Why Is Transgender(ism ?) Homosexuality Not A Mental Disorder

[Amppax]

The American Psychological Association is the professional association of psychologists, psychiatrists, maybe counselors, and so forth. They publish a book - I forget the title, but someone on PM will know - which lists all the mental disorders. 

 

From the very beginning, homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder by the APA. Then in 1970-something, they decided it wasn't. And they removed it from their book of diagnoses. A history has been written about what happened, but the upshot is that one of the high-ranking leaders of the APA was homosexual himself, and he engineered the change from defining homosexuality as a psychological disorder to a "lifestyle." 

 

In terms of the Church's definition, the Church has always labeled homosexuality as an "objective disorder," meaning that the homosexual person's affections are directed an an inappropriate object. A man's love/intimacy/sexual desire should be directed at the appropriate object (a woman), and vise versa for a woman (the object would be a man). The idea is that every human faculty has a proper object - the proper object of the eyes is light, the proper object of the nose is smell, the proper object of the tongue is taste.

 

The Church has not defined homosexuality as a psychological disorder because it came up with its understanding of homosexuality well before the field of psychology ever developed.

 

DSM; I think we're up to DSM-V; or IV. I forget, I'm not a psych major. 

 

:doh: , and this is why it's important to read threads. 

Edited July 25, 2014 by Amppax

[CrossCuT]

 

 

Yes, I understand this CrossCut.  The problem though is most use this to mean humans do not have a choice in their behavior which, unlike animals, is not the case.  The Church does not need to know the genesis of homosexuality, since it's clear that homosexuality does not take away a persons ability to either act or not act on their desires.  In the end people can present all of the birds, mammals, and fish they want.  Nothing is going to take away the truth that they can control their actions even if they can't control their sexuality. 

 

 

Ok, so youre just saying that because we have a free will we can choose to NOT follow what is natural - Since you are no longer arguing that science has shown that homosexuality is a natural phenomena. 

 

I would say, yes, people can choose to resit their homosexual actions but they cant resist being homosexual since it is written in their genes no more than a person cant simply stop having green eyes.

I think this poses other implications for mental health when people have to deny certain parts of their being because the Church says its wrong based on arbitrary bible stories. 

 

You are also making a moral argument and not a scientific one. So you should make sure that it is clear that you are following the churches interpretation of what is moral and not necessarily what is natural in the physical world.

Edited July 25, 2014 by CrossCuT

[CrossCuT]

I think they understand the scientific views very well, they have advisors on everything.  But I think, and I know I'm not alone, is that they won't progress for other reasons. The major one is likely to unity. They don't want to lose numbers, especially in the developing world, to harsher extremes of the faith. They also don't want to alienate people with sudden changes that don't fit in with what has been normative for their generation. I think the church will wait and see, mostly letting the protestant denominations break the ice. Once the dust settles and the timing is right I think they'll edge a different way bit by bit. It's a sofly soflty approach to change but I think it will be painful. It will be a juggling act to manage the changes and keep all sides engaged. I suepect it will carry on for a few decades yet.

In terms of the APA -  yes, I'd agree on changes in attitudes, although research has helped. There are issues with how cultural mindsets determine what is normative or not, and I guess that's a question that continues to challenge the relevant professions. How mental health workers viewed women and people with certain illnesses has changed over the years also etc.

 

 

You might be right, I do not claim to understand the motives of the church as an institution, but I do know they have faltered in the scientific arena in the past. I do have a small glimmer of hope that someday they will look past all of this and learn to integrate homosexuals into the community in a healthy and productive way. As of right now, they are only harboring resentment and fear which translates into a lot of other bad outcomes. 

 

All I can do is sit and wait for the church to catch up I suppose.

[Luigi]

 

 

 

 

Ok, so youre just saying that because we have a free will we can choose to NOT follow what is natural - Since you are no longer arguing that science has shown that homosexuality is a natural phenomena. 

 

I would say, yes, people can choose to resit their homosexual actions but they cant resist being homosexual since it is written in their genes no more than a person cant simply stop having green eyes.

I think this poses other implications for mental health when people have to deny certain parts of their being because the Church says its wrong based on arbitrary bible stories. 

 

You are also making a moral argument and not a scientific one. So you should make sure that it is clear that you are following the churches interpretation of what is moral and not necessarily what is natural in the physical world.

 

 

Yes, that's the point. A person may indeed be born homosexual - I can't really speak to that, and even the experts are proposing only hypotheses, not known fact. If indeed it's an innate trait, then you're correct that one can't change it any more than one can change the color of one's eyes.

 

A person can be born homosexual but s/he doesn't have to act on those impulses. A person can be born deaf, or blind, or with one leg shorter than the other, too - people with these conditions must learn to deal with those conditions one way or another. There's no changing it, but one can live with the condition. I realize that these conditions are morally neutral, so there are some differences here. But a person can also be born with (or develop through life experience-psychological imprinting-emotional trauma, etc.) a desire to do lots of things that they shouldn't act on. Serial killers, cannibals, people who torture animals, heterosexuals with pornography, people who beat their children senseless - all have urges that they need to learn to control rather than act on.

 

And Christians don't consider Bible stories to be arbitrary. They consider them to be the inspired word of God. And conscientious Christians, at least, feel impelled to obey-follow-live the inspired word of God.

[Credo in Deum]

You might be right, I do not claim to understand the motives of the church as an institution, but I do know they have faltered in the scientific arena in the past. I do have a small glimmer of hope that someday they will look past all of this and learn to integrate homosexuals into the community in a healthy and productive way. As of right now, they are only harboring resentment and fear which translates into a lot of other bad outcomes. 

 

All I can do is sit and wait for the church to catch up I suppose.

 

Are you referring to the Galileo incident?  As far as I know this is the only scientific flop the Church has been accused of, and IMO, to an unreasonable degree.   One flop since 33 AD, that must be a record!

 

Also here is list of Catholic Scientists. 

 

http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc014a.htm

 

 

Looks like for a long time the Church has been at the pioneering side of science. 

[Ice_nine]

Crosscut are you straight? You don't have to answer that question, I'm just wondering because in my experience it's usually straight people who have never questioned their sexuality who say things like this:

 

I would say, yes, people can choose to resit their homosexual actions but they cant resist being homosexual since it is written in their genes no more than a person cant simply stop having green eyes.

 

Again, you don't need to answer and I hope you aren't offended, but I reject this statement out of hand based on my experience. There are some people I imagine, who are either attracted to the opposite sex, or the same sex very early on in life. There are others, like myself, who have experienced quite different modes of attraction during different stages in their life, and whose objects of attraction have changed with circumstances, hormonal/biological changes, and yes prayerful discipline.

 

Now, there are those who will say I'm just confused, or was confused, and there are certainly many things that bewilder me, but as someone who has never really felt honest saying "yes I'm gay" or "yes I'm straight" or even "yes I'm bi/asexual/cis/whateverthehellelse" I do find it funny that a lot of solidly straight folk pontificate on how a homosexual must experience his or her orientation, e.g. "it's like having green eyes."

 

 

I think the lgbqt movement is shifting away from the "your born with it" argument anyway.

 

 

[God the Father]

Both are, but this truth is politically uncomfortable.

[Ice_nine]

 

I think the lgbqt movement is shifting away from the "your born with it" argument anyway.

 

*headdesk*

 

I deserve The Oatmeal

[CrossCuT]

Crosscut are you straight? You don't have to answer that question, I'm just wondering because in my experience it's usually straight people who have never questioned their sexuality who say things like this:

 

 

Again, you don't need to answer and I hope you aren't offended, but I reject this statement out of hand based on my experience. There are some people I imagine, who are either attracted to the opposite sex, or the same sex very early on in life. There are others, like myself, who have experienced quite different modes of attraction during different stages in their life, and whose objects of attraction have changed with circumstances, hormonal/biological changes, and yes prayerful discipline.

 

Now, there are those who will say I'm just confused, or was confused, and there are certainly many things that bewilder me, but as someone who has never really felt honest saying "yes I'm gay" or "yes I'm straight" or even "yes I'm bi/asexual/cis/whateverthehellelse" I do find it funny that a lot of solidly straight folk pontificate on how a homosexual must experience his or her orientation, e.g. "it's like having green eyes."

 

 

I think the lgbqt movement is shifting away from the "your born with it" argument anyway.

 

I dont really know why you have a problem with what I said, maybe you are taking more meaning from it than there is meant to be. And yes, you are born with it. Regardless of if the culture has turned that phrase into a colloquialism is irrelevant to the fact that it is true.  However I do not believe that it is an all or nothing scenario as your experience seems to confirm as well; I believe homosexuality is a spectrum and you can fall on that spectrum and have homosexual attraction to varying degrees.

 

I think it is entirely possible for someone to feel an attraction to the same or different sex at one point in their life but as they grow older and they mature they might change their mind. It doesnt mean their genes have changed, it just means that maybe the more dominant preference is shining through.

 

Nothing I am saying right now is at all factual and I have nothing to back i up. It is simply my speculation based on the little I know from the published research as well as experiences with others. For example, we have all had friends that at one point in their life (maybe high school or something) who may have believed they were gay/straight but after 10 years, going through college, experience different things, they have ultimately decided they are the opposite. And thats fine. It doesnt mean they are confused, it doesnt mean something changed, it just mean that they might have a higher affinity for one sex over the other and are simply trying to understand where they fall.

 

I have a friend right now who is 27 and felt she was straight all her life. She is now in her first lesbian relationship. I do not think she is confused but I do believe that she is finally comfortable enough to realize that part f her and try it.

 

And from what geneticists understand about homosexuality is that its not as simple as a single gene that makes you gay or straight. Its similar to eye color in that there are multiple factors that are in play which give you he color of your eyes. This is one of the reasons I think it is a spectrum. 

 

I hope that explanation helps. And O M G this background is effing with my tablet. Goodness.

[Benedictus]

Crosscut are you straight? You don't have to answer that question, I'm just wondering because in my experience it's usually straight people who have never questioned their sexuality who say things like this:

 

 

Again, you don't need to answer and I hope you aren't offended, but I reject this statement out of hand based on my experience. There are some people I imagine, who are either attracted to the opposite sex, or the same sex very early on in life. There are others, like myself, who have experienced quite different modes of attraction during different stages in their life, and whose objects of attraction have changed with circumstances, hormonal/biological changes, and yes prayerful discipline.

 

Now, there are those who will say I'm just confused, or was confused, and there are certainly many things that bewilder me, but as someone who has never really felt honest saying "yes I'm gay" or "yes I'm straight" or even "yes I'm bi/asexual/cis/whateverthehellelse" I do find it funny that a lot of solidly straight folk pontificate on how a homosexual must experience his or her orientation, e.g. "it's like having green eyes."

 

 

I think the lgbqt movement is shifting away from the "your born with it" argument anyway.

 

There are plenty of Gay people who say the same thing as CrossCut. Her sexuality makes no difference, unless you're saying heterosexuals are somehow unique in not having the same developments and processes as Gay people do. Heterosexuality and Homosexuality are merely identity labels for attractions. There's lots of scope inbetween that and in how people decide to identitfy. Not all bisexuals identify as such, as an example. Culture and religion (plus other factors) impact how people identify as well. But it doesn't change the underlying issues.

To illustrate the point I'd suggest looking up the Kinsey Scale (a bit dated now, but helpful), and the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid. There's others also. Basically there's lots of work in this area, by sexologists and others. The answer is: people don't easily fit easily into binary frames or label boxes, even when they try to do so. Such is life.

I'm not sure the LGBT movement is moving away from a genetic basis. It seems they are open to any causes/factors, although the consensus is, as far as I can tell from scientists, is that it's caused largely by genetic factors and probaly others things also.The change I think that's happening is that more people are thinking 'so what?' Regardless of the causes they just want to be respected for the person they are and get on with living a happy life. Understanding the causes, and the genetic base, was a phase in the evolution, a reaction even, to gain evidence (and understanding) that orientation isn't merely a defective behaviour. Now the focus has changed, which is to be expected. Different times raise new challenges and interests.
 

Edited July 26, 2014 by Benedictus

[CrossCuT]

You understand me

[Ice_nine]

I was just wondering dang

[Ice_nine]

To be specific I take issue with the idea that people cannot change being homosexual, or anything for that matter. Maybe some cannot change, maybe most people cannot change, but to pontificate that it is something fixed in the sense that it's impervious to a person's will . . . I don't agree with that. Maybe to an extent I can agree with that, but not without qualifications.

 

 

[CrossCuT]

I think changig yourself where sexual orientation is concerned is a sticky and highly specualtive topic that has a lot of personal implications. Its entirely up to the insividual and how that want and/or can emotionally handle.

Im assuming you dont advocate for the gay therapy endorsed by ccertain christian extremist groups?

[Benedictus]

The consensus is that change 'therapy' doesn't work, at least not in altering the base attractions. It's not an ideal comparison, but if we think of those who write with their left hand. In years gone by many people thought it undesirable, even evil, to have have this inclination to write with your left hand. So they often made the person learn to use the right hand instead. This would be very difficult, but many did so to conform to these ideas. It never removed their inclination to use their left hands but they could function with their right hands, to varying degrees. This is what basically what exgay therapy, in some cases, managed to do. But it was often proclaimed as a cure, which wasn't true. It caused more psychological damage than benefits, because of the methods that are needed to acheive the ends. It's doomed to failure in those on the spectrum who have all, or virtually all, attraction to the same sex. Now if a man is bisexual and has say a 60% attraction to men but a 40% attraction to women then maybe he could be trained  (or choose) to ignore the dominant inclination. I imagine some people can do this fairly well, but others obviously can't as they're in a totally different place. The issue now is: why would anyone need or want to do this? Unless the person needs to conform to a religion, expectation or culture than it's not a desirable thing to try and put yourself through. I would imagine the success rate would be equally as poor if strongly identified heterosexuals underwent change therapy to become Gay. Thankfully that isn't on the cards!