How Homosexual Terrorists Got Homosexuality Removed From the American Psychiatric Assoc's DSM List

“It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast...It was a political move.” “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”-Barbara Gittings, Pro‐Sodomy Activist

Prior to December 14, 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) considered same‐sex attractions disordered. The disorder was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders‐II (DSM‐II) under the label, “Homosexuality.” Psychiatry’s authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward both sodomy and the types of people who engaged in such acts. Although public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views, “scientific opinion” was crucial in the public attitude.

In an effort to remove “Homosexuality” from the DSM pro‐sodomy activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric Association circa 1970. Activist Franklin Kameny states the movement’s objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it...”48 Franklin Kameny led the Washington D.C. chapter of the Mattachine Society during the 1960’s. In the tradition of Magnus Hirschfield and Alfred Kinsey, Kameny viewed one’s attraction to a specific gender as fluid, and viewed acts of sodomy as morally equivalent to natural sexual acts within the bounds of marriage. Led by radicals like Franklin Kameny, pro‐sodomy activists attacked psychiatrists across America, as Newsweek describes:

“But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay‐lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’”49

Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that sodomy was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying of AIDS.

On June 7, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions. In this letter he states, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.”50

Kay Tobin Lahausen, co‐author of The Gay Crusaders, describes a variety of activism. “We did all sorts of protests...When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in his big black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine...He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going.”51

Lahausen’s lover, Barbara Gittings was a well known activist during this time as well. Although Gittings was not a librarian, she was the first head of the American Library Association’s “Gay Task Force.” Her objective was to bring books advocating sodomy to the attention of librarians, in hopes of having them included in their libraries. At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same‐sex kissing booth to attract attention to her cause. Gittings tells about her activism against the APA:

“Besides the ALA, I was also very involved, along with many other people, in efforts to get the American Psychiatric Association... to drop its listing of homosexuality as a mental illness. Psychiatrists were one of the three major groups that had their hands on us. They had a kind of control over our fate, in the eyes of the public, for a long time. Religion and law were the other two groups that had their hands on us. So, besides being sick, we were sinful and criminal. But the sickness label infected everything that we said and made it difficult for us to gain any credibility for anything we said ourselves. The sickness issue was paramount.”52

Gittings took place in disruptive “zap” attacks on the APA. She states, “I am not opposed to zap tactics. In fact, I spearheaded a zap at a psychiatrist’s meeting and I’m ready to do it again.”53 Gittings recounts, “The 1970 convention in San Francisco was disrupted by a group of feminists and gay men who were enraged by what the psychiatrists were saying about them—and newspapers all around the country carried the story.”54

The “Gay” Militants, a book about that time tells the story, “On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of ‘gay’ and woman’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrist on the subject of ‘aversion therapy,’ a system of treatment which attempts to change gay orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli. By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their gay cohorts were in charge...and the doctors were heckling from the audience.’”55

Pro‐sodomy activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, “Konstantin Berlandt, of Berkeley GLF, paraded through the hall in a bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment.” As the meeting adjourned several arguments broke out between the psychiatrists who were angry about the disruption of the activists. One activist shouted to a Psychiatrist, “Don’t shake your fu**ing finger at me,” to which the psychiatrist replied, “I’ll shake whatever I please.”56 As another argument arose, psychiatrist Dr. Irving Bieber stated that he believed persons experiencing same‐sex attractions were the subjects of “misplaced sexual adjustment,” to which a pro‐sodomy activist shrieked and called him a “mother fu**er.”57

Several months later, The Advocate reported on other disruptions: “PSYCHOLOGISTS GET GAY LIB THERAPY.”

On June 23, 1970, activists disrupted another meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. This time in Chicago, they repeatedly shouted down the main speakers discourse.58 Again, in October, during a meeting at the University of Southern California, pro‐sodomy activists shouted down a speaker and took over the stage and microphone.59

Pro‐sodomy activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A pro‐ sodomy magazine, The Advocate, talks of “...what happened in 1973...referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.”60

Add that the resolution still called them bad and the newer negotiated verbiage, also add the other psychologist names that were elected to the board and how many persons annually serve on the board.

While activists were terrorizing psychiatrists, the APA’s Board of Trustees was being stacked with members sympathetic to the pro‐sodomy cause. Pro‐sodomy psychiatrist and former president of the American Psychiatric Association Alfred M. Freedman recounts, “In the APA elections of 1972 and 1973 concern over social issues brought in a number of individuals as members of the Board of Trustees who were committed to change, including removal of homosexuality per se from the official APA nomenclature.”61

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer M.D., a member of the APA Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics was one of the psychiatrists committed to change. During this time, Dr. Spitzer began to organize meetings and symposiums to discuss the possible removal of “Homosexuality” from the DSM. One symposium, which took place at the APA annual meeting in Hawaii, included scores of pro‐sodomy political activists. With evident biases going into the symposium, Dr. Spitzer concluded upon its end that action was necessary for the removal of “Homosexuality” from the DSM.

Spitzer then brought the issue to the attention of Dr. Henry Brill, who was the chair of the Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics for the American Psychological Association. Dr. Brill then assigned Dr. Spitzer to prepare a “scientifically sound” and “persuasive” memo and resolution, to be presented to the APA’s Council on Research and Development, Reference Committee, and the Assembly Board of Trustees.62

After being given the assignment, Dr. Spitzer quickly drafted, presented, and obtained approval for his three page same‐sex attraction affirming resolution by the APA’s Council on Research and Development and Reference Committee.

In order to secure unanimous passage among the Board of Trustees however, certain compromises had to be made. Although Spitzer’s first draft, which states that, “homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality” was rejected, his second draft, which states, “xxxx” was eventually adopted. This draft, it should be noted, did not affirm same‐sex attraction, but rather.....

An article appearing in Psychiatric News about this time recalls that pro‐ sodomy activists were beginning to speak of unyielding psychiatrists as “war criminals,”63 with obvious implications. Possibly in fear for their safety, and certainly wearied by constant harassment, on December 15, 1973, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association capitulated to the demands of the radicals and adopted Spitzer’s resolution by voting to downgrade “Homosexuality” as an illness to the milder category of “Sexual Orientation Disturbance.”

Add what “disorder meant, how thee definition changed, and which is more accurate and why. Also, debunk the definition that is less accurate and note why all of science suffered.

The fact the Board was influenced and intimidated is no secret. In fact, pro‐sodomy journalist Andrew Sullivan wrote that in December of 1973 the APA, “...under intense political pressure...removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders...”64 Activist Mark Thompson writes, “Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees declared we were no longer sick.”65

After the vote by the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees, many members of the APA were outraged at the Board for caving in, and changing psychiatry solely as a result of political pressure. In response to the Board’s decision many psychiatrists, led by Dr. Charles Socarides filed a petition for a referendum to reverse the action of the Board. They called for a full vote by the APA’s 17,905 members.66 On April 9, 1974, the results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members voted in the election. The results were as follows,

Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905 Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555 Number of members that “Abstained”: 367 Number of “No” votes ‐votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a

mental disorder: 3,810

Number of “Yes” votes‐votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

It should be noted that the number of “Yes” votes, 5,854, made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one‐ third of the APA’s membership approved the change. It should be further noted that the vote was partially controlled by the “National Gay and Lesbian Task Force” (NGTLF). The “NGTLF” was able to obtain APA member addresses and with‐out identifying itself as an organization send out letters to all members urging them to vote to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM. Bruce Voeller, the head of the “NGTLF” admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.”67

The pro‐sodomy activists won the vote and the new official definition of “Homosexuality” as a disorder was downgraded to include only those who were “unhappy with their sexual orientation.”68 But was this vote a scientific decision, or was it a political one? Pro‐sodomy historian Enrique Rueda writes, “This vote was not the result of scientific analysis after years of painstaking research. Neither was it a purely objective choice following the accumulation of incontrovertible data. The very fact that the vote was taken reveals the nature of the process involved, since the existence of an orthodoxy in itself, contradicts the essence of science.”69 Indeed, when activists publicly claim that the vote was a scientific decision they hide three years of deceit and intimidation. In pro‐ sodomy publications however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote.

Pro‐sodomy activist’s Kay Lahusen and Barbara Gittings know what really happened to the APA. In the book Making History they are quite open about the reality.

Kay: “This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.”

Barbara: “It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first zapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move.”70

The APA was thoroughly intimidated. In 1974, after the APA’s vote, Gittings was interviewed by pro‐sodomy movement historian Jonathan Ned

Katz Gittings brags, “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”71
Anytime a scientific organization endorses sodomy, remember Gittings words: They are “running scared.” Pro‐sodomy activists have learned that intimidation and strategic alliances work, and they are never hesitant about using intimidation and psychological manipulation to reach the goals of their radical agenda.

Adopting terrorism as a means, pro‐sodomy activists set their vicious sights on Dr. David Reuben, one of the best‐known psychologists in the area of human sexuality in 1974. Unbeknownst to Dr. Reuben, pro‐sodomy activists were lying in wait outside one of his lectures and his physical safety was at risk. Pro‐sodomy author Leigh Rutledge describes the attack in his book The Gay Decades, “June 16, A fist fight broke out at a Philadelphia playhouse when ten gay activists interrupted a lecture by Dr. David Rueben and denounced him as ‘a criminal’ for his views on male homosexuality. One policeman and a protestor are injured in the melee.”72 On that same page, the book tells us that, “The Centers for Disease Control estimate that gay or bisexual men account for as much as one‐third of the syphilis cases in the U.S.”

Apparently, the American Psychological Association also got the message of intimidation when they caved in to the demands of pro‐sodomy activists in 1975. In the book, The Long Road to Freedom the author writes, “January...The American Psychological Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science echoed the American Psychiatric Association in deeming homosexuality not an illness.”73 The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science, intimidation by pro‐sodomy activists was over for them. “Under pressure from gay scientific groups, Science magazine banned anti‐gay bias in its staff hiring and advertisement.”74

Could the AAAS have been thinking about pressure from pro‐sodomy groups when they published the poorly done studies by LeVay (“gay” brains) and Hamer (“gay” gene)? Two scientists who protested the LeVay study raise serious questions about AAAS, Science, and pro‐sodomy activists. The scientists state that, “The appearance of LeVay’s paper highlights a serious issue in Science public policy. Should such a study, based on a questionable design, with subjects drawn from a small, highly selected and non‐representative sample, receive the kind of international attention and credibility that publication in a journal with the stature of Science lends?”75

If Dr. LeVay was not able to draw a proper sample and to fulfill other basic requirements for a scientific study, why did he conduct the study at all? If the study was not done for scientific reasons it must have been done for political reasons. Indeed, LeVay’s study was part of a massive public relations campaign designed to convince the public to believe that individuals are “born gay.” The masthead of Science must have been intimidated to risk the publication’s own legitimacy by publishing such an unscientific work. When unethical political movements dominate science, pushing science in unscientific directions, science suffers and leads society astray.

One lesson drawn from the facts outlined in this chapter is unmistakable: every time a scientific group repeats a pro‐sodomy talking point, you may, with justifiable skepticism, suspect that these groups are acting out of intimidation. Another unmistakable lesson is that pro‐sodomy activists are so desperate to cover their deeply dysfunctional condition that they will stop at nothing to hide the facts about their condition from the public. Award‐winning writer and pro‐ sodomy activist Randy Shilts describes the denial that exists among many men who engage in sodomy, about the reality of their irresponsible and unhealthy lifestyles causing AIDS to be epidemic, when he writes, “...the desperation of denial: how when something is so horrible you don’t want to believe it, you want it out of your mind and insist it isn’t true, and how you hate the person who says it is.”76

Desperate denial; this seems to be what drives the pro‐sodomy movement’s deceit, psychological manipulation, and intimidation of scientific groups and other apposing members of society.