As the years have passed we have seen a significant change in the way Canadian institutions views homosexuality. Ease can now be felt knowing that the voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual, and queer (LGBTTQ) communities are being heard and that one day life will not consist of constant oppression, stigmatization and discrimination. People within these communities have joined forced and have rallied to make LGBTTQ communities recognized. Canada has shown much advancement in the area of recognition and support and it is in the hopes of many Americans that one day their country will follow suit. Many of the important changes that have lead to social policy change in Canada are illustrated by Brian O’Neill (2003). The decriminalization of sexual acts between same sex people; the declassification of homosexuality as being a mental disorder; the recognition of the Rights and Freedoms of homosexual people; and finally an increase in the awareness of human service needs related to sexual orientation (O`Neill, 2003) have all lead to advancements towards social equality and recognition for the LGBTTQ community.
The area I would like to look in-depth involves that of the historical definition of homosexuality and I think that it is important because such a definition has influenced the way people today view homosexuality. Prior to 1973, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) defined homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) as being a mental disorder (O`Neill, 2003). There had been few studies conducted at this time and thus it was assumed that because these people held different sexual orientations it must be due to pathology. It is important to note that inadequate consideration was made for social or biological contributions to ones sexual orientation prior to 1973. As we now know when looking at any part of an individual we must take into consideration areas of one’s biological, psychological, and social underpinnings (O`Neill, 2003) as they all are interconnected entities.
Jack Drescher (2009) sought out to study parallels and contrasts in the history of homosexuality and gender variance in the DSM definitions. He wrote that the “LGBTTQ community believe that it is wrong for psychiatrists and other mental health professions to label homosexuality and gender variance as a symptom of a mental disorder as it further stigmatizes an already highly stigmatized group of individuals” (Drescher, 2009). He notes that one must recognize that LGBTTQ individuals consider their behaviours and feeling to be normal and so who is society to tell them different. Drescher (2009) found that when doctors focus their attention on individual disorders rather than considering biological and social forces they are further causing diversity and oppression in these groups (Drescher, 2009).
Interestingly Drescher (2009) further found that the etiological theories of homosexuality included three major themes; normal variation, pathology, and immaturity (Drescher, 2009). Normal variation theories see homosexuality as being a normal difference and they see no place for homosexuality in the DSM (Drescher, 2009). The polar opposite is the view is that of pathology whereby the individual is seen as possessing some sort of disease caused by an internal defect and/or an external pathology (Drescher, 2009). Immaturity falls in the middle of the continuum whereby the individual is seen as passing through a phase on the way to heterosexuality (Drescher, 2009). This study illustrated that such differential theories of the causes of homosexuality illustrate the confusion in the past (and present) of what constitutes (and contributes) to homosexuality.
Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973 due to the weight of empirical data, coupled with social policy change initiated by politically active gay community members in the United States (Herek & Garnets, 2007). It was found that homosexuality standards did not meet the criteria of a mental illness and thus a normal variation theory of homosexuality was taken. Psychiatrics opposed and for the change in the definition began to ask themselves “what then was the root of homosexuality” (Drescher, 2009). Some described it as a form of sexual behavior; others saw it as neurotic and psychotic; and some viewed it as social construction. As a result, different definitions such as “Gender Identity Disorder”, and “Ego-dystonic homosexuality” (Herek & Garnets, 2007) emerged in an attempt to reclassify homosexuality in the DSM.
With historical advancements, to date the only mental disorder specified in the DSM IV is Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified which refers to persistent and marked distress about ones sexual orientation (Herek & Garnets, 2007). This is a significant part of LGBTTQ history. The APA has endorsed psychiatrists’ actions and has since advocated to minimize the stigma once associated with homosexuality (Herek & Garnets, 2007). I believe that this claim sounds nice in theory however one can only attribute the stigmatization of homosexuality rooting from is definition as a mental illness in the DSM. The empirical evidence suggests that homosexuality cannot be looked at without giving consideration to ones biology, psychology, and social conditions. We as a society need to open up to change and make the world see that in addition to all the races, ethnicities, and religions that exist, are individual people who are entitled to have their own sexual orientation. The written criteria has now been erased and society needs to recognize that LGBTTQ people are human beings and thus should be treated as such. The recent string of suicides related to homosexuality illustrates that LGBTTQ people do suffer from a mental disorder but it’s not homosexuality, its depression and it’s caused by homophobia and hate crimes in our society that need to change with a changing definition.
Tara
References
Drescher, J. (2009, September 25). “Queer Diagnoses: Parallels & Contrasts in the History of Homosexuality, Gender Variance & the DSM”: Arch Sexual Behavior, American Psychiatric Association 2009, pp. 428-460. Doi. 10.1007/s10508-009-9531-5
Herek, G.M., & Garnets, L.D. (2007). Sexual Orientation and Mental Health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 353-375. Retrieved from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
O’Neill, B. (2003). Heterosexism: Shaping social policy in relation to gay men and lesbians. In A. Weshues (Ed.), Canadian social policy: Issues and perspectives (pp. 128-144). Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press
Great post Tara,
ReplyDeleteYour blog is very well written and documented. I find it amazing that the APA considered homosexuality a mental disorder until 1973. A mere 37 years ago, you had a mental disorder if you didn't fit the norm. We landed on the moon 4 years earlier. It is rather unusual that such few studies could have been done (considering the comparative costs) when the Americans had time to fly to the moon in a space race with the Russians. I am alarmed that it took this long to have it removed from the DSM, further to the point, why it frustrated the Psychiatrics. One can wonder why we must find a way to classify sexuality. Heterosexuals do not have to declare any other way so why does it matter what the person to the left or right of me desires regardless of their sexual orientation? In my own honest opinion, societal views have a lot to do with acceptance in government. If the politicians are of the mindset that homosexuality is a disease, as they grew up in that era, (most are over 37 years old): How can we expect to change their way of thinking? Changing personal views is a hard thing to accomplish. As these people retire from politics you may see a greater acceptance in government as the new politicians would be more open minded and accepting of this issue.
-Darcie B.