NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND THERAPY OF
HOMOSEXUALITY
New Business: Narth Los Angeles
Charles Socarides, M.D.
NARTH President
Memo regarding Poll to determine the opinions of members of
the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychoanalytic
Association, and American Psychological Association on the Normalcy
of Homosexuality
Background
In late 1977, ten-thousand psychiatrists, members of the American
Medical Association, were polled on the issue. Of 2,500 replies
received, approximately 68% answered the question, "Is
homosexuality usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a
normal variation?" in the affirmative.
This strongly suggested to the interpreter, Dr. Harold I. Lief,
professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, an
authority on sexual problems, and a leading sex educator at the
time, that the 'previous APA vote was influenced by political and
social considerations, and that the vote was [misperceived as a
step toward the denial of rights to homosexuals" (Lief, H. 1977,
Sexual Survey #4: Current Thinking On Homosexuality, Medical
Aspects of Human Sexuality, 11, (p. 110).
In 1995, a poll of various psychiatric institutions
throughout the world revealed that a large majority of
psychiatrists believed that homosexuality was a pathological
adaptation when obligatory (see Psychiatric News' ).
In 1972-1974, the NYC District Branch APA Task Force Report, headed
by Charles W. Socarides and twelve other seasoned clinicians
representing (not formally) the thinking of the leading clinicians
associated with the major medical centers of New York City, was
submitted to the APA District Branch, NYC.
This task force, an official committee of that organization,
attempted to shed light on the nature, meaning and content of
homosexuality to psychiatrists and an increasingly bewildered
public.
After two years of deliberations and sixteen meetings, the task
force attempted to submit a report on homosexuality to the
Executive Council of the New York City District Brancha report
which unanimously documented the fact that exclusive homosexuality
was a disorder of psychosexual development, and, simultaneously,
asked for civil rights for those suffering from this
disorder.
The report was "not acceptable" to the new members (and some old)
of the Executive Committee. Other business took its place at the
Executive Committee meeting, and although general statements were
accepted as to its content, it was not accepted into the minutes of
the meeting.
Thus, the New York County District Branch headed by gay activists and gay activism,
aggressively strove to discredit this report and suppress its
conclusions.
It ultimately had to be published as a study-group report in 1973
(New York City District Branch APA Task Force Report on
Homosexuality 1972-1973, Socarides, C.W., Chairman; Bieber,
Byschowski, G.; Gershman, H.; Jacobs, T.J.; Myers, W.; Nackenson,
B.I., Prescott, K.F.; Rifkin, A.H.; Stein, S.; Terry, J.; published
as "Homosexuality in the Male: A Report of a Psychiatric Study
Group," International Journal of Psychiatry, 2[4], pp.
460-479.
The vote taken in December 1973 and 1974, arising from the
decision of the Board of Trustees of the APA taken in December,
1973, which wished to delete homosexuality from the official
nomenclature of DSM-II has now been shown
to have been loaded with gay activism, and may even be due to
fraud.
It is a credit to psychiatrists in general that in the voting of
the general membership (April 1974) that was to follow on this
issue (voting marred by hidden lobbying by homosexual activists)
held months later, forty percent of the psychiatrists who voted (
10,000) took issue with the Board of Trustees action, asserting
that there were no legitimate scientific reasons for the APA's
change in fundamental psychiatric theory.
It is fallacious to conclude from this vote that the majority of
psychiatrists in the United States were or are now in favor of the
action, for only 25% of those eligible to vote (out of more
than 25,000 psychiatrists) sent in their ballots.
Despite this fact, the decision to uphold the Board of Trustees'
vote stood.
The Board of Trustees vote took place against a backdrop of
several groups declaring homosexuality a psychological emotional
condition.
For example, the report of the Committee of Cooperation
Governmental (Federal) Agencies of the Group for Advancement of
Psychiatry of 1959, The New York Academy of Medicine Report, 1964,
the Task Force Report of the New York County District Branch of the
APA, done in 1970-1972 (Socarides, et al., 1973).
A book by Ronald Bayer, Fellow of the Hasting Institute of New
York, noted that Spitzer is sympathetic to the viewpoint of the Gay
Liberation group, and that a chairman of the Nomenclature Committee
was suffering from indecision and discomfort with Spitzer's
aggressive assumption of leadership in this issue.
Even more important was the
revelation, never previously acknowledged, that the Council on
Research and Development of the APA did not officially investigate
or study the issue thoroughly before it gave formal approval to the
deletion of homosexuality from the DSM-II.
"It was to Monroe's council, composed of five senior psychiatrists
who were responsible for providing the APA with advice on matters
of policy and with information on current issues in psychiatric
research, that Spitzer's proposal [for deletion] was first under
consideration.
Though officially coming from the Committee on Nomenclature, in
fact it had never been formally approved by its members, and thus
presented Spitzer's own efforts to resolve what many APA leaders
considered a 'hot potato"' (Bayer, pp. 130-131). (The above
material is also described in detail in a paper by Charles W.
Socarides, "Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of
Homosexuality," Journal of Psycho-History, 10[3], Winter 1992, pp.
107-129.
It is a credit to psychiatrists throughout the world that they
believe that the homosexual should be granted all his civil rights
and be free of persecution for a condition over which he has no
control (certainly in cases of obligatory homosexuality).
We wish to assert that just as alcoholism and drug addiction have
become recognized as illness over the past several decades, so we
see sexual deviations (i.e. homosexuality) increasingly to be
understood as an emotional disorder, and, similar to other mental
disorders, not to be penalized when practiced among consenting
adults.
We believe freedom from persecutory laws, as well as the granting
of full civil rights, constitutes an integral part of our approach
to homosexual individuals.
However, we are of the scientific view, backed up by over a hundred
years of scientific investigation, especially scientific clinical
and theoretical documentation over the past twenty- five years,
that homosexuality of the obligatory form is a form of emotional
disorder.
Individuals suffering from this condition who wish therapy should
be able to get it.
We therefore now suggest a poll of the American psychiatrists,
psychologists, and psychoanalysts on whether they believe that
homosexuality is not simply an alternative lifestyle but a form of
emotional disorder.
We ask for a vote on this matter against the backdrop of our
appreciation of the necessity for civil rights of homosexuals
everywhere.
This article provided by NARTH
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1996papers/socarides.html
