Homophobia is a Social Illness: Odom Corrects Gryboski’s “Reason”

By Daniel Odom

In 1948, renowned sexologist, Alfred Kinsey, published his groundbreaking text, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” which affirmed that homosexual activities were increasingly prevalent amongst males within the American population; at least 10% of those surveyed who fully identified as fully homosexual with an additional 37% of those surveyed admitting to their involvement in at least one homosexual encounter. Despite Kinsey’s revolutionary findings, which affirmed a greater presence of homosexually inclined individuals than ever before, the first issue of the Diagnostic Statistics Manual (DSM-I) published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1952, classified homosexuality among an extensive list of psychological disorders do to its denial of the biological and physiological “norms” of heterosexual behavior. Prominent psychoanalyst Irving Bieber, stated in 1962 that the APA’s decision to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder was legitimate due to its easy ability to be medicinally treated. However, while he notes the ability to “switch” sexualities could occur to “all homosexuals who are strongly motivated to change,” Bieber acknowledges that full successful implementation of sexual orientation conversion was not universally achievable to all individuals.

In 1973 the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder and categorized it as “Sexual Orientation Disturbance” due to a variety of factors both scientifically and sociologically determined. In his article Gryboski posits that, “politics was the chief factor” in the reversal of the APA’s stance concerning homosexuality. However, in a statement issued by the official DSM website in 2007, “decisions to include a diagnosis in the DSM are based on a careful consideration underlying the disorder…Scientific data cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. Sociological and other considerations must also be taken into account.” Thus, as the DSM notes, while not definitively equal in their characteristics, both science and politics are valid factors for the removal of disorders from the DSM. In understanding the historical petitioning of homosexuals (namely the early GLBT rights organization, The Mattachine Society) on the basis of Bieber’s acknowledgement of psychological inadequacies in the sustainable treatment of homosexuality, one discovers that a combination of “political correction” and “reason” led to the removal of homosexuality as a DSM disorder; politics did not exclude scientific data in homosexuality’s declassification as Gryboski argues.

Affirming their original act in 1973, the APA stated against the sexual orientation modifying treatments in 2007. The APA argued that treatments utilized for the purpose of sexual orientation modification (ex-gay therapies) are psychologically more problematic to people who identify as homosexual rather than simply self-acknowledging one’s non-heterosexual orientation. They state, “To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation is safe or effective…it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforce stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay and bisexual persons.” Therefore, consistent denial of the legitimate social and psychological status of non-heterosexuals (exemplified by Gryboski’s statements) further increases the harmful social issues facing homosexuals: depression, substance abuse, and self-esteem issues. As a result, one can deduce that homophobic sentiments such as those expressed by Gryboski due more to classify homosexuals as an at-risk population than the removal of the APAs mental disorder label.

Gryboski argues that the George Mason campus accepts and legitimates the social and psychological standings of LGBTQ students. However, the necessity for this institutional legitimization is of the upmost importance given the current national homophobic activities afflicting LGBTQ Americans. Hate crimes against LGBTQ individuals are on the rise. In an official statement issued by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2005, “Homosexuals are far more likely to suffer violent attacks than any other group…gays and lesbians are physically attacked in bias-motivated crimes six times more often than Jews or Hispanics and twice as frequently as blacks1.” Additionally, the most recent report issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2006 shows that local enforcement agencies across the United States reported that of the 7,722 biased incidents within the U.S.,1,197 of crimes were motivated from sexual orientation bias; a 20% increase of sexual orientation biased hate crimes from statistics filed in 2005.

Therefore, the safety and allowed expression of GLBT individuals within the American collegiate system must be considered by the administration of all higher educational institutions across the country (not just Mason) in order to promote the positive environment of both GLBT students and the adequate reconstruction of homophobic sentimentalities. However, while not entirely complete in establishing itself as an entirely GLBT inclusive school, Mason is still the leading school within the commonwealth of Virginia in terms of its pro-GLBT programs and policies. With an immensely successful Safe Zone program, incredibly dynamic Pride Week, innovative Housing environments, and progressively inclusive student organizations, GMU is a place that all students, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity and expressions, can celebrate their identities and affirm their voices – whether Mr. Gryboski likes it or not.