An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Doctors and demons and unsung heroes

It turns out that one of the doctors in yesterday’s piece on families coping with gender identity issues, Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D., is on the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group for the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Pam says that’s not good news:

Needless to say, gender-variant LGBT and straight youth, as well as transsexual adults, will likely have to deal with another decade plus of being considered seriously disordered — with its conversion therapy implication for children. Reform models for, or different takes on Gender Identity Disorder in DSM-V aren’t likely to be seriously considered with forceful advocates Zucker and Blanchard on the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group, advocating to continue listing gender-variant youth and adult transsexuals as disordered.

Pam makes the analogy to 1973, when Homosexuality was was removed as a disorder from the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM-II).

It was the step that recognized that individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward people of the same sex weren’t afflicted with a psychiatric disorder.

I make that leap, too. And will share this personal story only to inform the reader of how my experience shapes my beliefs…

As a runaway still in Harrisburg, PA, in 1973, I went to a psychiatry clinic and cried, “I’m a homosexual, please fix me.” The psychiatrist looked at me with kind empathy and answered back, “Why do you think you need fixing?”

Dumb luck Good fortune had me sitting with a founder of New York City’s Identity House, an organization set up in 1971 to find the few therapists who knew even then that homosexuality was a normal, healthy human expression, not a “neurotic adaptation.”

To this day I have to wonder what would have come of me had he tried to “cure” me instead. When I see the wreckage of repression — priests, politicians, and panderers in public parks, rest stops, and playgrounds — I think I know.

Shortly afterward I moved to NYC where I would become a gay filmmaker. As a student I worked on the film Before Stonewall with my friend Greta Schiller and was privileged to meet many of the early movement veterans.

One person interviewed for the film whom I did not get to meet was Dr. Evelyn Hooker. Because her work led the American Psychiatric Association to decide in 1973 – the very same year that I cried in that Pennsylvania psychiatrist’s office – that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness, she is a hero of mine.

This American Life did a profile of Hooker in January 2002 entitled 81 Words. I was moved to transcribe this portion:

[35:34] …Until Evelyn Hooker met Sam From. Evelyn was a psychologist at UCLA and Sam was her student. He was also a homosexual. They started spending time together in the mid 1940s and Sam introduced Evelyn to his group of friends most of whom, like Sam, were gay.

Now, as I said, everyone in this group was homosexual but curiously, none was in therapy. They were all well-adjusted young men who utterly failed to conform to the traditional psychiatric image of the tortured, disturbed homosexual.

This, naturally, got Evelyn thinking.

Now, prior to Evelyn Hooker, all of the research on homosexuality – all of it – was done on people who were already under serious psychiatric treatment. Let me repeat that: In the history of psychiatric research, no one had every conducted a study on a homosexual population that wasn’t either in therapy, in prison, a mental hospital, or the disciplinary barracks off the armed services.

Evelyn thought about this and decided that this kind of research was distorting psychiatry’s conclusions about homosexual populations. To test her theory, Evelyn came up with an experiment. Through her former student she located 30 homosexuals who had never sought therapy in their lives and matched those homosexuals with a group of heterosexuals of comparable age, IQ and education.

Evelyn then put both groups through a battery of psychological tests including a Rorschach Test, the famous ink-blot test. After disguising her subjects, Evelyn gave the results to three experienced psychiatrists and asked them to identify the homosexuals. She figured that if homosexuals were inherently pathological, the psychiatrists would be able to pick them out easily. But the judges were completely unable to distinguish the homos from the hets.

Equally important was the fact that the judges categorized two thirds of the homosexuals and the heterosexuals as perfectly well-adjusted normally functioning human beings.

Hooker’s study challenged the idea that homosexuality was a pathology in the first place, and in doing this it not only called into question an entire generation of research on homosexuality, it also challenged psychiatry’s basic concept of disease. If you believed Hooker’s data the only conclusion you could come to was that psychiatry was deciding that certain behaviors were diseases, not out of any sort of scientific proof, but based on their own prejudices.

Beside Evelyn Hooker, psychiatrists who wanted to change the DSM really had only one other scientific study on their side: Alfred Kinsey’s famous 1948 sex survey which found that a whopping 37% of all men had had physical contact to the point of orgasm with other men, a finding which – besides shocking the hell out of 63% of the American public – seemed to suggest that homosexual acts were too common to be considered a disease.

In spite of all this work, psychiatry continued to maintain that the homos were sick and steadfastly refused to reevaluate the DSM. And then luck, or maybe fate, intervened.

It’s an incredible episode. I urge you to listen.

NPR has run the second part of its 2 part series on parents coping with gender identity issues in their children. I will have more to say on that story in a later post (and I promise it’s not predictable). For now my message is both that I do see a parallel between the (ongoing) struggle for gay acceptance and the gender identity issue. And I would ask that we all have empathy for the human struggles that each of us face.

  • Holly_in_Cincinnati
    Dr. Zucker's presence on the committee doesn't bother me at all.
  • runasim
    I was startled to discover that the issue, pertainig to adults, is still being debated. I was under the false impression that it was settled among professionals and we only had societal prejudices to battle.

    I don't think it's a simple topic to deal with, however. Heteros express sexuality in neurotic ways at times. as a form of rebellion, for example. It would seem to follow, then, that some self-identifying gays could do the same.

    We need to see the whole person, not his gender or sexual identity or expressions of sexuality. as being apart from the whole.
    I wouldn't depend on generalties for any group or any conclusion, though, not even the ones that are soothing, when it comes to an individual.

    There is some discussion about bi-sexuality, for example: is it true bi-sexuality or is it homosexuality in hiding? Personally, I don't see why it should matter, but I can see why it would to psychologists, sociologists and the collectors of knowledge.

    PS Ii saw the PBS series, btw, and found it very impressive, and very moving.
  • archangel
    "There is some discussion about bi-sexuality, for example: is it true bi-sexuality or is it homosexuality in hiding? Personally, I don't see why it should matter, but I can see why it would to psychologists, sociologists and the collectors of knowledge."

    good article and I appreciate your personal anecdote JOe... the personal is so often missing from reportage giving it a feeling of facade over deeper facts

    Runasim, I quoted you here, bec I wanted to say, that for many of we shrinks, it is settled. But, in the last many years, some psychologists who are members of APA and who are Evangelical, have tried to open the issue again. However much they press however, there is a strong element by the rest of us to push back, not wanting psychology, a science, distorted by a religious idea. The Hippocratic oath, supports what some would perhaps think of as 'religious' ideas, as it is inclusive without regard to class or personality type, and rather, focuses on giving aid, bringing wholeness, supporting the individual. But, the code of care for others, does not normally assess whether the helper/healer thinks the patient is a good person or not, a sinner or not, wrong-headed somehow by virtue of birth and environs.

    Bi-sexuality appears to be a norm in some persons, just whole as is. Rather than bisexuality being a foil for homosexuality... it is far more often that pretending toward heterosexuality is the foil used by (most often unsucessfully) those who are gay and hope to hide. That was a common generational subterfuge, belonging to older people who are gay, and not so much to younger gay people in the US.

    And you're right runasim; it ought not matter one way or the other in culture. There are laws of the land, not of individual men, to corral the anomalies in any gender oriented person should they commit criminal acts
    dr.e
  • runasim
    AFTER READING DR. E'S COMMENT-
    I'm not sure f II made myself clear re norms and generalites, debates and continuing research. I'm not even sure if Dr. E agrees with me or not.

    I start with the postition, that each individual should be seen in his/her entirety and not be defined by his/her gender identity, sexual preferences or sexual practices.

    Professionals without an ideological agenda should decide what the norms and genralities are. However, honest and well informed professionals should be as careful as the ideology driven not to apply norms and generalities to any particular individual.

    Likewise, as threatening as that may sound, I don't think knowledge, or research ,should ever put a final period in any field of inzquiry..
    In the evolution vs. I.D, case, for example, the theory ov ecoluton is only strengthened by testing incoming new data agaisnt it.
    Keeping an open mind and a scientific approach means keeping an open mind on a continuing basis, even in the face of challenges. Meeting challlenges head on, rather than dismissing them out of hand, is what strengthens truth and erodes bias and prejudice.

    Am I wrong?
    DrE? Joe?
  • JWindish
    I will add, to the bisexuality discussion, that in my generation and sometimes still it is easier in the coming out process to claim bisexuality than to go directly from a straight identity to a gay identity. And that is easily understood.

    We are raised to be heterosexual, presumed to be heterosexual, and then before we know it we are living a lie. Thus, when we have to come out to friends and family, we not only have to tell them something so deeply intimate and personal, we have to admit a lie! To say that we are bisexual softens that a bit.

    Further, many of us who identify as gay have had heterosexual experiences, which in some sense allows us to wear the bisexual label for that moment. But it does, then, cloud the issue and allow others to call it nothing more than "homosexuality in hiding."

    Thanks for the comments!!!
  • CStanley
    I have a rather deep philosophical question, if anyone is still checking in on this discussion.

    Do you think it's possible to hold two views which are somewhat contradictory, and to feel that each view is justified on a different basis? In this case what I mean is the view that psychologically it could be perfectly correct that a healthy psyche is best served by acceptance of different sexual identities without concern for societal norms, but that there's also a spiritual view of what is healthy which derives from a belief that God intended us to have the traditionally accepted binary sexual roles? I'm not quite sure how to resolve the conflict between those two views, but it's pretty much where I am. If one has a secular viewpoint, then it's impossible to justify trying to 'fix' homosexuals or transgendered individuals and it certainly should be their choice to NOT be fixed. Yet from my own religious perspective, I find the Catholic theology of the body to be quite compelling and it says certain things about our creation as man and woman which can't really be reconciled with the secular view of alternate sexual identities. I don't feel that anyone should be compelled to accept my theological views on that (so again, I don't at all advocate compelling people to be 'fixed'), but I don't think that what the science says about it should make any claims on what theology should say about it. Of course theology itself also demands that our views on this shouldn't permit us to judge others, and should always promote a completely compassionate viewpoint.

    But I think it should be acceptable for theology to have it's own view as long as no one tries to claim that it's based on science, and I also think that those with the theological perspective aren't always wrong to push back against science making sweeping claims that it can't always substantiate (about how 'settled' the matter really is.)

    Any comments or thoughts on that?
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC