Dialogue, Readings and Assignments for Lexington High School's course
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Gender and Sexual Orientation. . .
Before we spend the next few classes talking about the struggle for gay and lesbian civil rights, I would like you to read an excerpt from Eric Marcuses' anthology of oral histories, "Making History". Please read the excerpt below about Barbara Gittings and Kay Lahusen's struggle to get the American Psychological Association's hesitation to drop homosexuality from its list of of mental disorders.
I thought it interesting that homosexuality was considered a sickness. I didn't have too much prior knowledge on the subject, but i think this article just goes to show how change starts with one or two people that will stand up for beliefs they share with other people who remain silent. In America most of our Civil Rights movement progressions started with a small group of people standing up persistently for the whole country. The more they fought the more supporters they gained, until the law was forced to change.
I was also surprised to find out that homoesexuality was once considered an illness, but at the same time I kind of expected that. Change isn't something that most people take very lightly, and when homosexuality started coming out, people obviously resorted to assuming that it was some kind of mental illness. Anyone significantly different from what the norm was, I assume, was considered to have some sort of mental sickness to some extent, and while this is definitely ignorant and narrowminded, it's a sad side of human nature. I think that the measures that Gittings and Lahusen took to get homosexuality off of the list of mental illnessess were all good plans; especially having a gay psychiatrist speak out on the difficulties of living life in a closet. That especially brought the situation into perspective for people who considered it to be a scientific illness, and made their effort so successful.
I agree with what Jackie said. I was surprised that homosexuality was thought of as a sickness. However, after talks, interviews, panels etc, some people changed. At the end of the article it's mentioned that people thought insults like "I don't like the way you live" or just plain "I don't like you" or other things were more honest than "you're sick". I think the Day of Silence is an example of showing how much LGBTS people had to suffer in those days. It was hard for them, almost impossible, to be accepted for who they were. Now the Day of Silence gives us a chance to live that time over again, what it's like to be unable to speak out about who you are.
The first article didn't work for me, but i read the second one. From reading the comments above, it seems as though the two articles had similar themes. Zach told his parents he was gay and was sent to conversion camp. The journalist compared this camp to the twelve step plan for alcoholics; people believe that being gay is a problem that needs to (and can be) fixed. Although, the success rate was very low, only three out of eleven (ish). I would imagine that such low success rate (if you can even call neutrality towards sexual relations or suppressing homosexual desires rather than heterosexual desires) would convince the people who run the camps that their methods are not working very well.
It is hard to believe that homosexuality was once considered a sickness or mental illness because I think our society has come a long way in terms of accepting all different kinds of people. Similar to calling transexuality a "gender disorder", homosexuality was also among a way of life that made people confused and scared. When people have fear, especially in other people, they tend to immediately label something wrong with them. I think it is great for our society to see that just two motivated and dedicated people who are standing up for what they believe in can positively change the world for the better to make everyone more accepting and peaceful with one another.
It is crazy some of the things this country has believed in, one of these absurdities being that homosexuality is a sickness, a mental disorder. Personally, I think that theory is right up there with witches. It isn't true. Like witches in Salem, it is one of those things you look back on in history and almost laugh that our country could possibly believe such a thing.
Well, different to the people who posted before i did, i am not really surprised that homosexuality was considered being a sickness. I mean, people believed that there are actually witches who have to be burned, too. Anyways, i personally can remember a discussion with my brother when i was.. i dont know i think like 12? I said to my brother that homosexuality cannot be what the nature wanted us to be, because if everyone would be homosexual no one would get kids. i therefore concluded that homosexuality is wrong, or at least not what we are supposed to do. I think differently now, in a sense of ethics and morality i think that homosexuality should be accepted exaclty like heterosexuality. i just think that it doesnt surprise me that people thought (and there are still people who think that nowadays) that homosexuality is a sickness. Because if you call it a sickness, it is curable. Funny fact, did you know that some monkeys (i dont remember which species) have sex with other male monkeys if they do not find a female monkey to have it with? What does that mean? does that mean that homosexuality is a part of our nature? is it maybe more natural to live your homosexual side than ignoring it? another funny fact, and i guess you knew that, did you know that pederasty, the erotic relationship between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside his immediate family, (thank you wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty) was socially accepted in ancient Greece? Adult men, most of the times they were like 30 and had a wife, had sexual relationships with boys from the age from 13 until 18. This usually brought a social step up for the boy.(in turkey this was kind of popular too, at around 1400, 1500) I think thats really interesting because that was basically homosexual, but very accepted, even socially respected. What i want to say is that most of these themes are just a mirror of our society and morality, and apparently these themes are very important or reoccuring nowadays.
This whole "homosexuality is a disease" thing is totally pointless, at least to me. Why do people think that Because it's "unnatural"? Aside from the fact that it is, indeed, natural, what does anyone care about nature these days? We live in a world constructed almost entirely by people, and in some big cities, don't even have to see more than a square foot of grass a day. Because it's offensive? Most gay people at least have the sence to cover up more than all the "normal", stright people we see these days, even if it is just to disguise who they really are. The thought of sending a homosexual to a therapist to cure them seems like, at best, just another crazy way to try to stimulate the economy by spending on services that clearly won't work. It's awfully pointless, and only does no good for anyone other than the therapist being paid.
A lot of people seem to be agreeing that homosexuality isn't a disease. I think the common use of the word disease is something bad that you should fix. And by this definition of the word, homosexuality isn't a disease. The dictionary definition is a little different, and it could easily be argued that homosexuality is a disease by that definition, but when homosexuality is no longer labeled as a disease, gaining equal right becomes much easier. The article pointed this out saying that since they went after the doctors first, it was much easier to make even further progress. Because I think it would be really hard for people to outspokenly supporting gay people when it meant disagree with the law and with the professionals.
I was aware that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder in the past, and it is easy to see how people wouldn't realize this. Being gay in our society today is (somewhat) accepted. Once the classification of homosexuality being a disease was changed, it made it easier for homosexuals to become accepted in society because people didn't think they had some mental disorder that they could try to cure.
Homosexuality being labeled as a disease or disorder is similar to someone who is transgendered being labeled as having "gender identity disorder". Being transgendered is still considered a mental disorder, which raises similar problems that homosexuals were facing in the 70s, that people think they can cure people of being transgendered (as we saw in one of the npr articles about transgendered children).
It's unbelievable that people saw homosexuality as a sickness. And the reason everyone believed it was because it was supposedly backed by scientific evidence. Also Kay talks about how no one believed that homosexuality wasn't a sickness because science thought it was and no one was going against that. Kay says that no matter what they said the scientist's words were always correct. It's amazing to me how just what people say can affect how a certain group of people live. At the end of the story Barbara says " WE were cured over night with the stroke of a pen." Which shows that as soon as the public saw that gays were "cured" then they could believe that and continue on with their lives. All they had to due was hear it from a scientific view and it was true. "Sickness" just has a bad vibe and unethical.
What I found most interesting was the way the article compared the scientific way people viewed homosexuality to the religious way people viewed (and still view) homosexuality. Scientifically, homosexuality was viewed as a sickness, but religiously, homosexuality was viewed as immoral. It’s interesting that the scientific community thought that people were victims to homosexuality whereas religious people thought that homosexuals were deliberately corrupt. The gay rights activists attacked the idea of homosexuality as a sickness first, because that would prove that they understand and accept who they are. It would show to other people that they are both perfectly sane and gay. The idea of homosexuality as immoral, however, is harder to fight, because everyone has a different set of moral codes.
I found it interesting, like many people, that people thought homosexuality was a sickness. The way people believed the psychiatrists and their ideas made it seem like the psychiatrists were the only people speaking out about homosexuality, but there were other people fighting for equality. I also found it interesting that the idea of homosexuality was more politically based than medicinally based. Like many things today, political beliefs seem to "govern" all other beliefs. Many people get caught up in what people will think of their ideas in a political sense that they do not think about how to effectively convey their idea in a way that makes progress happen.
I found it amazing, like everyone else, that being a homosexual was considered a sickness. I felt like the fact that more people listened to the politics of homosexuality that they didn't even think to listen to the people who actually were homosexuals. The fact that people had a label to stick was all they needed to forget that everyone are not always alike. I feel like because psychiatrists didn't totally understand homosexuality and the people who were homosexual, they had to come up with some 'reason' why homosexuals existed and how they could be 'cured'.
I have heard before that being homosexual was a sickness becaues of the book One Flew Over the Cukoos nest. The book hinted to one of the patients being gay and that being the reason for him in the hospital. What was intersting to me was at the end of the article when the Barbra said that she would rather have people just say right out that they don't like them. I think that our soceity sometimes covers feelings up by making laws or in this case considering homosexuals as being sick.
I was aware that some people considered being gay a sickness however I wasn't aware how many people believed this. I think it is great what "mr.H" did, and even though he couldn't show his real safe for fear of his career, it is still impressive what those people did, and how a couple people's voices can change a lot of people's belief's.
I thought the argument between being sick and immoral was very interesting. It said that 20 million gays were cured overnight with the stroke of a pen. The fact that gays were considered sick is very close minded of the psychologists who were analyzing the situation. As stated in the atricle, being sick meant that is was scintifically wrong and unnatural for these people to live this way. It's not like they decide who they are going to be attracted to, it's just who they are. Declaring homosexuals as "sick" automatically makes them outcasts to the rest of society. It is not giving them the chance to explain themselves. At least with being described as "immoral" opens the doors for more discussion and explanation. Saying that someone is immoral is someone's personal opinion, not scientific fact. That person does not have to agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but they at least have to accept it as part of society and human nature.
I found it interesting that people first call it a sickness. And I can see what Barbara is saying how people today are no longer saying it is a sickness and say it's imoral to cover it up. I guess it could be as an excuse to "cover" the underlying reason of "I don't like homosexuals" but then if we think back in the context, there are some that truely do believe that homosexuality is a sickness. It is human nature to just classify/specify/group anything. And a simple solution is to just classify homosexuality as a sickness. And only after scientific research/science, do people truely know it's not a sickness and therefore call it immoral. I am not saying that Barbara is wrong or anything like that, I just thought it was interesting and pose another possible reason why the people back then call it a sickness aside from the "cover up for the true reason of dislike of homosexuals/of homophobia."
Humans really are scared of what they don't understand. To many people, homosexuality is just unbelievable--it probably makes them feel better just to dump it in the category of 'sickness'. The fact that difference generally unnerves people also adds to it. Difference makes people uncomfortable, and the easiest way to deal with that is to scorn and push away. They don't bother actually listening to homosexuals, and instead take in what they hear about them and base their opinions on that. I agree with Annie in that people tend to forget that everyone is different and acts differently--stereotypes are many times inaccurate, but many people just accept them as true because they've never actually met an openly gay person.
It was pretty interesting how the feminist/gay activist groups got the APA to remove homosexuality from their list of diseases after only 3 years of the first incident of bringing the topic up. What I wonder is, that if gays and lesbians considered themselves to be sick before the APA ruling, did the ruling change their views upon themselves? Or did they still believe that they had a mental defect?
I wasn't surprised that people considered homosexuality a sickness either - as someone said, when faced with the unknown, something different from "normal" and against religion and gender roles, they tried to explain it by calling it a sickness. I also found it interesting that Barbara (I think) said that the APA ruling was more of a political decision than a medical decision. This highlights the fact that people weren't really seeing homosexuality from a medical standpoint, but through the lens of social norms. So, with the APA ruling, it would not be a change in medical knowledge, but in politics, that would make the decision.
Homosexuality being considered a disease was not surprising to me, what was surprising however, was how it was formally recognized by the APA as a disease. I always thought it had been a cultural decision to considered gay people “sick”. I did not know that even professionals and businesses considered it a disease. People said that it was scientifically immoral for people to be gay. I think that many people today still have a problem with homosexuality, however, they just cover it up much more, since it is more socially acceptable in these times depending on where you live.
I agree, that although it is shocking to think of homosexuality being a disease or sickness I can see that it was viewed that way. When ever any one is different people are afraid of the difference. It is also easy to say someone is sick and leave it at that, many people don't question doctors.
I really liked it when they finally said "We are the people whose behavior you are trying to change. Stop talking about us and start talking with us." It makes perfect sense. Were people to afraid before to even talk to homosexuals? It seems like people didn't want to understand and accept them. If anything this just proves that homosexuals are not sick. They were level headed enough to see this simple solution.
I was not surprised that homosexuality was once considered a sickness. Society is built to fear everything that is different. We are all supposed to be "normal" and if we're not, there is something wrong with us. This is a ridiculous statement, but it is driven into our conscious, it is what we are meant to believe. And as much as I think we have progressed, as a whole, in accepting homosexuality, I think we are far from viewing it equally with heterosexually, if we will ever be able to mature to that point. But it is a very real, reachable hope.
It's always shocking for me to hear that people are afraid of and want to have nothing to do with someone who is different from who they are. Although it is not uncommon, I cannot grow accustomed to the idea that someone once decided that gays and lesbians were scientifically sick and needed a cure, and that people all over the country believed that person. I was surprised that the decision to take gayness off the mental disability list happened so fast, yet as the author said, there was no scientific proof to back up this scientific evidence
I thought it was interesting that, at the end, the author says she thinks it's more honest for people to say that homosexuals are immoral than sick. I understand what she means, but I still think that either statement is offensive. I don't think that we should be focusing on how one mean statement is more or less cruel than another mean statement.
I had heard before that homosexuals used to be thought of as mentally sick, but I never really thought about what that would feel like until reading this article. I can't even imagine what it would be like if society decided to label me as sick for who I am.
i thought it was interesting how the people where saying they where "sick" i mean did they do any type of test on them to see if they where this quote un-quote sick. and i liked the idea of getting the guy to speak out to the APA i thought that was pretty smart because then people for themselves could judge.And i wonder if the religions will ever get over the gy thing and just except it bc im sure thiers got to be one or to of them who are gay...
A lot of people thought bein gay was a sickness therefore parents took their children to take to psychologists or adults were force to see them. It was interesting that both straight and gay doctors did not think gay was a "sickness". I think that more communities should take apart or form more group discussions about homosexuality to spread awareness around. -CANDice
It was shocking to read that at one time people thought being homosexual was a sickness, its weird that people could not accept the fact that some people were just different than they were. In order for awareness to spread people need to be willing to go out on a limb and attempt to get their point across. The only way people will find out about homosexuality and learn to accept it is to hear about it. By giving communities the oppertunity to take part in a group about spreading awareness about homosexuality, more people will eventually begin to accept it.
I thought it interesting that homosexuality was considered a sickness. I didn't have too much prior knowledge on the subject, but i think this article just goes to show how change starts with one or two people that will stand up for beliefs they share with other people who remain silent. In America most of our Civil Rights movement progressions started with a small group of people standing up persistently for the whole country. The more they fought the more supporters they gained, until the law was forced to change.
ReplyDeleteI was also surprised to find out that homoesexuality was once considered an illness, but at the same time I kind of expected that. Change isn't something that most people take very lightly, and when homosexuality started coming out, people obviously resorted to assuming that it was some kind of mental illness. Anyone significantly different from what the norm was, I assume, was considered to have some sort of mental sickness to some extent, and while this is definitely ignorant and narrowminded, it's a sad side of human nature. I think that the measures that Gittings and Lahusen took to get homosexuality off of the list of mental illnessess were all good plans; especially having a gay psychiatrist speak out on the difficulties of living life in a closet. That especially brought the situation into perspective for people who considered it to be a scientific illness, and made their effort so successful.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Jackie said. I was surprised that homosexuality was thought of as a sickness. However, after talks, interviews, panels etc, some people changed.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the article it's mentioned that people thought insults like "I don't like the way you live" or just plain "I don't like you" or other things were more honest than "you're sick".
I think the Day of Silence is an example of showing how much LGBTS people had to suffer in those days. It was hard for them, almost impossible, to be accepted for who they were. Now the Day of Silence gives us a chance to live that time over again, what it's like to be unable to speak out about who you are.
The first article didn't work for me, but i read the second one. From reading the comments above, it seems as though the two articles had similar themes. Zach told his parents he was gay and was sent to conversion camp. The journalist compared this camp to the twelve step plan for alcoholics; people believe that being gay is a problem that needs to (and can be) fixed. Although, the success rate was very low, only three out of eleven (ish). I would imagine that such low success rate (if you can even call neutrality towards sexual relations or suppressing homosexual desires rather than heterosexual desires) would convince the people who run the camps that their methods are not working very well.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to believe that homosexuality was once considered a sickness or mental illness because I think our society has come a long way in terms of accepting all different kinds of people. Similar to calling transexuality a "gender disorder", homosexuality was also among a way of life that made people confused and scared. When people have fear, especially in other people, they tend to immediately label something wrong with them. I think it is great for our society to see that just two motivated and dedicated people who are standing up for what they believe in can positively change the world for the better to make everyone more accepting and peaceful with one another.
ReplyDeleteIt is crazy some of the things this country has believed in, one of these absurdities being that homosexuality is a sickness, a mental disorder. Personally, I think that theory is right up there with witches. It isn't true. Like witches in Salem, it is one of those things you look back on in history and almost laugh that our country could possibly believe such a thing.
ReplyDeleteWell, different to the people who posted before i did, i am not really surprised that homosexuality was considered being a sickness. I mean, people believed that there are actually witches who have to be burned, too. Anyways, i personally can remember a discussion with my brother when i was.. i dont know i think like 12? I said to my brother that homosexuality cannot be what the nature wanted us to be, because if everyone would be homosexual no one would get kids. i therefore concluded that homosexuality is wrong, or at least not what we are supposed to do. I think differently now, in a sense of ethics and morality i think that homosexuality should be accepted exaclty like heterosexuality. i just think that it doesnt surprise me that people thought (and there are still people who think that nowadays) that homosexuality is a sickness. Because if you call it a sickness, it is curable. Funny fact, did you know that some monkeys (i dont remember which species) have sex with other male monkeys if they do not find a female monkey to have it with? What does that mean? does that mean that homosexuality is a part of our nature? is it maybe more natural to live your homosexual side than ignoring it?
ReplyDeleteanother funny fact, and i guess you knew that, did you know that pederasty, the erotic relationship between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside his immediate family, (thank you wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty) was socially accepted in ancient Greece? Adult men, most of the times they were like 30 and had a wife, had sexual relationships with boys from the age from 13 until 18. This usually brought a social step up for the boy.(in turkey this was kind of popular too, at around 1400, 1500) I think thats really interesting because that was basically homosexual, but very accepted, even socially respected. What i want to say is that most of these themes are just a mirror of our society and morality, and apparently these themes are very important or reoccuring nowadays.
This whole "homosexuality is a disease" thing is totally pointless, at least to me. Why do people think that Because it's "unnatural"? Aside from the fact that it is, indeed, natural, what does anyone care about nature these days? We live in a world constructed almost entirely by people, and in some big cities, don't even have to see more than a square foot of grass a day. Because it's offensive? Most gay people at least have the sence to cover up more than all the "normal", stright people we see these days, even if it is just to disguise who they really are.
ReplyDeleteThe thought of sending a homosexual to a therapist to cure them seems like, at best, just another crazy way to try to stimulate the economy by spending on services that clearly won't work. It's awfully pointless, and only does no good for anyone other than the therapist being paid.
A lot of people seem to be agreeing that homosexuality isn't a disease. I think the common use of the word disease is something bad that you should fix. And by this definition of the word, homosexuality isn't a disease. The dictionary definition is a little different, and it could easily be argued that homosexuality is a disease by that definition, but when homosexuality is no longer labeled as a disease, gaining equal right becomes much easier. The article pointed this out saying that since they went after the doctors first, it was much easier to make even further progress. Because I think it would be really hard for people to outspokenly supporting gay people when it meant disagree with the law and with the professionals.
ReplyDeleteI was aware that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder in the past, and it is easy to see how people wouldn't realize this. Being gay in our society today is (somewhat) accepted. Once the classification of homosexuality being a disease was changed, it made it easier for homosexuals to become accepted in society because people didn't think they had some mental disorder that they could try to cure.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality being labeled as a disease or disorder is similar to someone who is transgendered being labeled as having "gender identity disorder". Being transgendered is still considered a mental disorder, which raises similar problems that homosexuals were facing in the 70s, that people think they can cure people of being transgendered (as we saw in one of the npr articles about transgendered children).
It's unbelievable that people saw homosexuality as a sickness. And the reason everyone believed it was because it was supposedly backed by scientific evidence. Also Kay talks about how no one believed that homosexuality wasn't a sickness because science thought it was and no one was going against that. Kay says that no matter what they said the scientist's words were always correct. It's amazing to me how just what people say can affect how a certain group of people live. At the end of the story Barbara says " WE were cured over night with the stroke of a pen." Which shows that as soon as the public saw that gays were "cured" then they could believe that and continue on with their lives. All they had to due was hear it from a scientific view and it was true. "Sickness" just has a bad vibe and unethical.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting was the way the article compared the scientific way people viewed homosexuality to the religious way people viewed (and still view) homosexuality. Scientifically, homosexuality was viewed as a sickness, but religiously, homosexuality was viewed as immoral. It’s interesting that the scientific community thought that people were victims to homosexuality whereas religious people thought that homosexuals were deliberately corrupt. The gay rights activists attacked the idea of homosexuality as a sickness first, because that would prove that they understand and accept who they are. It would show to other people that they are both perfectly sane and gay. The idea of homosexuality as immoral, however, is harder to fight, because everyone has a different set of moral codes.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting, like many people, that people thought homosexuality was a sickness. The way people believed the psychiatrists and their ideas made it seem like the psychiatrists were the only people speaking out about homosexuality, but there were other people fighting for equality. I also found it interesting that the idea of homosexuality was more politically based than medicinally based. Like many things today, political beliefs seem to "govern" all other beliefs. Many people get caught up in what people will think of their ideas in a political sense that they do not think about how to effectively convey their idea in a way that makes progress happen.
ReplyDeleteI found it amazing, like everyone else, that being a homosexual was considered a sickness. I felt like the fact that more people listened to the politics of homosexuality that they didn't even think to listen to the people who actually were homosexuals. The fact that people had a label to stick was all they needed to forget that everyone are not always alike. I feel like because psychiatrists didn't totally understand homosexuality and the people who were homosexual, they had to come up with some 'reason' why homosexuals existed and how they could be 'cured'.
ReplyDeleteI have heard before that being homosexual was a sickness becaues of the book One Flew Over the Cukoos nest. The book hinted to one of the patients being gay and that being the reason for him in the hospital. What was intersting to me was at the end of the article when the Barbra said that she would rather have people just say right out that they don't like them. I think that our soceity sometimes covers feelings up by making laws or in this case considering homosexuals as being sick.
ReplyDeleteI was aware that some people considered being gay a sickness however I wasn't aware how many people believed this. I think it is great what "mr.H" did, and even though he couldn't show his real safe for fear of his career, it is still impressive what those people did, and how a couple people's voices can change a lot of people's belief's.
ReplyDeleteps by safe I meant real face.
ReplyDeleteI thought the argument between being sick and immoral was very interesting. It said that 20 million gays were cured overnight with the stroke of a pen. The fact that gays were considered sick is very close minded of the psychologists who were analyzing the situation. As stated in the atricle, being sick meant that is was scintifically wrong and unnatural for these people to live this way. It's not like they decide who they are going to be attracted to, it's just who they are. Declaring homosexuals as "sick" automatically makes them outcasts to the rest of society. It is not giving them the chance to explain themselves. At least with being described as "immoral" opens the doors for more discussion and explanation. Saying that someone is immoral is someone's personal opinion, not scientific fact. That person does not have to agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but they at least have to accept it as part of society and human nature.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that people first call it a sickness. And I can see what Barbara is saying how people today are no longer saying it is a sickness and say it's imoral to cover it up. I guess it could be as an excuse to "cover" the underlying reason of "I don't like homosexuals" but then if we think back in the context, there are some that truely do believe that homosexuality is a sickness. It is human nature to just classify/specify/group anything. And a simple solution is to just classify homosexuality as a sickness. And only after scientific research/science, do people truely know it's not a sickness and therefore call it immoral. I am not saying that Barbara is wrong or anything like that, I just thought it was interesting and pose another possible reason why the people back then call it a sickness aside from the "cover up for the true reason of dislike of homosexuals/of homophobia."
ReplyDeleteHumans really are scared of what they don't understand. To many people, homosexuality is just unbelievable--it probably makes them feel better just to dump it in the category of 'sickness'. The fact that difference generally unnerves people also adds to it. Difference makes people uncomfortable, and the easiest way to deal with that is to scorn and push away. They don't bother actually listening to homosexuals, and instead take in what they hear about them and base their opinions on that. I agree with Annie in that people tend to forget that everyone is different and acts differently--stereotypes are many times inaccurate, but many people just accept them as true because they've never actually met an openly gay person.
ReplyDeleteIt was pretty interesting how the feminist/gay activist groups got the APA to remove homosexuality from their list of diseases after only 3 years of the first incident of bringing the topic up. What I wonder is, that if gays and lesbians considered themselves to be sick before the APA ruling, did the ruling change their views upon themselves? Or did they still believe that they had a mental defect?
ReplyDeleteI wasn't surprised that people considered homosexuality a sickness either - as someone said, when faced with the unknown, something different from "normal" and against religion and gender roles, they tried to explain it by calling it a sickness. I also found it interesting that Barbara (I think) said that the APA ruling was more of a political decision than a medical decision. This highlights the fact that people weren't really seeing homosexuality from a medical standpoint, but through the lens of social norms. So, with the APA ruling, it would not be a change in medical knowledge, but in politics, that would make the decision.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality being considered a disease was not surprising to me, what was surprising however, was how it was formally recognized by the APA as a disease. I always thought it had been a cultural decision to considered gay people “sick”. I did not know that even professionals and businesses considered it a disease. People said that it was scientifically immoral for people to be gay. I think that many people today still have a problem with homosexuality, however, they just cover it up much more, since it is more socially acceptable in these times depending on where you live.
ReplyDeleteI agree, that although it is shocking to think of homosexuality being a disease or sickness I can see that it was viewed that way. When ever any one is different people are afraid of the difference. It is also easy to say someone is sick and leave it at that, many people don't question doctors.
ReplyDeleteI really liked it when they finally said "We are the people whose behavior you are trying to change. Stop talking about us and start talking with us." It makes perfect sense. Were people to afraid before to even talk to homosexuals? It seems like people didn't want to understand and accept them. If anything this just proves that homosexuals are not sick. They were level headed enough to see this simple solution.
I was not surprised that homosexuality was once considered a sickness. Society is built to fear everything that is different. We are all supposed to be "normal" and if we're not, there is something wrong with us. This is a ridiculous statement, but it is driven into our conscious, it is what we are meant to believe. And as much as I think we have progressed, as a whole, in accepting homosexuality, I think we are far from viewing it equally with heterosexually, if we will ever be able to mature to that point. But it is a very real, reachable hope.
ReplyDeleteIt's always shocking for me to hear that people are afraid of and want to have nothing to do with someone who is different from who they are. Although it is not uncommon, I cannot grow accustomed to the idea that someone once decided that gays and lesbians were scientifically sick and needed a cure, and that people all over the country believed that person. I was surprised that the decision to take gayness off the mental disability list happened so fast, yet as the author said, there was no scientific proof to back up this scientific evidence
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that, at the end, the author says she thinks it's more honest for people to say that homosexuals are immoral than sick. I understand what she means, but I still think that either statement is offensive. I don't think that we should be focusing on how one mean statement is more or less cruel than another mean statement.
ReplyDeleteI had heard before that homosexuals used to be thought of as mentally sick, but I never really thought about what that would feel like until reading this article. I can't even imagine what it would be like if society decided to label me as sick for who I am.
i thought it was interesting how the people where saying they where "sick" i mean did they do any type of test on them to see if they where this quote un-quote sick. and i liked the idea of getting the guy to speak out to the APA i thought that was pretty smart because then people for themselves could judge.And i wonder if the religions will ever get over the gy thing and just except it bc im sure thiers got to be one or to of them who are gay...
ReplyDeleteA lot of people thought bein gay was a sickness therefore parents took their children to take to psychologists or adults were force to see them. It was interesting that both straight and gay doctors did not think gay was a "sickness". I think that more communities should take apart or form more group discussions about homosexuality to spread awareness around.
ReplyDelete-CANDice
It was shocking to read that at one time people thought being homosexual was a sickness, its weird that people could not accept the fact that some people were just different than they were. In order for awareness to spread people need to be willing to go out on a limb and attempt to get their point across. The only way people will find out about homosexuality and learn to accept it is to hear about it. By giving communities the oppertunity to take part in a group about spreading awareness about homosexuality, more people will eventually begin to accept it.
ReplyDelete