The Psychological Debate is Over
By Bob Minor
Minor Details
We just can't seem to stop getting into arguments with people who plainly
don't want to accept LGBT human beings. These people latch on to any
straws that will keep them from admitting their own prejudices, fears,
denial, and insecurities. Then they act out their personal problems on
non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals who support basic LGBT rights.
Sincere seekers of understanding are reachable, but those who hold on to
their biases for a variety of personal reasons continue to fish for any
basis outside themselves which prevents their own growth and our progress.
Using psychology became even more popular in the last century. Today
so-called psychological claims are the most often cited "scientific"
arguments for supporting the idea that LGBT people are sick and need
"conversion therapy" or "reparative therapy."
In response we get caught up again and again arguing psychology with them.
It's exhausting for us. It keeps us from more progress in our lives. And
it prevents them from self-understanding and admitting that they are just
prejudiced. Often we want to be "nice" about it, we don't want to offend,
and hope we can "help them understand."
We can call their prejudices "homophobia," searching for motives behind
them, but the reality is, it's just plain denial. They won't face the fact
that they are prejudiced, and we are often enabling them in this denial.
GayToday Editor Jack Nichols' biography
appears in the history Before Stonewall (Haworth Press).
Nichols, pictured today, first suggested to his gay and
lesbian peers in the movement that they
formalize a position rejecting the 'sickness' theories
once entertained by the psychiatric and psychological
establishments |
Let's be clear, then. What people who argue from psychology against LGBT
people are doing is promoting in sincerity and in a successful
money-raising fashion a return to something like the Dark Ages of
psychology and religion. Then gay people were considered sick, perverted,
inhuman, "the problem," and "unnatural."
On top of their use of religion, they deny their plain old bigotry by
clinging to "scientific" language to legitimate their position. Their
"experts" promote out-dated, unproven, and destructive theories that treat
homosexuality as a psychological problem associated with such things as
identification with the "wrong " parent or the "wrong" gender role. Their
models of those they have "converted" have their own problems. Who knows
what they are?
But when will they get with it? How long will they hang on to their
prejudices? How long will they accuse mainstream psychological
professional groups of being the ones who are wrongly motivated?
How long must we listen to their ignorance? How long will we argue with
them as if we are the ones who need to justify ourselves
psychologically?
It's not that "ex-gay" leaders don't know that they are acting like
enemies of science. They just refuse to change the prejudices upon which
they've built their self-image. |
In their attempts to convert, cure, or change sexual orientations that
they don't like, they refuse to give up their lucrative strategies and
recognize what all mainstream psychological organizations have been saying
for over 25 years. Yes, that's a quarter of a century!
It wasn't just yesterday, but back in 1973 that the American Psychiatric
Association's Board of Trustees confirmed that: "homosexuality does not
meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness." Since then, all
(yes, that's all) major professional mental health organizations have gone
on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental illness.
Dr. George Weinberg, who coined the term
'homophobia' challenged his psychologist-peers
to declassify homosexuality as an illness prior to
the Stonewall uprising. His book, Society
and the Healthy Homosexual, says: 'I would
never consider a patient healthy unless he had
overcome his prejudice against homosexuality.'
His biography will apear in the forthcoming
history, Before Stonewall (Haworth Press) |
Is that not clear enough? Listen to the unambiguous language of an
American Psychiatric Association's statement about attempts to "convert,
repair, or cure" homosexuality:
"The American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment,
such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy, which is based upon the
assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder, or based upon a
prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual
orientation."
Yes, that does say "opposes."
In fact, the APA says the "therapy" these groups tout as loving is hardly positive
for the patient:
"The potential risks of Areparative therapy are great: including depression,
anxiety, and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal
prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already
experienced by the patient."
There is just no debate here. The other professional psychological and
medical organizations all agree - the American Psychological Association,
the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling
Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Back in 1975, the American Psychological Association agreed with the
American Psychiatric Association and made it clear that: "Homosexuality
per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or
general social and vocational capabilities."
And the stand of real psychological professionals on this issue is not
just neutrality. Like the American Psychiatric Association, the American
Psychological Association calls professionals to be involved in proactive
change: |
"Further, the American Psychological Association urges all mental
health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental
illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations."
In summary:
"The American Psychological Association opposes portrayals of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their
sexual orientation and supports the dissemination of accurate information
about sexual ordination, and mental health, and appropriate interventions
in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded
beliefs about sexual orientation."
Yes, the professional association says, "take the lead" in removing the
prejudice. Yes, they say, "counteract the bias" toward gay people.
We must assume, then, that any so-called "therapists" who continue to
promote prejudice and "cures," even those who merely don't stand up for
LGBT people, are, frankly, acting unprofessionally. And we should say so.
We must assume, as the professionals themselves say, that counselors who
disagree with the established professional standard are promoting
ignorance and bigotry. They somehow need to obsess with this issue in the
same way that prejudice based on race or right-handedness refused to
change no matter what the evidence.
And it's time we stopped arguing and said so. We don't need to be on the
psychological defensive. We don't need to play into their game of
responding to the same old claims they have made for years about issues
that have been settled for decades. We don't need to answer their
arguments with anything more than: "I know that people believe that, but
it's unprofessional, so I don't."
The debate is over. We need to say that, repeat it, and act like it.
Robert N. Minor, Ph.D. is author of Scared Straight: Why It's So
Hard to Accept Gay People and Why It's So Hard To Be Human (HumanityWorks!,
2001), and Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas. You
can reach him at www.fairnessproject.org
|
|
|