It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The American Psychiatric Association was Bullied into Removing Gayness from the DSM

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Ok.. i don't know if that is a sarcastic remark or if you actually believe it...




posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Anonymous007

There is a book out about the many, many controversies within the American Psychiatric Association and the various Diagnostic and Statistical Manual revisions that have occurred over the decades, particularly the most recent revision to the fifth DSM, which apparently shook the entire field to its core and created a lot of in-fighting and disagreements. It is written by a journalist and psychotherapist named Gary Greenberg. He followed the progress of the DSM transition from 4 to 5 and documented it in 'The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmasking of Psychiatry'.

He has a chapter in there dealing with the entire issue of homosexuality and everything that happened. My personal take on the subject is that psychoanalysts like Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were closer to the mark in calling homosexuality "inversion", and that it was a type of inverted psychological unfolding of the eros or libido, likely from an early childhood programming error, more or less. But it is essentially so common in society, like 2 or 3 in 10 people, it's hard to know the exact numbers, that it might as well just be accepted as "normal" - even though it isn't really LOL

He did mention that there is a newer DSM diagnosis related to homosexuality. If being gay causes mental suffering, they will still consider that a disorder.

But here is a general encapsulation of his personal thoughts on the subject:


Because you might be old enough to remember back forty or fifty years, to a time when homosexuality was still listed in the DSM. Which meant that doctors could get paid to treat it, scientists could search for its causes and cures, employers could shun its victims, and families could urge them to seek help, even as gay people conducted their intimacies in furtive encounters, lived in fear and shame, lost jobs, forwent careers, and chained themselves to marriages they didn’t want. They underwent countless therapies—shocks to the brain and years on the couch, behavior modification and surrogate sex, porn sessions that switched from homo to hetero at the crucial moment—in desperate attempts to become who they could not be and to love whom they could not love, to get free of their own deepest desires, all in the name of getting well. And all this, at least in part, because a society’s revulsion had found expression in the official diagnostic manual of a medical profession, where it gained the imprimatur not of a church or a state, but of science. When doctors said homosexuality was a disease, that was not an opinion, let alone bigotry. It was a fact. When they wrote that fact down in the DSM, it was not a denunciation. It was a diagnosis.

...

If you are one of those people, which is to say if you have had occasion to take the DSM seriously (and even the book’s most ardent defenders will tell you this was your first mistake), then you may be sympathetic to my rhetorical move. You may understand that Dr. Cartwright did what he did because he could, because the power to give names to our pain is a mighty thing and easy to abuse. Cartwright seems to have intended to serve the interests of slave owners and white supremacists and their economic system by providing “another [of ] the ten thousand18 evidences of the fallacy of the dogma abolition is built on,” but surely the doctors who insisted that homosexuality was a disease were not all bigots or prudes. Nor are the doctors who today diagnose with Hoarding Disorder people who fill their homes with newspapers and empty pickle jars, but leave undiagnosed those who amass billions of dollars while other people starve, merely toadying to the wealthy. They don’t mean to turn the suffering inflicted by our own peculiar institutions, the depression and anxiety spawned by the displacements of late capitalism and postmodernity, into markets for a criminally avaricious pharmaceutical industry.

The prejudices and fallacies behind psychiatric diagnoses, and even the interests they serve, are as invisible to all of us, doctors and patients alike, as they were to Dr. Cartwright’s New Orleanian colleagues or to all those doctors who “treated” homosexuals. The desire to relieve suffering can pull a veil over our eyes. And sometimes it takes an incendiary example or two to rip that veil away...


p.s. The reference to Dr. Cartwright and the "incendiary example" was related to slaves who ran away from their masters being branded mentally ill with what was called "drapetomania" (the disease causing Negroes to run away) LOLOL
edit on 2015-09-24T19:19:30-05:002015Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:19:30 -050030pm19Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:19:30 -050000 by corsair00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: corsair00

He did mention that there is a newer DSM diagnosis related to homosexuality. If being gay causes mental suffering, they will still consider that a disorder.


That was done specifically so insurance would cover counseling/psychiatric care.

Not because homosexuality is a mental illness - - - but, because of the stigma in society and how homosexuals are negatively treated.


edit on 24-9-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

C'mon Darth, I enjoy writing bat-ship-crazy too and I refuse to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Lets propose to Bill that we have a particular font on ATS called "sarc"



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Well, you just never know and i don't want to assume.. especially since some people do think that way



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: corsair00

He did mention that there is a newer DSM diagnosis related to homosexuality. If being gay causes mental suffering, they will still consider that a disorder.


That was done specifically so insurance would cover counseling/psychiatric care.

Not because homosexuality is a mental illness - - - but, because of the stigma in society and how homosexuals are negatively treated.



So like, insurance fraud? Not a real condition but lie about it for the insurance payment?



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: new_here

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: corsair00

He did mention that there is a newer DSM diagnosis related to homosexuality. If being gay causes mental suffering, they will still consider that a disorder.


That was done specifically so insurance would cover counseling/psychiatric care.

Not because homosexuality is a mental illness - - - but, because of the stigma in society and how homosexuals are negatively treated.



So like, insurance fraud? Not a real condition but lie about it for the insurance payment?


NO



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tsubaki
Is this a disguised hate thread? I just read the title....


Since homosexuality was removed from DSM in 1986, and the OP chooses to make a thread about it 2015, I would say yes.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


because of the stigma in society and how homosexuals are negatively treated.


Yes. Although removed from DSMII in 1973 as a psychiatric disorder, it was renamed "ego-dystonic homosexuality" where it remained until 1986. The criteria included one must be distressed over one's sexual arousal of members of the same sex. It was removed when they realized that particular state of distress and anxiety could be treated under different
diagnoses.

But the unnecessary stigma associated with it, prompted change.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Annee


because of the stigma in society and how homosexuals are negatively treated.


Yes. Although removed from DSMII in 1973 as a psychiatric disorder, it was renamed "ego-dystonic homosexuality" where it remained until 1986. The criteria included one must be distressed over one's sexual arousal of members of the same sex. It was removed when they realized that particular state of distress and anxiety could be treated under different
diagnoses.

But the unnecessary stigma associated with it, prompted change.


So you are saying the diagnosis was upsetting some delicate flowers? Sorry, but that sounds kind of pathetic. Why cover up reality? Sorry, they have a disorder. Better to face it head on than dance around it.

If you accept the theory of evolution, our brains and hormonal pathways have developed over millions of years to drive humans to engage in heterosexual activity. A significant portion of our bodies are designed to prepare us for heterosexual activity. We can only propagate and evolve through heterosexual activity.

If a human is sexually attracted to anything but a member of the opposite gender of human, they have a mental/biological/developmental disorder. In the grand scheme of things, those humans are a biological dead end. They are deviations from the norm.

Before you get droll and say something inane like 'boys aren't attracted to their sisters or mothers' please note that I said 'a member of the opposite gender' and not 'every member of the opposite gender.' Hormonal/Pheromone pathways have evolved to prevent excessive inbreeding. I would submit that if a brother/sister are sexually attracted to each other that they also have a biological disorder as well.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

That's right, I remember now how Greenberg stated it in his book. On one hand he hates psychiatry and the DSM, on the other he finds it useful to help his... clients get decent coverage for their therapy etc. Some could use that against him in an argument as a potential conflict of interest. But... I don't necessarily!



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Can you provide any kind of Proof that i have a Disorder? besides the tired argument that we are against nature etc etc



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Anonymous007
a reply to: seeker1963

I don't really care what people do behind closed doors.

But I do care about what falsehoods are forced down the throats of others -- especially how children are indoctrinated into accepting a behavior as "right" and "normal".




First what is it with you people & ("forced down our throats" or the ever popular "shoved in our face")?
Can you please have your ministers of disinformation pick a new meme, because Freud & I are laughing our asses off here in the corner & just can not take you seriously.

Second, since we're discussing mental disorders you know it's not healthy to obsess over that which doesn't affect you.
Why so concerned with the LGBT community? Are you bi, gay, lesbian or transgendered?
Do you have some personal stake in having those in the LGBT community classified as mentally impaired?

I'm not a psychiatrist but I think the people who obsess over "teh gays" are the ones with the real problems.

K~



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Anonymous007

Actually the evidence and the gay community both state it is not genetic. The argument has always been gays should have the same chance of having and raising kids because there is no increased odds of their children being gay.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Thank goodness.... I am so tired of heterosexual people choosing lifestyles for everyone...don't u think we have more important problems..like the clergy raping little boys and girls ...heterosexual wife beaters...and cheaters...it just doesn't seem important up next to real offenders does it?



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Tsubaki
No....I believe it is a truth thread



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is his thread not clear? Looks clear to me. Here...I will say it for him...beyond any shadow of a doubt yes...it is a mental disorder. Proof? Why are the rates of those claiming to be or have homosexual proclivities raising at astounding rates? Over half of Britian has said they have homosexual tendencies. If you would have asked that question 20 yrs ago that rate would be 3%....because that 3% actually born with are genetic disparities. So are a very few people born with homosexual tendencies? Yes....but even that is a defect of our genes. Whether mental disorder or genetic it can be cured....and should....at this rate 100% of the population will identify as gay...or bi in 20yrs



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Can you provide any kind of Proof that i have a Disorder? besides the tired argument that we are against nature etc etc


Yes.

If you, another gay man, and two lesbian women, were put on an island without knowledge of the reproductive system, you would NOT reproduce.

If 2 straight men and 2 straight women, on the other, hand, were put on that same island, they WOULD reproduce.


It's that damn simple.


Is it really that hard to accept evolutionary biology?


You seem to take offence at this, which you should not. Being heterosexual has a CLEAR evolutionary purpose, without it, species would not continue, in fact, without it we would never have evolved up to this point! But that does not and should never imply you are any less of a human being, that's what you (and I'll admit, some homophobic people) interpret it to be. This is a mature debate involving scientific fact, don't let emotions cloud your reasoning



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: odinsway
Why are the rates of those claiming to be or have homosexual proclivities raising at astounding rates?


First of all, where are your numbers? Secondly, I would say that if the amount of people admitting that they were homosexual were rising it was due to the fact that they, for the most part, no longer feel the need to remain closeted for various reasons.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: HalfLeaf
If 2 straight men and 2 straight women, on the other, hand, were put on that same island, they WOULD reproduce.


They would?

Are they all fertile?

Is there an attraction?

Do the women not have headaches or are the men not watching sports?



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join