Part II
In the mid-20th Century. two theorists/researchers theories propelled homosexuality far further into the realm of pathology. And both were based on flawed beliefs/research.
Sandor Rado argued that Freud's theory of homosexuality was based on a flawed 19th Century theory: embryonic hermaphroditism (the belief that all embryos had the potential to be either male or female). He was correct about this. His error in logic was to then assume that heteosexuality was the only non-pathological alternative. He did no reasearch or provided evidence of his theory.
The Bieber study is often used to prove the pathology of homosexuals, by showing that they could be "cured". The two major outcomes of his study was to show that 27% of homosexuals, treated, were "cured" and in identifying the familial traits of the families of homosexuals. Biber's study had major methodological flaws, and has been widely criticized and debunked. Firstly, he only used subjects that were already under psychiatric care. Secondly, no long term follow-up was done to determine if the result remained. Thirdly, Bieber was unable to produce even one of his subjects he claimed to have cured. Lastly, Biebers conclusions about the familial structure of a homosexual's family have been debunked by the 1981 study of a much larger,
nonpatient gay population, a study that is methodologically sound. In essence, the Bieber study, often the cornerstone of the anti-gay agenda, has been shown to be completely flawed and invalid when studying this issue.
The Bieber study was a response to the Kinsey study. Alfred Kinsey, the well-known sex researcher, created the Kinsey scale, through extensive research. Kinsey was one of the first to do evidence based research on a nonpatient population. What he found was that people varied on a scale from "exclusive heterosexual" to "exclusive homosexual" and variations in between. His research showed that at any given time throughout history, 3%-7% of the population was gay. His theories showed that homosexuality was both natural and widespread. Though this had an impact on non-pathologizing homosexuality, as Kinsey's reasearch did not, specifically address this issue, it did not confirm it. The Hooker study, however, did.
Evelyn Hooker's study was published in 1956, and throughout the '60s gained more and more recognition, as more and more studies reproduced here findings, accurately. Here is a great brief description of Hooker's studyu and findings:
Psychologist Evelyn Hooker's groundbreaking study compared the projective test results from 30 nonpatient homosexual men with those of 30 nonpatient heterosexual men. The study found that experienced psychologists, unaware of whose test results they were interpreting, could not distinguish between the two groups. This study was a serious challenge to the view that homosexuality was always associated with psychopathology.
This was the first study that examined, psychologically, nonpatients; the opposite was a serious methological flaw in past studies. Experienced psychologists saw
NO difference.
When the first DSM came out in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness, not only matching with the societal attitudes of the time, and throughout the ages, but matching with the volume of research, all of which, as can be seen, above, was based on poor methodology, research based on observation only, morals, or opinions.
By 1973, the Hooker study, replicated studies showing the same results, and many other studies showing the non-pathology of homosexuality had been published. Yet, in spite of this evidence, the APA held onto it's position that homosexuality would remain a disorder, and many on committees had never seen much of the research proving this inaccurate. It was only when the gay activists, including gay psychiatrists/psychologists pressed the APA to review and examine the research, that they did. When the APA saw the volume of research that showed that homosexuality was not an illness, and examined the methological issues with the research that showed that it was, further discussions were had in order to determine whether homosexuality would be declassified or not.
When the APA voted, 58% voted to declassify homosexuality, which it was. Why only 58% if the research was so conclusive? For the same reason that we see here, at DP, that no matter how much conclusive research is presented that shows that homosexuality is not a disorder, some still hold onto that fallacious belief: bigotry, prejudice, inflexible thinking, morals over logic, and probably some other illogical reasons. Even Bieber, when presented with the evidence, and seeing his own study debunked because of methological reasons, refused to alter his belief. Why? Well, he was described as someone who would not admit he was wrong, even when proven so. Sounds like some folks around here. On this thread, even.
So, was the APA decision to declassify homosexuality as a disorder politically motivated? The politics involved was to force the APA to look at and examine, objectively, research showing that homosexuality was not a disorder, and that the research that showed it was, was flawed. As I said earlier, the concept of politicizing this issue has been misrepresented by the anti-gay side of this issue to appear as if it were something it was not. One
can compare this, to some extent, to the black civil rights movement. Was that political? Yes, but not in the way a bigot would make it.
