Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away

by Phil on October 8, 2011

Post edited and updated January 2, 2013, to reflect clarifications as a result of interactions with the many people who have left comments.  I thank them for their input.

********************

According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness.  Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable.  Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis.  There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated.  And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco.  These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance.  In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal.  The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions.  This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.  They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard.  And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed.  And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy.  So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

The APA claimed that they made the change because new research showed that most homosexual people were content with their sexual orientation, and that as a group, they appeared to be as well-adjusted as heterosexual people.  I suggest, however, that these research findings were simply the APA’s face-saver.  For centuries, perhaps millennia, homosexual people had clung to their sexual orientation despite the most severe persecution and vilification, including imprisonment and death.  Wouldn’t this suggest that they were happy with their orientation?  Do we need research to confirm this?  And if we do, shouldn’t we also need research to confirm that heterosexual people are happy with their orientation?  And if poor adjustment is critical to a diagnosis of mental illness, where was the evidence of this that justified making homosexuality a mental illness in the first place?

Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous.  Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.

Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events.  The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.

So all the people who had this terrible “illness” were “cured” overnight – by a vote!  I remember as a boy reading of the United Nations World Health Organization’s decision to eradicate smallpox.  This was in 1967, and by 1977, after a truly staggering amount of work, the disease was a thing of the past.  Why didn’t they just take a vote?  Because smallpox is a real illness.  The human problems listed in DSM are not.  It’s that simple.  You can say that geese are swans – but in reality they’re still geese.

The overall point being that the APA’s taxonomy is nothing more than self-serving nonsense.  Real illnesses are not banished by voting or by fiat, but by valid science and hard work.  There are no mental illnesses.  Rather, there are people.  We have problems; we have orientations; we have habits; we have perspectives.  Sometimes we do well, other times we make a mess of things.  We are complicated.  Our feelings fluctuate with our circumstances, from the depths of despondency to the pinnacles of bliss.  And perhaps, most of all, we are individuals.  DSM’s facile and self-serving attempt to medicalize human problems is an institutionalized insult to human dignity.  The homosexual community has managed to liberate themselves from psychiatric oppression.  But there are millions of people worldwide who are still being damaged, stigmatized, and disempowered by this pernicious system to this day.

Last updated by at .

  • Hapee

    I must contradict the extrapolation presented in relation to the assumption that standing fast in the face of persecution etc. proves that someone is happy with orientation to a mental state, thus disproving such a state is a mental illness. It is a peculiar fact that in the face of personal danger, imprisonment, persecution and the like, people with mental illnesses do quite avidly cling to their positions. Pedophiles and anorexics provide two well known example groups. Commitment under duress to the mental state is a commonality in probably most if not all mental illnesses. There are other weaknesses in logic within this article as well. The author may wish to revisit some points and reconsider, since the reading audience is going to have no trouble immediately perceiving such flawed arguments.

  • Anonymous

    People with the “anorexia” label, self starvers, regularly reform their eating behavior after several brutal force feedings in psychiatric facilities. I’ve heard fathers of girls who were labeled “anorexic” call force feeding the “nuclear option”. You don’t talk nuclear tactics with an entity that isn’t amenable to responding to threats. Your generalizations don’t hold. Many of the people labeled “mentally ill” do in fact cling less to their positions to avoid personal violence against them after learning the hard way what violence institutional psychiatry will unleash upon them. If what you say is true, why do the penalties for noncompliance built into things like community commitment laws, even exist? Psychiatrists and governments themselves, see that threats of increased coercion bring easier compliance. Why would parole for sex offenders, even exist? If they were known to not respond to duress? Why are mental hospitals filled with detainees that literally BEG staff not to do certain violent things to them again? If the person labeled “mentally ill” is so unwavering in their positions, why is it common, very common, for the fresh detainee in a psychiatric facility, to go in knowing nothing about psychiatry, and come out convinced they must take pills for the rest of their lives? to come out parroting every cliched “just like diabetes” line they’ve been fed by the psychiatrists that had them as a captive audience? Why, if they are such generalized automatons of steadfast holding to their positions in the face of duress, do they embark on lives of jealously guarding their privacy and identity with the obvious aim of self preservation against outing and stigma? Your generalizations, don’t hold. Which isn’t surprising, given psychiatry is all about generalizations, and it is that very generalization and classification of disparate people and problems that is its fatal flaw. When one thinks in terms of “anorexics and pedophiles”, one assumes that’s like thinking in terms of “diabetics and phenylketonurics”. Nothing could be messier and more complex than an actual human being living in a civilization, as compared to a predictable “disease process”.

  • HAHAHAH

    You’re conflating homosexual attraction (not a choice, just like heterosexual attraction) with homosexual action (obviously a choice since it’s an action).

  • Pingback: Exploding The Deceitful Myth That Homosexuality And Pedophilia Are Somehow Two Different Things | Start Thinking Right

  • Nexus Arcana

    Excellent article Phil,

    Sorry I’m late to the post here but I came across it as part of my research into the continued politicization and corruption of the DSM. At this point in time, there are psychiatrists and psychologists who are actually attempting to reclassify psychopathy and other anti-social disorders as both “good” and “bad” types.

    DSM V nearly had pedophilia reclassified as a “sexual preference” and Narcissism was nearly removed from the DSM altogether.
    It is telling how corrupt the APA is by the sheer insanity of their current decisions on a whole host of issues.
    This started with the homosexual issue and has continued ever since.

    https://www.psychopathfree.com/content.php?316-Wise-Psychopaths-Honest-Narcissists-Empathetic-Sociopaths-Other-Virtuous-Evil-People

  • Phil_Hickey

    Nexus Arcana,

    Thanks for your comment, and for your encouragement.

  • Nexus Arcana

    My pleasure, sir.

  • Lastrights

    I don’t normally reply to such arguments considering that it is much like debating theology and no proof is going to change someone’s mind hence why homosexuality is a mental illness that cannot be cured simply because A. the person does not think that their behavior is harmful and B. The person invokes an inability to open themselves to the idea of change they have accepted their disposition as one outside their scope of comprehension and control much like a drug addict. That being said all of this is based upon psychology and what the biased APA has published to protect their own assets and none of it is based upon science. Let me say that again psychology and the diagnosis of mental disorders is not based upon SCIENCE it is simply theory and hypothesis. Ivan Pavlov said it best when he as a Nobel Prize winner in medicine stated that until the physiology of the brain can be fully explored psychology will never be anything more that a hypothetical study and never science.
    This is exactly why the APA raises such objection to the initiative to map the human brain simply because if that were to occur and they could identify abnormalities in brain development that affect approximately 2% of the population then they would have no credibility as an organization. In fact Sigmund Freud stated in his extensive study of homosexuality that it has a direct link to paranoia which is still classified as a mental disorder. Another study showed that while homosexuality in itself was not harmful that is was the lack of sexual versatility and the clinging of the person to one gender that is the basis for the psychosis and the fact that homosexuals only view their gender as attractive or worthy of affection.
    I know these words fall on deaf ears but take what lie you must to make it through your day.

  • Lastrights

    the very problem with your argument is you are basing your opinion which is all it is on the theories and hypothesis of others in psychology which is NOT science in itself. So throwing around any ideology that homosexuality is not a mental illness or that one is born with a sexual predisposition has no basis in science and is as relevant as the tooth fairy. Guess that is why gays are referred to as fairies because it is all based on myth not science.

  • Anon

    “This is exactly why the APA raises such objection to the initiative to map the human brain”

    Pretty sure the APA is creaming its pants over the initiative you mention. Pretty sure, no dead certain actually, that they think not enough money has been allocated to it.

    But this thread, continues to be hilarious week in week out, with the “viewpoints” that it seems to draw.

  • Francesca Allan

    There is simply no evidence that homosexuality involves any kind of pathology, neurological or otherwise. It is in fact you who are holding out your opinion (homosexuality = bad) as though it had a scientific basis. It does not. I find homophobes both nasty and tedious so I won’t be discussing this issue with you any further.

  • Francesca Allan

    My thoughts exactly, Anon. My understanding was that the APA was very much pro-brain research an an attempt to validate the field as a science.

  • Truth

    Homophobic propaganda and bullshit.

  • Anon

    Usually its only the comments that get called that. You’re saying the article is?

  • Richard Bowell

    If there is a choice, then is that choice a choice of orientation or is it a choice of living / lifestyle?
    It might be that a person is born as a blank canvass. Or it might be that the person is born with a sexuality.
    Whether or not a person is born as a blank canvass or with a sexual leaning, is that position affected by exposure to the dominant heterosexual culture? And what happens if the person is exposed also to significant homosexual culture? Is the person then just made aware of his / her own leanings by exposure or does exposure influence the person?
    Once exposed, is it then choice?
    Is it a case of no choice before exposure?
    I have another area of questions I will post separately.

  • Richard Bowell

    But isn’t human population of approaching 7 billion already far too big?

  • Richard Bowell

    False, a mental illness, if it exists at all, exists whether its visible to others or not.

  • Jack

    Homosexual behavior in your presence — like what? And exactly what do you mean by you will never tolerate “it” in your presence?

  • Looking4Sanity

    If you don’t know what is meant by “homosexual behavior”, then you are a juvenile wasting my time. And as for my intolerance? Let the punishment fit the crime.

  • Jack

    I asked for what you consider homosexual behavior. Sorry the question was too hard for you.

  • Looking4Sanity

    Stop being an idiot.

  • Jack

    Another cogent argument! Keep up your good work.

  • Looking4Sanity

    How very homosexual of you to notice.

  • Jack

    How very bigoted of you to think so.

  • Looking4Sanity

    God is a “bigot”. I’m in the very best of company!

  • Yes sir

    Basically I struggle with this question. Why is it that you can be born with a sexual attraction to your same sex, and that is accepted (or becoming more accepted) in our society today. It is not considered a mental disorder by the DSM. But if you have a sexual attraction to children or inanimate objects, then you have a mental disorder and undergo psychotherapy to change.
    I am not talking about the ACT of these sexual attractions. I get the issue of consent. I am just talking about their EXISTENCE. I don’t get how homosexuality can be the only variant from heterosexual attraction that is “normal” or something you are “born” into.

  • coresa

    No. This comment, or belief, is and always has been incorrect. The world is not over populated, not even close. Go do some research before commenting next time please.

    http://www.overpopulationisamyth.com/category/categories/pop101

  • coresa

    It matters because like any illness, if left untreated, spreads and gets worse. It also matters when our children are now indoctrinated at an early age that homosexual behaviour is NORMAL, even encouraged to “try it out” in some instances.

    We do not promote illness, we cure or treat it. There is nothing natural or normal about homosexual behaviour. It is a disorder and we aren’t helping them or future generations by allowing it to continue.

  • coresa

    Are you for real? I suspect you are trolling, or are enjoying a bout of playing devils advocate?

    Anyway, here is a pro-gay article written discussing how homosexuality is in fact a CHOICE.

    It is also interesting to note, as history teaches us, that at the point a civilisation is about to collapse, homosexualitty, beasiality, pedophillia etc are often listed as causes or at least symptoms of a sick society resulting in their demise.

  • Richard

    Well for my senses and state of being this world is over populated with humans. When it causes me angst then subjectively it is over populated. When it’s polluting and pushing all other life aside then it is objectively over populated. It is doing both – causing me angst and pushing all life besides it aside.

  • Richard Bowell

    Chase, you suggest and assert that sexual drive is motivated by procreation. You were told this. Do you actually know this to be true for sure? If the motive for sexual drive is not to procreate but instead is to obtain pleasure – perhaps even to have mutual pleasure with another person – then that behaviour would be rational whether the orientation was homosexual or heterosexual. And neither homosexual nor heterosexual drives would be motivated by procreation. Procreation would / might, though, be an outcome of heterosexual pursuit of that pleasure.

  • Pingback: Homosexuality & The Bible | The IS403 Project

  • writingme

    You are still not clear as to what it means to call homosexuality a ‘choice’. You don’t will your body to be aroused at the thought of a member of the opposite or same sex being naked, do you? Your body responds naturally, without prompting. There is no decisionmaking process involved.

    By calling it a choice, you imply that one can choose and will their body to behave differently, to become aroused by the other gender.

    Don’t work that way.

  • Phil_Hickey

    Yes sir,

    Thanks for coming in. My basic position is that the concept of a mental illness/disorder is nonsense. There are no mental illnesses. People have problems, certainly, but psychiatry’s assertion that these problems are illnesses is just a device to justify prescribing drugs.

    Since about 1950, psychiatry’s primary agenda has been turf expansion – the creation of more and more “mental illnesses,” to justify selling more and more drugs for their pharma allies. They have spuriously medicalized virtually every significant problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving. The only occasion on which they demedicalized any human activity is the homosexuality matter. And they did this because the gay community, quite justifiably, made it clear that they weren’t going to stand for this any more. The issue is not whether gay people have a mental illness or not. This is like asking is the lady next door a witch. The lady next door is not a witch because there are no witches. Similarly, homosexuality is not a mental illness because there are no mental illnesses. The whole thing is a huge hoax.

    And what’s often forgotten in all this is that prior to 1974, psychiatry’s labeling of gay people as mentally ill was an integral part of the persecution and stigma that gay people suffered.

  • Phil_Hickey

    writingme,

    I’ve never said, or even implied, that one chooses one’s bodily urges. The notion, in fact, strikes me as nonsense. One doesn’t choose to feel hungry, or thirsty, or bored. But we do choose what to do about these urges: get something to eat; drink some water; start a project; or whatever.

    I suggest that what you’re doing is exactly what I mentioned in my reply to Tamluv – getting hung up on the emotional loading that has been attached to the word “choice,” The word is used by the anti-gay lobby to bash homosexual people. That is emphatically not how I use the word choice.

    Best wishes.

  • Thomas_More

    Behind closed doors, many mental health professionals still consider homosexuality a disorder (similar to a personality disorder, regardless of etiology) but in the spirit of political correctness and for fear of attack by the lavender mafia (inside and out outside of their respective prefesions) simply remain silent.

  • David

    Actually both the Europeans with and took people as well oh the “Arabs” too sheesh “blacks” had it bad man . Many nations had their own as servants or “slaves” … That doesn’t reproduce how wicked the act was by Europeans

  • devilincarnate

    Homosexuality is a mental illness and always will be. In the Natural world there is no other species of animals that behave in this manner on such a scale. The sexual organs of human beings were not designed by nature solely for pleasure but the pleasure part was designed to encourage procreation which, obviously, homosexuals cannot do.As for necrophilia, bestiality and other unsavoury sexual acts these are classed as perversions rather than mental illness. I am not sure why there is an epidemic of mentally ill homosexuals in the world unless of course it is natures way of slowly controlling the unacceptable population growth of the world.

  • writingme

    Nope, there’s not getting ‘hung up’ about ‘emotional loading’ of the word. But thank you for telling me what my feelings and attitude are on the topic.

    It’s a matter of public health concern. By implying that one can or should choose not to behave on homosexual urges, you’re putting the responsibility on the shoulders of homosexual people to prevent acts of homophobia by not expressing perfectly natural sexual and romantic behaviour. It’s a form of victim blaming. And homophobia often leads to violence.

    Why fight so hard to point out the difference between ‘urges’ and homosexual behaviour? Why does this need to be pointed out by you so ardently?

  • Phil_Hickey

    writingme,

    Firstly, I have never stated, or even remotely implied, that
    one should or should not choose to act on one’s sexual urges, whether they be of a heterosexual or homosexual character. Secondly, I deplore homophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, victimization, and intolerance, and have always made this clear in my writings. Thirdly, I have never implied that homosexual people are to be blamed for the bigotry and violence of homophobic people. (Incidentally, I don’t like the term “homophobia” because it implies that hatred of homosexual people stems from a fear of homosexuality. I find this tenuous. Hate, bigotry, and victimization are what they are. I am not convinced that they stem from fear, and I know of no evidence to support this notion.)

    Fourthly, I am not “fighting hard” to point out the difference between urges and overt behavior, nor did I point it out “ardently.” It was pertinent to the issue that was raised, and is simply an obvious fact that I felt needed to be clarified.

    Fifthly, I am not clear where you’re coming from in all this. I am not your enemy.

    Sixthly, I espouse only one moral principle: don’t hurt other people, and help when it is reasonably possible.

    If there is something in my writing that suggests anything other than this, please draw it to my attention.

    Best wishes.

  • KazooDan

    Urine is a waste product. From which orifice does a female eliminate it?

  • Ronald Arden

    Faggots and Dykes are sick bitches. . .they need electro shock treatment, and probably a lobotomy…what they do is freaking sick. . and it’s a mental illness. . no sane person would do what they do!!!!!

  • Phil_Hickey

    Ronald,

    These kind of expressions of hate have no place in civilized discourse. If there are some issues that you would like to discuss, feel free to come back.

  • Jim

    No one has mentioned that the DSM-II classified a spectrum of personality disorders with homosexuality at the extreme end and voyeurism and exhibitionism at the other. As far as I know, both of the latter are still considered crimes. More proof that the 1974 change was pure politics.

  • Jim

    BTW, there are degrees of homosexuality. A minority are extreme and have some dangerous practices. Most not. And to note, all behaviors, gay or not, have consequences. Some harmless, some harmful. Humans just do not seem to learn about unintended or ignored consequences whether they are economic, political, religious or sexual etc.

  • 82ndab

    Great article, I didn’t think about how devastating economically it would for the country had homosexuality still been classified a “mental illness”. Very inciteful.

Previous post:

Next post: