wikifray]

Or does that come with the package?

Two questions:

1. If one believes, as I, that sexual preference is nurture rather than nature, are childhood therapies ineffective? Just asking, I have no idea if it's effective, but it would seem to make later difficulties moot;
2. I thought "sociopath" meant a completely selfish person, to whom others were mere props to be manipulated. This hardly accords with a diagnosis of homosexuality. Is my understanding of the term incorrect?; and
3. How can anyone that uses the term "LGBT" be taken seriously about anything?

1. It depends on the context in which it occurs. For you, the Dominatrix will probably charge an extra fee.

2. A completely selfish person is more consistent with a narcissist. Some people define sociopathy as someone who does not experience an empathic connection with other people, though I think that's quite misleading. More accurately, a sociopath is a person who is engaged in a persistent pattern of behavior in which they undermine their empathic connection to other people by means of victimization. I don't really get the logic of placing homosexuality in this category, but I think the definition of sociopathy has changed somewhat over time (socio=social, pathy=sickness: can be used in a more general sense than is currently employed).

3. How can anyone who asks that question be taken seriously about anything?

Regarding the nature vs. nurture question:

Believe what you will, but the science isn't on your side.

End electro shock treatments on angry mixed raced people in denial of their mixes and collecting PTSD fundings for the electroshocks treatments-

That's a pretty good example of loose associations (and the kind of thinking which predisposes people to certain bigoted opinions), but it's not really relevant to the topic.

Please feel free to respond only when you can aspire to some minimal level of coherence.

You Oprah's Dr Phil in slate drag? Prescribing now?

Thought he'd be wrapped up in his divorce since he has been goose feathered with golden ophrah UCC eggs-

Go stare at the wonder that is your hand for awhile, or sleep it off somewhere.

you got that A gene syndrome hey!

paid off others PTSD CRA rites to f-art in ya face !

Dude?

you ever sit on the Dam with Dumpty Dumpty while he got his holes plugged by a dyke?

hnmmmmm

LGBT activists are doubtless all in favor of the BLTG agenda. However, that covers a lot of people. A broad spectrum. And, just maybe, other issues are more important to many of the TGBL crowd than those, particular GBLT issues, which are really pretty ancillary to people's lives.

I think the GLBT lobby is weak, because it's an artificial and fragmented construct, against the united and very real force of mainstream culture.

I agree about the sociopath thing. As a layman, that didn't seem to fit at all.

Science v. logic. This is a bit more intriguing than all these moral questions. My contention is that gaietude tends to produce fewer children than straightitude, and therefore, by Darwinian force, the straight gene swamps the gay gene.

In contrast, if one watches (supervised, one hopes) the sexual activities of immature herd animals, the unattached males tend to hump each other until they get a shot at a female of their very own. Hell, some guys hump sheep, but that's not genetic.

My conclusion is that it isn't genetic, and that these early tendencies can be swayed one way or the other. What is your conclusion, standing on the shoulders of giants?

(Oh, and I can't make head nor tail of James Joyce, either.)

I think of him.

But that's not really being fair to Billy-Bob's character, who is more coherent and less offensive - rather likable, really, in his own developmentally-disordered way.

Last response.

Living in an area where there's such a pervasive oppressive cultural influence, it's amazing to see what kind of uniting effect that has on counter-culture groups.

What LGBT groups have in common is their marginalization from mainstream culture for their inability (or refusal) to conform to normative sexual behavior. The same bigots who hate one segment of the group tend to hate them all.

Like evangelical Christians, or Republicans, for instance.

mainstream oversimplification of genetic effects. Gay gene? Unlikely.

What you've got are a variety of genes, operating in conjunction with a variety of environmental factors, eventually determining both (to some extent, independent) gender identity and sexual preference. On the one hand, you have a point - we're probably all, to some extent, bisexual (twenty bajillion prisoners tend to make a powerful argument). However, you're quite assuredly over-estimating the impact environment exerts on a subset of us.

And if you think homosexual behavior is unnatural, ask take note:

Homosexual behavior (among both genders) is very common among animals. Rigid social institutions that prohibit homosexual behavior, however, are unique to humans.

Which is more "unnatural"?