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 .

  • cledwyn bastard

    Obviously I wasn’t suggesting that paedophiles themselves are the victims of persecution or anything, just saying this issue has whipped up such a tempest of emotions that the facts tend to get scatterred to the periphery of the debate, with people getting getting so swept away by the contagion of hysteria, that innocent lives are inevitably destroyed, and even the crimes of the guilty sometimes take on an even more sinister hue, as happens sometimes with the sensationalist media and in the circulation of rumours.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • jorge_videla

    And if poor adjustment…

    the obvious problem with that criterion is it depends on the time and place.

    i remember iran’s president was booed and laughed at when he gave his speech at Columbia after saying, “we don’t have homosexuals in iran like you have in your country.”

    this may be laughable, but it shouldn’t be dismissed prima facie.

    and, in fact, gay men have high rates of suicide and drug addiction and lesbians are short-lived. so by this criterion, homosexuality might be deemed pathological.

    but it all depends on what the reasons for these stats are.

    genuine “mental illness”, if there is such a thing, must be illness in ALL environments just as physical illness is illness wherever and whenever. doesn’t hearing voices and bizarre delusions qualify?

  • Francesca Allan

    You’re making some extraordinary claims here. As to your allegation of homosexuals having shortened lifespans, you might want to have a look at this:


    And your assertion that an illness must be manifest in all environments is demonstrably false.

  • jorge_videla

    please demonstrate it false.

    diabetes is diabetes at the south pole too. ischemic heart disease is ischemic heart disease in new guinea too. rheumatoid arthritis is more common in cold climates but it’s still a disease in the sahara.

    i think you didn’t read what i wrote.

    my claims regarding the homosexual population are not controversial. but, is it innate? i don’t think it’s prejudice or discrimination. but there could be a third reason.

    here are some articles:


    but it’s just statistics. maugham lived to 91.

  • Anonymous

    Can you please tell me why you said Maugham lived to 91 what is the relevance of that fact please?

  • jorge_videla

    i was just demonstrating the “ecological fallacy”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy

    some gay men live a long time. one of my mother’s uncles lived to 98. he was almost certainly homosexual, but may have never acted on it.

  • jorge_videla

    it’s just a demonstration of the “ecological fallacy”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy

    that is, although life expectancy for homosexuals (both gays and lesbians) is less than for heteros, some homosexuals live a long time.

    and i liked maugham’s The Razor’s Edge a lot.

    my mother’s cousin lived to 98. but he may never have acted on his homosexual orientation.

    never married women are the most over-represented group among centenarians. and the second and third longest lived men ever were married and divorced without issue and never married respectively. maybe they were homosexual.

    and monks and nuns live much longer than non-religious men and women respectively. my guess is homosexuals are over-represented among monks and nuns, or as the roman church terms them “religious”.

  • tedshepherd

    That implication is false for couples one or both of whom are sterile. Vasectomies happen, menopause happens, impotence and frigidity happen, as do hysterectomies, orchiectomies, and land mines. These, and other events, remove the possibility of procreation by removing or damaging some organ or tissue necessary for reproduction but not necessary for life.

  • tedshepherd

    The need for members of a species to reproduce themselves does not imply that ALL members of a species must have offspring for the species to survive and thrive. Consider the sterile castes of workers and soldiers in some social insects. It is not necessarily irrational for someone to abstain from parenting. Many people have taken vows of chastity and some even keep those vows. Are they mentally ill? Secondly, if irrational behavior is the manifestation of mental illness by definition, then everyone who buys a lottery ticket or gambles in a casino, knowing the odds are against him, is mentally ill. Such a sweeping definition has no use and no appeal.

  • tedshepherd

    Are you under the impression that heterosexuals never indulge in anal intercourse? Are you under the impression that all homosexuals practice anal intercourse? Lesbians, too?

  • tedshepherd

    Consider the assumption that what “fits well” is inherently natural. Consider also the observation that men generally have a much higher preference for frequent sexual release than women do. Then the conclusion is that the good fit in sex drive between two men or two women is natural and their unions are, too.

  • tedshepherd

    Again, looking at a match between men’s higher sex drive, and women’s common willingness to have much less sexual activity, it seems that men are born to pair up with each other. Oh, the fireworks!

Previous post:

Next post: