Guest Gay蜜 Posted December 28, 2016 Report Share Posted December 28, 2016 With the current state of affairs, Singapore gays need more incentives and courage to do that. Some of them when they go pink dot must pretend by wearing white and put on huge reflective sunglasses. Pink dot volunteers are 95% girls (whether straight or not) and the 5% are OLD and WORN OUT gays. Gays would bully and betray other gays everywhere from work place to school to stay closeted. That's the eco system here. We must recognise and eliminate all the 叛奸 and 走狗 amongst us before unity can be sought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Singapore situation Posted December 28, 2016 Report Share Posted December 28, 2016 When you look at the taiwan little bee troops, it's the complete opposite - 95% are young and attractive (masculine) gay guys while 5% are girls (whether lesbian or not). Young and promising gay guys here have much to lose when they can choose to fit in easily among the straight population and avoid outing themselves in public. The 5% guys you see volunteering here in sg are mostly middle-aged gays and the more obviously feminine ones. Just my observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted December 28, 2016 Report Share Posted December 28, 2016 we should see how they mobilize everyone in winning. From top scholars, academics, educationists, psychiatrist, pediatricians, lawyers, writers, artists, advertising, pastors, everyone...... to students, University, NGOs VWOs The bees go to 扫街, like going for election campaign.... 6 months, weekly, daily..... I am more willing to help them, then our own people who are dis-interested. We even cannot co-ordinate for repeal 277a..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ghost Posted December 28, 2016 Report Share Posted December 28, 2016 5 hours ago, Andrew ang525 said: we should see how they mobilize everyone in winning. From top scholars, academics, educationists, psychiatrist, pediatricians, lawyers, writers, artists, advertising, pastors, everyone...... to students, University, NGOs VWOs The bees go to 扫街, like going for election campaign.... 6 months, weekly, daily..... I am more willing to help them, then our own people who are dis-interested. We even cannot co-ordinate for repeal 277a..... 1 You are so right. We need to mobilize the well-respected and influential. Calling our top scholars, academics, educationists, psychiatrists, pediatricians, lawyers, writers and artists ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Labia mouth Posted December 29, 2016 Report Share Posted December 29, 2016 15 hours ago, Guest Ghost said: You are so right. We need to mobilize the well-respected and influential. Calling our top scholars, academics, educationists, psychiatrists, pediatricians, lawyers, writers and artists ...... So far pinkdot organisers only managed to engage celebrities. The top professionals and academics don't want to be linked with "abetting S377A crime" or "promoting homosexuality" in singapore. Do note taiwan is talking about marriage, we are talking about sex. A big taboo and social no no in conservative, repressive singapore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Labia mouth Posted December 29, 2016 Report Share Posted December 29, 2016 Unlike Taiwan, we are a moslem-creestean state, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest balls and brains Posted December 29, 2016 Report Share Posted December 29, 2016 What do those taiwan guys have that we dun? Balls? Brains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Labia mouth Posted December 29, 2016 Report Share Posted December 29, 2016 25 minutes ago, Guest balls and brains said: What do those taiwan guys have that we dun? Balls? Brains? Pedigree. Class. Status. Stature. Calibre. Reputation. Here, we only have old boys, queens, bitches and conspicuous consumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 Our community is not cohesive, and like to sinkie pwn sinkie..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 15 hours ago, Guest Labia mouth said: Unlike Taiwan, we are a moslem-creestean state, period. Don't tell me there aren't christian gays or moslem gays. our Christrian-gays and moslem-gays brothers should stand up and make their voices heard, while we provide the friendly support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 This is the type of video Taiwan gays are willing to produce.... i ask, do our singapore gays willing to do this?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 For a start, we need to have ready made ammunition against youtube videos such as this one ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZX55HUPFSU Add http in front of the link, i hate to make propaganda for such video here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Animal instinct Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 4 hours ago, Andrew ang525 said: Our community is not cohesive, and like to sinkie pwn sinkie..... ....and gay pawn gay! Worse. Singaporeans got no integrity, no backbone, no guts. Only know how to survive like wild animals. PAP treat the whole nation like animal farm, and brought up a whole generation of anima and animus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Animal instinct Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 4 hours ago, Andrew ang525 said: Don't tell me there aren't christian gays or moslem gays. our Christrian-gays and moslem-gays brothers should stand up and make their voices heard, while we provide the friendly support. They kena pawned and 投靠到另一边去了。人不为己，天诛地灭！ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest labia mouth Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 On 28/12/2016 at 7:21 PM, Andrew ang525 said: we should see how they mobilize everyone in winning. From top scholars, academics, educationists, psychiatrist, pediatricians, lawyers, writers, artists, advertising, pastors, everyone...... to students, University, NGOs VWOs The bees go to 扫街, like going for election campaign.... 6 months, weekly, daily..... I am more willing to help them, then our own people who are dis-interested. We even cannot co-ordinate for repeal 277a..... 这里人的私心很重，脸皮又薄。合作起来会非常困难！台湾人比较大气，什么事情都可以摊出来讲。新加坡人是出了名的斤斤计较, 思想太过现实与自私，又眼光短浅！ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest labia mouth Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 这里的人最厉害的就是懂得杀鹅取卵，却往往挂一漏百。基础没打好，只想一步登天，却树立了太多仇视者。 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 http://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=9866 latest development.... and see how their self-help group willing to work on multiple front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 (edited) http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/anti-gay-massresistance-supporting-anti-equality-activists-in-taiwan/ http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-whether-conversion-therapy-can-alter-sexual-orientation-without-causing-harm/ Edited December 30, 2016 by Andrew ang525 add new resources Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 9 minutes ago, Andrew ang525 said: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/anti-gay-massresistance-supporting-anti-equality-activists-in-taiwan/ 我们 不能 坐以待毙 ... But go in peace and love. Pardon those who despise us. Engage the masses. Move the ground with our patience and sincerity. Campaign for true equality for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gas Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 Once there is a Taiwanese singer who criticized that Singaporean are castrate (no balls), the comment that he made is so hurting and yet so true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Guest Gas said: Once there is a Taiwanese singer who criticized that Singaporean are castrate (no balls), the comment that he made is so hurting and yet so true. you just need to see the TERREX saga (SAF vehicles retained in HK), such incidence will trigger off lots of protest in any country....... however, we are so well tamed for no demonstration, that our government cannot even get support from citizens....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 (edited) Why LGBT needs to be examined under microscope, yet their opponents need not be??? . An excellent article - http://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=8147%2F%3F . 在這場論爭中，容易為人所忽略的是，護家盟將同性戀置於鎂光燈焦點下，本身就存在潛在歧視可能而需要更加小心翼翼，否則為什麼同性戀者需要被如此鉅細彌遺地檢視一舉一動，而反同者不需要？為什麼立法院該討論的是《同性伴侶法》而不是《反同伴侶法》或是《基督教伴侶法》？那些支持《同性伴侶法》者均應小心衡量自己與美國過去對有色人種「隔離但平等」之間的距離。 Edited December 30, 2016 by Andrew ang525 formatting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 An IMPORTANT article explaining a legal implication. http://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=9903 What will happen, if a pair of gay-marriage couple has a surrogate child? The child is linked to the intended parent (only one) while the other has no legal lineage. This article explains various options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hugo Posted January 1, 2017 Report Share Posted January 1, 2017 Doctors and lawyers are influential people who can help us in this area. Sadly we don't hear much from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sinkie inc Posted January 1, 2017 Report Share Posted January 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Guest Hugo said: Doctors and lawyers are influential people who can help us in this area. Sadly we don't hear much from them. "Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or ABETS the commission of, or PROCURES or attempts to procure the commission by ANY MALE PERSON of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years." Definition of abet abetted abetting transitive verb 1: to actively second and encourage (as an activity or plan) 2: to assist or support in the achievement of a purpose abetment play \-mənt\ noun abettor less commonly abetter play \ə-ˈbe-tər\ noun procure prəˈkjʊə/ verb 1. obtain (something), especially with care or effort. "food procured for the rebels" synonyms: obtain, acquire, get, find, come by, secure, pick up, get possession of; More 2. LAW persuade or cause (someone) to do something. "he procured his wife to sign the mandate for the joint account" That is what local officials meant when they said they don't want to "promote homosexuality", as the abetment and procurement of another in male homosexual behaviour (S377A) is tantamount to commiting a crime in singapore. Don't we already know Singaporeans are a pragmatic breed with NIMBY syndrome and low level of social justice consciousness? Aren't we asking for the moon to expect otherwise of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 [向不熟悉議題的學術工作者們解釋來龍去脈] (1) 同志平權運動中，有關"婚姻"的議題其實一直有不同路線與論述並存，例如婚權派、性權派、毀廢派。雖然目前看起來是在追求進入婚姻體制，但不表示其它人與人的緊密關係就直接被摒棄切割，只是需要更多討論。 (2) 很多社會大眾與媒體，甚至是LGBT族群看待議題時，有時候容易落入"只看見男同性戀"，或"以男同性戀的處境"為考量，這樣就會讓討論與政策變得不完整。以目前出院會的法案版本來說，就是沒有考量到跨性別者的處境。 (3) 許多原本對同志平權運動發展與論述不熟的朋友，再忽然跳進來支持以後才發現，原來同志不是只有男同志，不是只有女同志，還有其它的面貌。因此在運動策略上難免在初期產生摩擦與爭執。 但這就是社會的全貌，需要溝通與理性思辯，也是年輕人快速長大的必經之路。 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 邱宇弘／國立中央大學客家語文暨社會科學系二年級學生 從小蜜蜂行動中看婚權運動的分歧─一位異性戀大學生的觀點 分歧終究還是爆發了在參加婚姻平權小蜜蜂以前，本身對於性別方面的知識所知甚少，但是我很清楚知道除了傳統異性戀、男同性戀和女同性戀之外，還有很多在性別上更加充滿想像更加多元的族群生活在這個世界上，活生生地生活著，他們也無法透過現行的婚姻制度獲得保障，這是我選擇參加小蜜蜂行動的原因，也是我的初衷。婚姻不見得是什麼好東西，當然更不會是什麼神聖或浪漫的東西，至少我不會這樣看待，但是既然傳統異性戀可以擁有婚姻，就沒理由非傳統異性戀族群不能擁有，就算婚姻是愛情的墳墓，你也不能阻止非傳統異性戀族群自掘墳墓，就這麼簡單的道理。每個人不論差異在法律上都應享有平等的對待，這是基本人權的重要元素──平等權，「婚姻平權」四個字重點完完全全就是落在「平權」兩字上，會出現「婚姻」只是因為這次的修法內容是修改《民法》上婚姻的制定條件罷了。不論如何，我打從心底認為平權才是這次的重點，而且我打從心底認為我們是要為「所有非傳統異性戀族群」發聲，所以不論是在校園內或是街頭上參與小蜜蜂行動、甚至在FB發文時，我都絕不單提「同性戀」、「同性婚姻」、「同志」、「挺同」等等的詞彙，而是用「請支持婚姻平權」、「請保障每個人結婚的權利」來將所有人涵蓋在內，因為不排除任何族群也不強調任何族群時，才是真正的平等。但是自從修正案的討論越發火熱以來，同性戀族群掌握絕對的話語權，不僅止於媒體報導中「挺同人士」、「同志團體」、「同性婚姻」、「同性戀」等用詞頻繁地出現，就連小蜜蜂行動本身，很多人投入街頭時也會喊出「請支持同性婚姻」、「同志也想成家」等口號，甚至傳單上的Q&A就大喇喇以「同志」為主詞進行論述，雖然我聽到口號或看到傳單的時候心裡會有那麼一點點的情緒波動，但我也不曾主動向那些人表達我的想法，那個時候的想法是，本來一個運動當中就有各式各樣的人，每個人都有自己比較在意或是比較想追求的權益，如果那個人就是想將焦點放在「同性婚姻」上，我又能說什麼呢？追根究柢不過就是我心中那個「要為所有非傳統異性戀族群發聲」的想法受到外在衝擊而引起的情緒波動吧！” 吳馨恩說：「早期帶青少年同志聚會，就明顯意識到「男同志霸權」的存在，從其他幹部與參與者身上感受到那種排擠及邊緣化，這也是我初始接觸女性主義的原因。」”其實這種男同性戀霸權，我亦能從參與小蜜蜂的過程當中清楚感受到，從結構面來分析當然有可能是投入這項行動的成員(特別是決策層)當中有很高的比例是男同性戀者，但是更直接的是內部成員之間互動的過程，在各個面相都能深深感受到男同性戀者的絕對力量，而所謂被排擠及邊緣化我覺得只是強度大小的差異罷了，我感受到的力量比較小，而吳馨恩感受到的力量比較大，但是不論如何那股力量我是有感的，所以我絕對相信他的說詞，也可印證父權確實無所不在。 「同性戀掌握話語權又何妨呢？反正法案通過了大家都可以享用成果呀！」沒錯，我原本也是這麼想的，甚至也不過是前一陣子的事，但其實如果可以跳出思維的框架，就會發現這種論調其實是非常狹隘的。 婚權的爭取，是性別運動史上經過無數人的付出、努力甚至犧牲才一步步走到今天這裡的，一切的一切，包含《民法》的修正草案通過委員會初審、包含婚姻平權小蜜蜂的出現(登高一呼就能夠遍地響應)都不是偶然的亦非突然從天上掉下來的，所以在參與小蜜蜂的過程中，必須看到這背後的脈絡，過往為了性別運動付出的不只有同性戀族群，同時目前對於小蜜蜂行動或婚權爭取在出錢出力出時間的，亦非只有同性戀族群，「啊同性戀付出最多當然享受最大的關注」、「除了同性戀之外族群是在吃同運自助餐，自己的權力幹嘛不自己出來爭取」請不要再拿這種充滿歧視與敵意的論調出來攻擊其他更弱勢的族群了。我還記得上學期參加苗博雅 (note: a Lesbian lawyer) 有關社會安全網路的演講，有人曾問說難道爭論死刑的存廢和加強社會基層關懷與建立社會安全網路不能同時並進嗎？她/他的回答是，理論上當然是可以的、是不衝突的，但實務上卻不行，因為當公共議題設定在爭論死刑的存廢上時，社會上能夠動用來溝通、討論與解決問題的資源(包含時間、空間、人力、物力、財力、議題風向)都會集中在爭論死刑的存廢上，社會是不可能同時又去深度討論如何加強社會基層關懷與建立社會安全網路的。我想同樣的道理也同樣適用於目前的狀況，爭取婚姻平權的此時此刻，我們很幸運地享有整個社會能夠動用來溝通、討論與解決問題的資源，但也因此很多的議題是被暫時擱置甚至是被邊緣化的，例如吳馨恩所說 LGBTQIA 的自殺、暴力、藥物、失蹤、疾病等等方面的議題，其實只要稍微深入去分析的話，就能夠明白這是一種實實在在的階級差距，為什麼今天婚姻平權的法案能夠走進立法院內並且獲得整個社會充分資源的支持與關注？而其他如自殺、暴力、藥物、失蹤、疾病等等的議題明明也和性別有很大的關聯，為何卻沒有人重視也沒有相對應資源的投入？我們只要先想想會想結婚成家的是哪個階級，再想想會碰到自殺、暴力、藥物、失蹤與疾病的是哪個階級，這個答案應該已經很明瞭了。 我絕對肯定各地的小蜜蜂們為此法案通過所做的一切努力，但是話語權掌握在同性戀(特別是男同性戀)身上是事實，跨性別者的困境沒有被注重也是事實，爭吵孰對孰錯沒有意義，而是我們如何去省思目前的現況，並且在接下來的運動過程中走出更好的一條路，在享用這些社會資源爭取婚姻平權的同時，請不要忘了有更多更弱勢的族群還活在黑暗的角落，他們亦值得大家付出時間付出心力去好好關心、了解並討論如何解決他們的困境，他們也是性別運動中的一份子，如果我大家真的是在爭平權，就請不要忽視他們的存在！！！ Cube3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube3 Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 2 hours ago, Andrew ang525 said: 從小蜜蜂行動中看婚權運動的分歧─一位異性戀大學生的觀點 我絕對肯定各地的小蜜蜂們為此法案通過所做的一切努力，但是話語權掌握在同性戀(特別是男同性戀)身上是事實，跨性別者的困境沒有被注重也是事實，爭吵孰對孰錯沒有意義，而是我們如何去省思目前的現況，並且在接下來的運動過程中走出更好的一條路，在享用這些社會資源爭取婚姻平權的同時，請不要忘了有更多更弱勢的族群還活在黑暗的角落，他們亦值得大家付出時間付出心力去好好關心、了解並討論如何解決他們的困境，他們也是性別運動中的一份子，如果我大家真的是在爭平權，就請不要忽視他們的存在！！！ 弱勢族群当然需关注，然而婚權運動已牵涉种种复杂细节，讨论这讨论那，结果是关心...还是“分心”？ 要做有智慧的小蜜蜂！ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tetz Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 Waah, if that comes true, maybe I'll look for bf in Taiwan. Any Taiwanese here want to marry an uncle here? I don't eat much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 33 minutes ago, tetz said: Waah, if that comes true, maybe I'll look for bf in Taiwan. Any Taiwanese here want to marry an uncle here? I don't eat much Not that anyone's trying to rain on your parade, but Taiwan is hardly recognized by any countries to be a sovereign nation by itself. So gay marriages in Taiwan is good for Taiwanese to Taiwanese alone. You get married to a gay Taiwanese, your status is still not recognized by any other gay friendly nations. So, what for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tetz Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 3 hours ago, Guest Guest said: Not that anyone's trying to rain on your parade, but Taiwan is hardly recognized by any countries to be a sovereign nation by itself. So gay marriages in Taiwan is good for Taiwanese to Taiwanese alone. You get married to a gay Taiwanese, your status is still not recognized by any other gay friendly nations. So, what for? Haha, joking only. But like they say, 嫁雞隨雞，嫁狗隨狗。Taiwan is not a bad place to live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 On 1/2/2017 at 10:42 PM, tetz said: Haha, joking only. But like they say, 嫁雞隨雞，嫁狗隨狗。Taiwan is not a bad place to live in. Taiwan is a lot more gay-friendly, and preach sexual equality too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 An very interesting "Press Release" --- reminds me of the AWARE SAGA in 2007. Well, it concerns comprehensive-sexuality-education vs. abstinence only sexual education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 恐同症候群 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 这些家长都没有同志朋友吧，所以才会对同志教育特别感冒！一群无知的人以为同志是可以被教出来的，不然就是想压抑自己本来天生就是同志的孩子们。以他们挫挫逼人的态度跟样子，想压抑孩子天性的在他们之间应该是占大多数。说白了，就是一帮无赖！ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Are there any secondary school teachers reading this thread?? There is a request from Taiwan website - they would like to know the details of our sexual education in singapore schools. Specifically, their FOTC equivalent in taiwan is using singapore AWARE saga et al, to claim that Singapore is teaching Abstinence-only sexual education. Please pm me, if you can help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Toe so man Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Why follow singapore, a christian muslim state? 要做不一样的烟火！ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 皇后娘娘 Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 On 30/12/2016 at 1:07 AM, Guest Labia mouth said: Pedigree. Class. Status. Stature. Calibre. Reputation. Here, we only have old boys, queens, bitches and conspicuous consumption. 说得好呀！！ 本宫要好好的赏你！ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 An interesting program - 《莒光園地》is Taiwan military program produced (i think) weekly and to be watched by all military personnel as defence education.The interesting part starts 37:42 國軍官兵每週必須準時收看的官方宣傳節目《莒光園地》，日前在心輔短劇片段中出現同志劇情，述說一名同志因為感情受挫，在幹部居中輔導下，協助他走出失戀陰霾，劇情受到網友高度好評。不過，反對婚姻平權的「搶救台灣希望聯盟」則是在臉書發文，崩潰痛批這是「全民洗腦運動」，認為鼓勵同志戀情發展，會讓國軍成為愛滋病溫床。 國防部委託華視製播的軍事教育節目《莒光園地》在每週四、五下午時段播出，國軍官兵必須準時收看，內容為國防部相關新聞、政戰宣導、保防短劇等，成為每位入伍服役的役男共同回憶之一。 而12日播出的最新一集《莒光園地》，當中的心輔短劇「彩虹」更是上演同志愛，內容為一名男同志，因感情受挫，加上家人無法理解，又害怕同儕的歧視眼光，導致心情郁悶，最後在幹部的積極關懷下，化解感情問題，也改善與家人的緊張關係。 劇情內容透過同志情感的呈現，也讓過去被外界批為父權心態偏重的國軍體系，體認到多元性別成員的存在，短劇結尾，主持人也提到「要建立正確的性別平權與認同的觀念」。 「彩虹」短劇一播出，立刻引發熱烈迴響，網友讚賞製作單位讓節目擁有多元視角，「對國軍跟國家都是很正向的事」，也有網友直言「這輩子從來沒有這麼認同國軍過！」、「我之前也是個義務役輔導長，我這輩子沒有看《莒光園地》看到這麼感動過！」 不過，反對婚姻平權的「 搶救台灣希望聯盟（Alliance of crying for hope）」則是在臉書發文，對這部影片表達強烈不滿，認為這是軍中在鼓勵同志戀情發展，「試想，愛滋病的溫床如果是在軍隊中展開，台灣變成什麼樣的島嶼？」 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 说的比唱的好听 Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 Young taiwanese guys' diction are so soft, clean and crisp. All their educated young men have that diction. If only we can speak like them. 台湾独特口音让台湾男孩魅力跟性感好加分喔！ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest love Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 9 hours ago, Andrew ang525 said: An interesting program - 《莒光園地》is Taiwan military program produced (i think) weekly and to be watched by all military personnel as defence education.The interesting part starts 37:42 國軍官兵每週必須準時收看的官方宣傳節目《莒光園地》，日前在心輔短劇片段中出現同志劇情，述說一名同志因為感情受挫，在幹部居中輔導下，協助他走出失戀陰霾，劇情受到網友高度好評。不過，反對婚姻平權的「搶救台灣希望聯盟」則是在臉書發文，崩潰痛批這是「全民洗腦運動」，認為鼓勵同志戀情發展，會讓國軍成為愛滋病溫床。 國防部委託華視製播的軍事教育節目《莒光園地》在每週四、五下午時段播出，國軍官兵必須準時收看，內容為國防部相關新聞、政戰宣導、保防短劇等，成為每位入伍服役的役男共同回憶之一。 而12日播出的最新一集《莒光園地》，當中的心輔短劇「彩虹」更是上演同志愛，內容為一名男同志，因感情受挫，加上家人無法理解，又害怕同儕的歧視眼光，導致心情郁悶，最後在幹部的積極關懷下，化解感情問題，也改善與家人的緊張關係。 劇情內容透過同志情感的呈現，也讓過去被外界批為父權心態偏重的國軍體系，體認到多元性別成員的存在，短劇結尾，主持人也提到「要建立正確的性別平權與認同的觀念」。 「彩虹」短劇一播出，立刻引發熱烈迴響，網友讚賞製作單位讓節目擁有多元視角，「對國軍跟國家都是很正向的事」，也有網友直言「這輩子從來沒有這麼認同國軍過！」、「我之前也是個義務役輔導長，我這輩子沒有看《莒光園地》看到這麼感動過！」 不過，反對婚姻平權的「 搶救台灣希望聯盟（Alliance of crying for hope）」則是在臉書發文，對這部影片表達強烈不滿，認為這是軍中在鼓勵同志戀情發展，「試想，愛滋病的溫床如果是在軍隊中展開，台灣變成什麼樣的島嶼？」 everyone should watch. very touching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube3 Posted January 14, 2017 Report Share Posted January 14, 2017 On 10/01/2017 at 10:34 AM, Andrew ang525 said: Are there any secondary school teachers reading this thread?? There is a request from Taiwan website - they would like to know the details of our sexual education in singapore schools. Specifically, their FOTC equivalent in taiwan is using singapore AWARE saga et al, to claim that Singapore is teaching Abstinence-only sexual education. Please pm me, if you can help. Can try contacting Otto Fong on this? https://www.facebook.com/ottofong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 【媽媽的提問，愛滋感染者的年夜飯】 愛滋採訪進行半年，有許多感觸。每個理性或冰冷政策背後，牽連影響的都是一個個會哭會痛有血肉的人。想分享一段影片 某位報導人已逝世，他的媽媽邀我今年一起圍爐吃年夜飯。前些天來電問：「其他愛滋感染者都會和家人吃飯嗎？」這問題不好答，我們索性把之前採訪的對話引用出來，也把其中一位報導人的故事拍成短片，想蒐集更多感染者的年夜飯（或過年期間團圓飯）照片，請點進去看留言一樓說明。 也請幫忙將訊息和影片傳給更多人看，直接用不同家庭的故事和年夜飯圍爐照，回應這位母親。愛滋感染者的年夜飯興許和你想像沒太大差異，也可能飯和淚吞。 我正在進行一個愛滋政策的報導。 某位報導人的母親在他過世後，特別邀我到她家圍爐吃年夜飯。前幾天，她突然問我「其他愛滋感染者都能夠和家人吃飯嗎？」我覺得這問題很難回答，所以我選擇拍一個前導片，也想蒐集一些不同感染者的年夜飯照片，不需要露臉，就算只拍菜色也好。如果你有意願的話，請提供你的代稱、年齡、感染幾年、是否向家裡出櫃，以及你理想中的年夜飯，讓我可以直接用不同家庭的故事和年夜飯圍爐照，回應這位母親。如果你是一個人吃年夜飯、或是忙著值班，那也很好，就請你拍下照片，呈現出真實的一面。 Facebook粉絲專頁：愛的治理https://goo.gl/m5ZrD0 或來信：hiv2017tw@gmail.com 採訪/演員：吳宗泰 導演/攝影/剪輯：黃鈺翔 監製/美術/燈光：費宇 音效剪接：送坦克 SATURN by onlymeith (c) copyright 2016 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/onlymeith/55024 Ft: Blake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 An interesting Pastor..... that supported same-sex marriage, and his arguments are very sound. http://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=9577 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted March 2, 2017 Report Share Posted March 2, 2017 http://lgbtsciencedigest.blogspot.sg/2017/03/1973.html 作者：顏正芳（高雄醫學大學醫學系教授）、徐志雲（衛生福利部金門醫院精神科主治醫師） 作者之一的顏正芳在醫學系「精神醫學」課程負責上「精神醫學發展史」已經十幾年了，上課一開始都會先做解釋：為何要上這堂課呢?因為除非先了解精神醫學發展的脈絡，否則難以覺察：過去種種並未隨時間而消失，反而還持續地影響現代人對於精神醫學的看法。舉例來說，十八世紀歐洲某些地區相信：在頭部鑿孔能治療嚴重精神病，當然現今已不再被採信；但「精神疾病導因自風水不佳」這種說法歷經千年，至今在台灣仍普遍流傳。又像是過去對於腦部如何運作不了解的年代，科學家曾經把思覺失調症（舊名精神分裂症）和自閉症的成因歸之於家長對於孩子的不良影響，但現在已知道：這是讓家長揹黑鍋了。 所以，想了解美國精神醫學會（American Psychiatric Association, 以下簡稱APA）為何在1973年將同性戀從「精神疾病診斷與統計手冊」（The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM）中除名，就需要了解之前的科學和社會發展脈絡，尤其近來由於婚姻平權議題，某些反同人士意圖將精神醫學倒退至1973年之前，聲稱APA對於同性戀的去病化「是政治運作的結果」。以下筆者將簡單介紹APA把同性戀去病化的來龍去脈，協助讀者不致受到反同人士的誤導。詳細的過程請參考王秀雲教授的〈裡應外合:同志與精神醫療史〉（http://www2.tku.edu.tw/~tfst/082FST/forum/082forum1.pdf）和Jack Drescher所著”Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality”（Behavioral Sciences 2015, 5, 565-575）（https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695779/）等文。 若要以一句話來說明同性戀去病化這件事會發生在1973年，簡單來說就是：「時候到了」。 APA將同性戀去病化前的社會、醫學背景 我們先從歷史發展脈絡來看。西方文明經歷中世紀近千年基督教神權至上的壓制，所有不利於宗教控制的科學發現，像是地球繞著太陽運轉這種如今小學生都視為天經地義的事實，在當初都被教會打為異端，以致科學家們如哥白尼、伽利略都深受迫害，甚至像布魯諾就被活活燒死。在這樣的背景下，同性戀自然無法逃脫被教會視為「罪惡」的命運，同性間的性行為足以令人丟掉性命。但到了19世紀，因為科學和法律的發展，很多過去被宗教視為「罪惡」的行為，開始被從醫療的角度來解讀，諸如受到精神狀態不穩定影響所出現異於尋常的行為、思考、言語、感官經驗、甚至是犯罪行為者，以前多被教會判定為邪靈附身而遭到監禁或被活活打死，19世紀後開始被以「精神病理」重新闡釋，從宗教解讀的「罪惡」轉渡至「精神疾病」。 社會對於同性戀的看法也在這轉渡之中。19世紀末，同性戀開始被部分的精神病理學者認為是一種「異常」，最著名的是維也納的精神科醫師、性偏好異常行為的研究先驅Richard von Krafft-Ebing （1845-1902），他在其著作《性精神病理學》（Psychopathia Sexualis, 1886）中認為：性變態、同性戀等行為，可以歸類為體質退化的異常。諸如這類的同性戀「精神病理理論（Theories of Pathology）」，還包括「同性戀是因為母親過度照顧、父親養育不適當或具有敵意、遭受性侵害等等所導致」的假設。像是精神分析學派創始人佛洛伊德（Sigmund Freud, 1856-1939），雖不致認為同性戀是精神病態，但將之歸於是往異性戀發展中的歷程，也就是同性戀的「不成熟理論（Theories of Immaturity）」。不管是精神病理或是不成熟理論，同性戀皆不被視為是正常的多樣化表現之一。 和其他從基督教視為「罪惡」被轉渡至「精神疾病」範疇的行為和現象（像是思覺失調症等精神疾病）有所不同的是：同性戀未能逃脫基督教的壓迫，仍然被視為「罪惡」，其中相當大原因來自主流基督教固守對於性別的傳統信念，認定男、女各自的形象，同時，基督教對於「性」的壓抑觀點，也讓同性戀無法見容於傳統教義。不僅宗教，連法律也不放過同性戀。大家熟知的協助盟軍破解德國密碼的英國科學家圖靈（Alan Mathison Turing, 1912-1954），1952年因同性戀被控以「明顯的猥褻和性顛倒行為」罪、被要求從是要坐牢或或要被施打女性荷爾蒙中擇一，即可知同性戀者在當時受到精神病理化觀點的醫學和司法雙方面的壓迫。而在美國，經歷麥卡錫主義（McCarthyism）對於同性戀的攻擊，同性戀者只能隱身噤聲求生存。 如此一來所造成的負面影響之一就是：即使科學研究者想了解同性戀到底是怎麼一回事，也鮮少同性戀者敢現身接受科學研究。研究者常常只能接觸到被醫學以致整個社會標定為是病態、受到歧視壓迫、因而出現種種身心無法調適而來求助的同性戀者，甚至是從法院、監獄轉介而來的個案，如此研究的結果，無怪乎更強化同性戀的精神病理性。 1973年APA將同性戀去病化：水到渠成的轉變 如果上述將同性戀視為精神病理問題或發展不成熟的觀點一直存在，加上宗教和司法雙重夾擊，那為何APA能在1973年將同性戀去病化?其實這是多重力量、經過多年的努力才達成的，並非一蹴而成。 首先是社會背景的轉變。經歷二次戰後經濟、教育等進步，宗教對於美國社會的箝制力減弱，美國人開始探索「人」的本質，挑戰過去被視為不可質疑的社會規範，於是雖然不見容於法律執行者，同性戀者逐漸形成社團，浮出檯面、發聲爭取權益。這同時造成良性循環：過去受到宗教和封閉社會風氣壓制，一般異性戀者難有機會接觸同性戀者，自然就接收宗教所傳遞「同性戀者是罪人」的觀念；現在有同性戀社團站出來，才發現「咦，原來他們也是人」，宗教施之的妖魔化形象漸弱，為同性戀去病化提供社會空間。 其次，科學研究逐漸從臨床和司法樣本跨展到社區樣本，提供越來越多不偏頗的同性戀研究成果，讓世界開始以「人」而非「病人」的角度來認識同性戀者。舉例來說，Evelyn Hooker在1957年發表研究"The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual"，以30位從社區樣本選取的男同性戀者和30位男異性戀者進行對照個案比較，由三位投射測驗專家解讀這60名個案的羅夏克墨跡測驗（Rorschach inkblot test）和主題統覺測驗（Thematic Apperception Test），結果發現：同性戀與異性戀者並無差異，證實男同性戀者的心理健康狀態及適應能力並無本質上的障礙。此後，眾多研究反覆驗證，由於這些研究結果，學界對於過去同性戀的「精神病理理論」和「不成熟理論」產生質疑，觀念終於開始轉換，為同性戀去病化提供科學背景。 如果只有背景而沒有運動，APA不可能在1973年將同性戀除病化，所以這要歸功於許多同性戀人權組織的努力，例如在1970年代初期同性戀人權組織在APA年會上的抗議，迫使APA必須正視同性戀被列為精神疾病是否合適的議題。另一方面，APA內也有越來越多想要積極改革醫學會的年輕一代醫師，對於醫學典範提出挑戰。也因此產生了1972年APA年會的經典事件：精神科醫師John E. Fryer（1938-2003）身穿過大的西裝，臉上帶著扭曲的尼克森面具，並用了特殊音效的麥克風，發表了他的出櫃演說。他第一句話就是：「我是一個同性戀者，也是個精神科醫師」，最後一句話：「我們（精神科醫師）必須運用我們的技能與智慧來幫助他們及我們，使大家可以與人性的一部份舒坦相處，那一部份被稱為同性戀的人性。」從Fryer醫師必須變裝來進行出櫃，就可以知道當時社會氛圍對於同性戀者仍極為不友善，自然駁斥如今反同人士所謂「APA屈服於同志運動者之壓力而將同性戀去病化」的說法：連要發表演說都必須變裝，哪能給APA什麼樣必須屈服的壓力！接著，在1973年的APA年會，同志運動者Ronald Gold與精神科醫師Robert Spitzer合組同性戀議題論壇，Ronald Gold告訴在場的精神科醫師，「別再說我們有病了，你們（這樣）害我都生病了！」 事實上，這些來自APA內外的事件，協助當時的美國精神科醫師真正開始認識同性戀者，因為在此之前，很多精神科醫師對於同性戀只有模糊的了解，並沒有機會去思考：「教科書上說同性戀是病態，但這是真的嗎?DSM-II上把同性戀列為精神疾病，這有根據嗎?」 經過上述歷程，作為科學的專業組織，APA自然不能無視越來越多且證據力強的科學證據支持同性戀不是病的事實，因而體認：是做改變的時候了。第一步就是在1973年將原本「同性戀是病」的規定，改為「同性戀本身不構成精神疾病，除非當事者因為自己的性傾向而感到困擾（ego-dystonic homosexuality）」。雖然這樣的定義尚屬粗略，但確實為創舉。到了1987年，也就是DSM的第三版修訂版，ego-dystonic homosexuality這個診斷也被正式移除，宣告了APA對於同性戀三十多年的誤解終於平反。而這也引導世界衛生組織進行類似的科學審查程序，於1990年將同性戀從國際疾病傷害及死因分類標準（International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, ICD）中刪除，同性戀去病化正式成為世界主流概念。 這裡要特別細緻說明的是：許多反同人士常說「APA移除同性戀是用投票的！」藉此貶抑同性戀去病化的科學性。事實上，APA當時移除同性戀診斷的過程，是APA的命名委員會（Nomenclature Committee）蒐集分析大量科學證據後做出的提案，此提案先經過了APA各個委員會及數個審議機構的審查後通過、再交由APA的理監事會於1973年12月做出最後同意的決定。因此一切是經由正規而嚴謹的過程來完成。 那為什麼會弄出投票事件呢？當年的精神分析社群中有一些精神科醫師對於APA理監事會的決定感到不滿、極力抗議，因此最後要求APA要舉行全部會員的公投，公投的題目是：「贊成或反對理監事會的決議。」最後在超過一萬名APA會員的投票下，過半數的會員贊同理監事會的決議。因此同性戀去病化的歷程才終於塵埃落定。 所以反同人士的說法有什麼問題呢？第一，移除同性戀診斷的結論，是經由科學證據累積而成。第二，移除診斷的過程，並不是交由投票決定，而是經過APA正規的決策歷程。第三，投票這件事其實是「反對同性戀去病化的人」不滿而要求出來的，但最後仍不如他們的意。 至今同志人權仍為醫學關注的重點 即便同性戀去病化，社會中對於同志族群的歧視與污名仍無法輕易消解。為了改善此一現象，全世界多個著名的專業學會，如世界精神醫學會（World Psychiatric Association）、美國精神醫學會、美國心理學會（American Psychological Association）、英國皇家精神醫學院（Royal College of Psychiatrists），近年來陸續對於性少數議題發表立場聲明，以期改變社會偏見，強調以下觀念： 非異性戀（non-heterosexuality）之性取向、性行為、以及伴侶關係，並非疾病，而是人類發展多樣性之正常展現。 同性性取向本身並不會造成心理功能的障礙。 到今科學界對於人類性取向（包括異性戀、雙性戀、同性戀）的成因尚無明確答案，但已知在絕大部分情況下，性取向並非一種「個人選擇」，亦無可信的研究能夠證實性取向是由某些特定教養或環境因素所致。 許多研究明確指出：只要同性戀、雙性戀、跨性別（transgender）族群的權利和平等受到保障，該族群的精神疾病罹患率就會下降。 聲稱能藉由所謂「轉化」或「修復」步驟，將同性戀者的性取向轉變的行為，已被許多醫學專業組織以「缺乏有效證據」加以駁斥。因為這些方法不僅不具醫療上之適應症，還會嚴重危害接受治療者的健康與人權，同時滋長對於同性戀與雙性戀的偏見和歧視。 結語 了解APA在1973年將同性戀從DSM精神疾病診斷之列排除的社會和醫學背景、產生修改的歷程，大家應較能理解其發生的脈絡和必要性。當再聽到反同人士所謂APA對同性戀去病化「是政治運作的結果」，其實「政治」的定義之一是：「各種團體進行集體決策的一個過程，也是各種團體或個人為了各自的領域所結成的特定關係」（維基百科），哪個決策不是「政治運作的結果」呢?APA將同性戀去病化已經過44年，帶動世界各國對於同志人權的重視，現在除了政治和宗教極權國家，同性戀都已被視為正常性取向的多樣化表現之一。台灣的反同人士還在拿40幾年前的謠言來散播、還主張台灣要退化成40幾年前對於同性戀疾病化的年代，那只是展現自己思想的僵化、以及對於科學證據的視而不見罷了。 參考文獻 王秀雲。〈裡應外合:同志與精神醫療史〉。游美惠、蘇芊玲、卓耕宇（主編）（2013）。《揚帆深水--教師性別意識培力讀本》。性別平等教育季刊精選文章專輯III，教育部出版。 維基百科。2017年3月2日，https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E6%94%BF%E6%B2%BB American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (1993).Homosexuality and adolescence. Pediatrics, 92(4), 631-634. American Psychiatric Association. Commission on Psychotherapy by Psychiatrists. (2000). Position statement on therapies focused on attempts to change sexual orientation (reparative or conversion therapies). American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(10), 1719-1721. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Position Statement on Issues Related to Homosexuality. Retrieved from: https://www.psychiatry.org/file library/about-apa/organization-documents-policies/policies/position-2013-homosexuality.pdf American Psychological Association (2008). Answers to Your Questions: For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.pdf Drescher J (2015). Out of DSM: depathologizing homosexuality. Behavioral Sciences, 5, 565-575. doi:10.3390/bs5040565 Hooker EA (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 18-31. Royal College of Psychiatrists (2014). Royal College of Psychiatrists' Statement on Sexual Orientation. London. Retrieved from: www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/ps02_2014.pdf World Psychiatric Association (2016). WPA Position Statement on Gender Identity and Same-Sex Orientation, Attraction, and Behaviours. Retrieved from: http://www.wpanet.org/detail.php?section_id=7&content_id=1807. World Medical Association (2013). WMA Statement on Natural Variations of Human Sexuality, Adopted by the 64th General Assembly. Fortaleza, Brazil. Retrieved from: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/s13/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted March 2, 2017 Report Share Posted March 2, 2017 Drescher J (2015). Out of DSM: depathologizing homosexuality. Behavioral Sciences, 5, 565-575. doi:10.3390/bs5040565 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695779/ Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality Jack Drescher1,2,3,4 Carol North, Academic Editor and Alina Suris, Academic Editor Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ► Go to: Abstract In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed the diagnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This resulted after comparing competing theories, those that pathologized homosexuality and those that viewed it as normal. In an effort to explain how that decision came about, this paper reviews some historical scientific theories and arguments that first led to the placement of homosexuality in DSM-I and DSM-II as well as alternative theories that eventually led to its removal from DSM III and subsequent editions of the manual. The paper concludes with a discussion of the sociocultural aftermath of that 1973 decision. Keywords: American Psychiatric Association (APA), diagnosis, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), gender beliefs, gender binaries, homosexuality, psychiatry Go to: 1. Introduction In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed the diagnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) [1,2]. This resulted after comparing competing theories, those that pathologized homosexuality and those that viewed it as normal [3,4,5,6]. In an effort to explain how that decision came about, this paper reviews some historical scientific theories and arguments that first led to the placement of homosexuality in DSM-I [7] and DSM-II [8], as well as alternative theories, that eventually led to its removal from DSM III [9] and subsequent editions of the manual [10,11,12,13]. The paper concludes with a discussion of the sociocultural aftermath of that 1973 decision. Go to: 2. Theories of Homosexuality It is possible to formulate a descriptive typology of etiological theories of homosexuality throughout modern history in which they generally fall into three broad categories: pathology, immaturity, and normal variation [14,15,16]. 2.1. Theories of Pathology These theories regard adult homosexuality as a disease, a condition deviating from “normal,” heterosexual development [17]. The presence of atypical gender behavior or feelings are symptoms of the disease or disorder to which mental health professionals need to attend. These theories hold that some internal defect or external pathogenic agent causes homosexuality and that such events can occur pre- or postnatally (i.e., intrauterine hormonal exposure, excessive mothering, inadequate or hostile fathering, sexual abuse, etc.). Theories of pathology tend to view homosexuality as a sign of a defect, or even as morally bad, with some of these theorists being quite open about their belief that homosexuality is a social evil. For example, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Edmund Bergler infamously wrote in a book for general audiences, “I have no bias against homosexuals; for me they are sick people requiring medical help... Still, though I have no bias, I would say: Homosexuals are essentially disagreeable people, regardless of their pleasant or unpleasant outward manner... [their] shell is a mixture of superciliousness, fake aggression, and whimpering. Like all psychic masochists, they are subservient when confronted with a stronger person, merciless when in power, unscrupulous about trampling on a weaker person” [18], (pp. 28–29). 2.2. Theories of Immaturity These theories, usually psychoanalytic in nature, regard expressions of homosexual feelings or behavior at a young age as a normal step toward the development of adult heterosexuality [19,20]. Ideally, homosexuality should just be a passing phase that one outgrows. However, as a “developmental arrest,” adult homosexuality is equated with stunted growth. Those who hold these theories tend to regard immaturity as relatively benign, or at least not as “bad” compared to those who theorize that homosexuality is a form of psychopathology. 2.3. Theories of Normal Variation These theories treat homosexuality as a phenomenon that occurs naturally [21,22,23,24]. Such theories typically regard homosexual individuals as born different, but it is a natural difference affecting a minority of people, like left-handedness. The contemporary cultural belief that people are “born gay” is a normal variation theory. As these theories equate the normal with the natural, they define homosexuality as good (or, at baseline, neutral). Such theories see no place for homosexuality in a psychiatric diagnostic manual. Go to: 3. Gender Beliefs It is rare to find a theory of homosexuality that does not draw upon gender beliefs that contain implicit cultural ideas about the “essential” qualities of men and women [14,16,25]. “Real men” and “real women” are powerful cultural myths with which everyone must contend. People express gender beliefs, their own and those of the culture in which they live, in everyday language as they either indirectly or explicitly accept and assign gendered meanings to what they and others do, think, and feel. Gender beliefs touch upon almost every aspect of daily life, including such mundane concerns as what shoes men should wear or “deeper” questions of masculinity such as whether men should openly cry or sleep with other men. Gender beliefs are embedded in questions about what career a woman should pursue and, at another level of discourse, what it would mean if a professional woman were to forego rearing children or pursue a career more aggressively than a man. Gender beliefs are usually based upon gender binaries. The most ancient and well known is the male/female binary. However there is also the 19th century binary of homosexuality/heterosexuality (or gay/straight in the 20th century) and the emerging 21st century binary of transgender/cisgender. It should be noted that binaries are not confined to popular usage. Many scientific studies of homosexuality contain implicit (and often explicit) binary gender beliefs as well. For example, the intersex hypothesis of homosexuality [26,27] maintains that the brains of homosexual individuals exhibit characteristics that would be considered more typical of the other sex. The essentialist gender belief implicit in the intersex hypotheses is that an attraction to women is a masculine trait, which in the case of Sigmund Freud [28], for example (also see below), led to his theory that lesbians have a masculine psychology. Similarly, biological researchers have presumed gay men have brains that more closely resemble those of women [29] or are recipients of extra fragments of their mothers’ X (female) chromosomes [30]. Gender beliefs usually only allow for the existence of two sexes. To maintain this gender binary, most cultures traditionally insisted that every individual be assigned to the category of either man or woman at birth and that individuals conform to the category to which they have been assigned thereafter. The categories of “man” and “woman” are considered to be mutually exclusive, although there are exceptions, as in Plato’s Symposium and some Native American cultures [31]. (Also see Fausto-Sterling [32,33,34] for a scientist’s thoughtful criticisms of gender binaries). These beliefs underlie mid-20th century theories that children born with anomalous genitalia had to immediately undergo unnecessary medical surgeries in order to reduce their parents’ anxieties about whether they were boys or girls [25,34,35]. Rigid gender beliefs usually flourish in fundamentalist, religious communities where any information or alternative explanations that might challenge implicit and explicit assumptions are unwelcome. When entering the realms of gender and sexuality, it is not unusual to encounter another form of binary thinking: “morality tales” about whether certain kinds of thoughts, feelings, or behaviors are “good or bad” or, in some cases, whether they are “good or evil” [14,15,16]. The good/bad binary is not confined to religion alone, as the language of morality is inevitably found, for example, in theories about the “causes” of homosexuality. For in the absence of certitude about homosexuality’s “etiology,” binary gender beliefs and their associated moral underpinnings frequently play a role in theories about the causes and/or meanings of homosexuality. When one recognizes the narrative forms of these theories, some of the moral judgments and beliefs embedded in each of them become clearer. Go to: 4. Early Theorists of Homosexuality For much of Western history, official pronouncements on the meanings of same-sex behaviors were primarily the province of religions, many of which deemed homosexuality to be morally “bad” [36]. However, as 19th century Western culture shifted power from religious to secular authority, same-sex behaviors, like other “sins,” received increased scrutiny from the law, medicine, psychiatry, sexology, and human rights activism. Eventually, religious categories like demonic possession, drunkenness, and sodomy were transformed into the scientific categories of insanity, alcoholism, and homosexuality. Thus, the modern history of homosexuality usually begins in the mid-19th century, most notably with the writings of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs [21]. Trained in law, theology, and history, he might be considered an early gay rights advocate who wrote a series of political tracts criticizing German laws criminalizing same sex relationships between men. He hypothesized that some men were born with a woman’s spirit trapped in their bodies and that these men constituted a third sex he named urnings. He also defined a woman who we would today call a lesbian as urningin, a man’s spirit trapped in the body of a woman. In 1869, Hungarian journalist Károli Mária Kertbeny first coined the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality” in a political treatise against Paragraph 143, a Prussian law later codified in Germany’s Paragraph 175 that criminalized male homosexual behavior [37]. Kertbeny put forward his theory that homosexuality was inborn and unchangeable, arguments that it was a normal variation, as a counterweight against the condemnatory moralizing attitudes that led to the passage of sodomy laws. Richard von Krafft-Ebing, a German psychiatrist, offered an early theory of pathology, describing homosexuality as a “degenerative” disorder. Adopting Kertbeny’s terminology, but not his normalizing beliefs, Krafft-Ebing’s 1886 Psychopathia Sexualis [17] viewed unconventional sexual behaviors through a lens of 19th century Darwinian theory: non-procreative sexual behaviors, masturbation included, were regarded as forms of psychopathology. In an ironic twist of the modern “born gay” theory, Krafft-Ebing believed that although one might be born with a homosexual predisposition, such inclinations should be considered a congenital disease. Krafft-Ebing was influential in disseminating among the medical and scientific communities both the term “homosexual” as well as its author’s view of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. Psychopathia Sexualis would presage many of the pathologizing assumptions regarding human sexuality in psychiatric diagnostic manuals of the mid-20th century. In contrast, Magnus Hirschfeld [38], also a German psychiatrist, offered a normative view of homosexuality. Hirschfeld, an openly homosexual physician and sex researcher, was a leader of the German homophile movement of his time as well as the standard bearer of Ulrich’s [21] 19th century third sex theories. Go to: 5. Psychoanalytic Theorizing Directly refuting Hirschfeld’s theories of normal variation and Krafft-Ebing’s theory of pathology, Sigmund Freud [19] put forward an alternative theory that would also find its way into the popular imagination. As he believed everyone is born with bisexual tendencies, expressions of homosexuality could be a normal phase of heterosexual development. This belief in innate bisexuality did not allow for the possible existence of Hirschfeld’s third sex: “Psychoanalytic research is most decidedly opposed to any attempt at separating off homosexuals from the rest of mankind as a group of special character” [19], (p. 145n). Further, Freud argued that homosexuality could not be a “degenerative condition” as Krafft-Ebing maintained because, among other reasons, it was “found in people whose efficiency is unimpaired, and who are indeed distinguished by specially high intellectual development and ethical culture” [19], (p. 139). Instead, Freud saw expressions of adult homosexual behavior as caused by “arrested” psychosexual development, a theory of immaturity. Toward the end of his life, Freud wrote “Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development” [39], (p. 423). This belief made him pessimistic about efforts to change a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one: “In general, to undertake to convert a fully developed homosexual into a heterosexual does not offer much more prospect of success than the reverse, except that for good practical reasons the latter is never attempted” [28], (p. 151). Yet after Freud’s death in 1939, most psychoanalysts of the next generation came to view homosexuality as pathological. They offered a revised understanding of homosexuality as well as psychoanalytic “cures” that had eluded the field’s founder. Their views were based on the theories of Sandor Rado [40,41], a Hungarian émigré to the United States whose theories had a significant impact on American psychiatric and psychoanalytic thought in the mid-20th century. Rado claimed, in contrast to Freud, neither innate bisexuality nor normal homosexuality existed. Heterosexuality was the only biological norm and homosexuality reconceptualized as a “phobic” avoidance of the other sex caused by inadequate parenting. Rado’s theorizing informed the work of Bieber et al. [42] and Socarides [43], analysts whose claims of psychoanalytic “cures” of homosexuality were broadly accepted by their professional community although never verified in any meaningful or empirical way (cf. Moor [44]; Tripp [45]). In the mid-20th century American psychiatry was greatly influenced at the time by these psychoanalytic perspectives. Consequently, in 1952, when APA published the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-I) [7], it listed all the conditions psychiatrists then considered to be a mental disorder. DSM-I classified “homosexuality” as a “sociopathic personality disturbance.” In DSM-II, published in 1968 [8], homosexuality was reclassified as a “sexual deviation.” Go to: 6. The Sexologists As psychiatrists, physicians, and psychologists tried to “cure” homosexuality, sex researchers of the mid-20th century instead studied a wider spectrum of individuals that included non-patient populations. Psychiatrists and other clinicians drew conclusions from a skewed sample of patients seeking treatment for homosexuality or other difficulties and then wrote up their findings of this self-selected group as case reports. Some theories about homosexuality were based on studies of prison populations. Sexologists, on the other hand, did field studies in which they went out and recruited large numbers of non-patient subjects in the general population. The most important research in this area was that of Alfred Kinsey and his collaborators, published in two headline-generating reports [22,23]. The Kinsey reports, surveying thousands of people who were not psychiatric patients, found homosexuality to be more common in the general population than was generally believed, although his now-famous “10%” statistic is today believed to be closer to 1%–4% [46]. This finding was sharply at odds with psychiatric claims of the time that homosexuality was extremely rare in the general population. Ford and Beach’s [47] study of diverse cultures and of animal behaviors, confirmed Kinsey’s view that homosexuality was more common than psychiatry maintained and that it was found regularly in nature. In the late 1950s, Evelyn Hooker [24], a psychologist, published a study in which she compared psychological test results of 30 gay men with 30 heterosexual controls, none of whom were psychiatric patients. Her study found no more signs of psychological disturbances in the gay male group, a finding that refuted psychiatric beliefs of her time that all gay men had severe psychological disturbances. Go to: 7. The 1973 APA Decision American psychiatry mostly ignored this growing body of sex research and, in the case of Kinsey, expressed extreme hostility to findings that contradicted their own theories [48]. It should be further noted that some mid-20th century homophile (gay) activist groups accepted psychiatry’s illness model as an alternative to societal condemnation of homosexuality’s “immorality” and were willing to work with professionals who sought to “treat” and “cure” homosexuality. Other gay activists, however, forcefully rejected the pathological model as a major contributor to the stigma associated with homosexuality. It was this latter group that brought modern sex research theories to the attention of APA. In the wake of the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City [49], gay and lesbian activists, believing psychiatric theories to be a major contributor to anti-homosexual social stigma, disrupted the 1970 and 1971 annual meetings of the APA. As Bayer [1] has noted, factors both outside and within APA would lead to a reconceptualization of homosexuality’s place in the DSM. In addition to research findings from outside psychiatry, there was a growing anti-psychiatry movement [50], not to mention cultural studies critics who held medicine’s history of diagnostic excess up for ridicule, citing the example of drapetomania, a 19th century “disorder of slaves who have a tendency to run away from their owner due to an inborn propensity for wanderlust” [51], (p. 357). There was also an emerging generational changing of the guard within APA comprised of younger leaders urging the organization to greater social consciousness [2]. A very few psychoanalysts like Judd Marmor [5,52] were also taking issue with psychoanalytic orthodoxy regarding homosexuality. However, the most significant catalyst for diagnostic change was gay activism. Gay activist protests succeeded in getting APA’s attention and led to unprecedented educational panels at the group’s next two annual meetings. A 1971 panel, entitled “Gay is Good,” featured gay activists Frank Kameny and Barbara Gittings explaining to psychiatrists, many who were hearing this for the first time, the stigma caused by the “homosexuality” diagnosis [53,54,55]. Kameny and Gittings returned to speak at the 1972 meeting, this time joined by John Fryer, M.D. Fryer appeared as Dr. H Anonymous, a “homosexual psychiatrist” who, given the realistic fear of adverse professional consequences for coming out at that time, disguised his true identity from the audience and spoke of the discrimination gay psychiatrists faced in their own profession [1,2]. While protests and panels took place, APA engaged in an internal deliberative process of considering the question of whether homosexuality should remain a psychiatric diagnosis. This included a symposium at the 1973 APA annual meeting in which participants favoring and opposing removal debated the question, “Should Homosexuality be in the APA Nomenclature?” [56]. The Nomenclature Committee, APA’s scientific body addressing this issue also wrestled with the question of what constitutes a mental disorder. Robert Spitzer, who chaired a subcommittee looking into the issue, “reviewed the characteristics of the various mental disorders and concluded that, with the exception of homosexuality and perhaps some of the other ‘sexual deviations’, they all regularly caused subjective distress or were associated with generalized impairment in social effectiveness of functioning” [57], (p. 211). Having arrived at this novel definition of mental disorder, the Nomenclature Committee agreed that homosexuality per se was not one. Several other APA committees and deliberative bodies then reviewed and accepted their work and recommendations. As a result, in December 1973, APA’s Board of Trustees (BOT) voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM. Psychiatrists from the psychoanalytic community, however, objected to the decision. They petitioned APA to hold a referendum asking the entire membership to vote either in support of or against the BOT decision. The decision to remove was upheld by a 58% majority of 10,000 voting members. It should be noted that psychiatrists did not vote, as is often reported in the popular press, on whether homosexuality should remain a diagnosis. What APA members voted on was to either “favor” or “oppose” the APA Board of Trustees decision and, by extension, the scientific process they had set up to make the determination [1], (p. 148). Further, opponents of the 1973 removal have repeatedly tried to discredit the referendum’s outcome by declaring, “science cannot be decided by a vote” [58]. However they usually neglect to mention that those favoring retention of the diagnosis were the ones who petitioned for a vote in the first place. In any event, in 2006 the International Astronomical Union voted on whether Pluto was a planet [59,60], demonstrating that even in a hard science like astronomy, interpretation of facts are always filtered through human subjectivity. In any event, the events of 1973 did not immediately end psychiatry’s pathologizing of some presentations of homosexuality. For in “homosexuality’s” place, the DSM-II contained a new diagnosis: Sexual Orientation Disturbance (SOD). SOD regarded homosexuality as an illness if an individual with same-sex attractions found them distressing and wanted to change [56,57]. The new diagnosis legitimized the practice of sexual conversion therapies (and presumably justified insurance reimbursement for those interventions as well), even if homosexuality per se was no longer considered an illness. The new diagnosis also allowed for the unlikely possibility that a person unhappy about a heterosexual orientation could seek treatment to become gay [61]. SOD was later replaced in DSM-III [9] by a new category called “Ego Dystonic Homosexuality” (EDH) [57]. However, it was obvious to psychiatrists more than a decade later that the inclusion first of SOD, and later EDH, was the result of earlier political compromises and that neither diagnosis met the definition of a disorder in the new nosology. Otherwise, all kinds of identity disturbances could be considered psychiatric disorders. “Should people of color unhappy about their race be considered mentally ill?” critics asked. What about short people unhappy about their height? Why not ego-dystonic masturbation [62]? As a result, ego-dystonic homosexuality was removed from the next revision, DSM-III-R, in 1987 [10]. In so doing, the APA implicitly accepted a normal variant view of homosexuality in a way that had not been possible fourteen years earlier [63]. Go to: 8. Conclusions APA’s 1973 diagnostic revision was the beginning of the end of organized medicine’s official participation in the social stigmatization of homosexuality. Similar shifts gradually took place in the international mental health community as well. In 1990, the World Health Organization removed homosexuality per se from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) [64]. As a consequence, debates about homosexuality gradually shifted away from medicine and psychiatry and into the moral and political realms as religious, governmental, military, media, and educational institutions were deprived of medical or scientific rationalization for discrimination. As a result, cultural attitudes about homosexuality changed in the US and other countries as those who accepted scientific authority on such matters gradually came to accept the normalizing view. For if homosexuality was no longer considered an illness, and if one did not literally accept biblical prohibitions against it, and if gay people are able and prepared to function as productive citizens, then what is wrong with being gay? Additionally, if there is nothing wrong with being gay, what moral and legal principles should the larger society endorse in helping gay people openly live their lives? The result, in many countries, eventually led, among other things, to (1) the repeal of sodomy laws that criminalized homosexuality; (2) the enactment of laws protecting the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in society and the workplace; (3) the ability of LGBT personnel to serve openly in the military; (4) marriage equality and civil unions in an ever growing number of countries; (5) the facilitation of gay parents’ adoption rights; (6) the easing of gay spouses’ rights of inheritance; and (7) an ever increasing number of religious denominations that would allow openly gay people to serve as clergy. Most importantly, in medicine, psychiatry, and other mental health professions, removing the diagnosis from the DSM led to an important shift from asking questions about “what causes homosexuality?” and “how can we treat it?” to focusing instead on the health and mental health needs of LGBT patient populations [65]. Go to: Conflicts of Interest The author declares no conflict of interest. Go to: References 1. Bayer R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. Basic Books; New York, NY, USA: 1981. 2. Drescher J., Merlino J.P., editors. American Psychiatry and Homosexuality: An Oral History. Routledge; New York, NY, USA: 2007. 3. Drescher J. An interview with Robert L. Spitzer, MD. J. Gay Lesb. Psychother. 2003;7:97–111. doi: 10.1300/J236v07n03_07. [Cross Ref] 4. Drescher J. An interview with Lawrence Hartmann, MD. J. Gay Lesb. Psychother. 2006;10:123–137. doi: 10.1300/J236v10n01_11. [Cross Ref] 5. Rosario V.A. An interview with Judd Marmor, MD. J. Gay Lesb. Psychother. 2003;7:23–34. doi: 10.1300/J236v07n04_03. [Cross Ref] 6. Sbordone A.J. An interview with Charles Silverstein, PhD. J. Gay Lesb. Psychother. 2003;7:49–61. doi: 10.1300/J236v07n04_05. [Cross Ref] 7. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. American Psychiatric Association; Washington, DC, USA: 1952. 8. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 2nd ed. American Psychiatric Press; Washington, DC, USA: 1968. 9. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 3rd ed. American Psychiatric Press; Washington, DC, USA: 1980. 10. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 3rd ed. revised. American Psychiatric Press; Washington, DC, USA: 1987. 11. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. American Psychiatric Press; Washington, DC, USA: 1994. 12. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. text revision. American Psychiatric Press; Washington, DC, USA: 2000. 13. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Press; Washington, DC, USA: 2013. 14. Drescher J. Psychoanalytic Therapy and the Gay Man. Routledge; New York, NY, USA; London, UK: 1998. 15. Drescher J. Causes and becauses: On etiological theories of homosexuality. Annu. Psychoanal. 2002;30:57–68. 16. Drescher J. Queer diagnoses: Parallels and contrasts in the history of homosexuality, gender variance, and the diagnostic and statistical manual. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2010;39:427–460. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9531-5. [PubMed] [Cross Ref] 17. Krafft-Ebing R. In: Psychopathia Sexualis. Wedeck H., translator. Putnam; New York, NY, USA: 1965. 18. Bergler E. Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life. Hill & Wang; New York, NY, USA: 1956. 19. Freud S. Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. Hogarth Press; London, UK: 1953 [1905]. pp. 123–246. Standard Edition Volume 7. 20. Sullivan H.S. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. Norton; New York, NY, USA: 1953. 21. Ulrichs K. In: The Riddle of “Man-Manly” Love. Lombardi-Nash M., translator. Prometheus Books; Buffalo, NY, USA: 1994. 22. Kinsey A.C., Pomeroy W.B., Martin C.E.. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. W.B. Saunders; Philadelphia, PA, USA: 1948. 23. Kinsey A., Pomeroy W., Martin C., Gebhard P. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Saunders; Philadelphia, PA, USA: 1953. 24. Hooker E.A. The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. J. Proj. Tech. 1957;21:18–31. doi: 10.1080/08853126.1957.10380742. [PubMed] [Cross Ref] 25. Drescher J. From bisexuality to intersexuality: Rethinking gender categories. Contemp. Psychoanal. 2007;43:204–228. doi: 10.1080/00107530.2007.10745905. [Cross Ref] 26. Byne W. Science and belief: Psychobiological research on sexual orientation. In: DeCecco J., Parker D., editors. Sex, Cells, and Same-Sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual Preference. Harrington Park Press; New York, NY, USA: 1995. pp. 303–343. 27. Drescher J., Byne W. Homosexuality, gay and lesbian identities, and homosexual behavior. In: Sadock B.J., Sadock V.A., Ruiz P., editors. Kaplan and Sadock’s Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. 10th ed. Williams and Wilkins; Baltimore, MD, USA: 2016. forthcoming. 28. Freud S. The Psychogenesis of a Case of Homosexuality in a Woman. Hogarth Press; London, UK: 1955 [1920]. pp. 145–172. Standard Edition Volume 18. 29. LeVay S. A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science. 1991;253:1034–1037. doi: 10.1126/science.1887219. [PubMed] [Cross Ref] 30. Hamer D., Copeland P. The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior. Simon & Schuster; New York, NY, USA: 1994. 31. Williams W. The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture. Beacon Press; Boston, MA, USA: 1986. 32. Fausto-Sterling A. Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men. 2nd ed. Basic Books; New York, NY, USA: 1992. 33. Fausto-Sterling A. The five sexes: Why male and female are not enough. [(accessed on 2 December 2015)];The Sciences. 1993 33:20–24. Available online:http://capone.mtsu.edu/phollowa/5sexes.html. 34. Fausto-Sterling A. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. Basic Books; New York, NY, USA: 2000. 35. Kessler S.J. Lessons from the Intersexed. Rutgers University Press; New Brunswick, NJ, USA: 1998. 36. Bullough V. Homosexuality: A History. Meridian; New York, NY, USA: 1979. 37. Katz J. The Invention of Heterosexuality. Dutton; New York, NY, USA: 1995. 38. Hirschfeld M. In: The Homosexuality of Men and Women. Lombardi-Nash M., translator. Prometheus Books; Buffalo, NY, USA: 2000. 39. Freud S. Anonymous (Letter to an American mother) In: Freud E., editor. The Letters of Sigmund Freud. Basic Books; New York, NY, USA: 1960 [1935]. pp. 423–424. 40. Rado S. A critical examination of the concept of bisexuality. Psychosom. Med. 1940;2:459–467. doi: 10.1097/00006842-194010000-00007. [Cross Ref] 41. Rado S. Adaptational Psychodynamics: Motivation and Control. Science House; New York, NY, USA: 1969. 42. Bieber I., Dain H.J., Dince P.R., Drellich M.G., Grand H.G., Gundlach R.H., Kremer M.W., Rifkin A.H., Wilbur C.B., Bieber T.B. Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study. Basic Books; New York, NY, USA: 1962. 43. Socarides C.W. The Overt Homosexual. Grune & Stratton; New York, NY, USA: 1968. 44. Moor P. The view from Irving Bieber’s couch: “Heads I win, tails you lose” J. Gay Lesb. Psychother. 2001;5:25–36. doi: 10.1300/J236v05n03_03. [Cross Ref] 45. Tripp C.A. The Homosexual Matrix. Meridian; New York, NY, USA: 1975. 46. Laumann E.O., Gagnon J.H., Michael R.T., Michaels S. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press; Chicago, IL, USA: 1994. 47. Ford C.S., Beach F.A. Patterns of Sexual Behavior. Harper & Row; New York, NY, USA: 1951. 48. Lewes K. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality. Simon and Schuster; New York, NY, USA: 1988. 49. Duberman M. Stonewall. Plume; New York, NY, USA: 1994. 50. Szasz T.S. Legal and moral aspects of homosexuality. In: Marmor J., editor. Sexual Inversion: The Multiple Roots of Homosexuality. Basic Books; New York, NY, USA: 1965. pp. 124–139. 51. Schwartz S. The role of values in the nature/nurture debate about psychiatric disorders. Soc. Psychiatr. Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 1998;33:356–362. doi: 10.1007/s001270050066. [PubMed][Cross Ref] 52. Marmor J., editor. Sexual Inversion: The Multiple Roots of Homosexuality. Basic Books; New York, NY, USA: 1965. 53. Gittings B. Show and Tell. J. Gay Lesb. Ment. Health. 2008;12:289–294. doi: 10.1080/19359700802111742. [Cross Ref] 54. Kameny F. How it all started. J. Gay Lesb. Ment. Health. 2009;13:76–81. doi: 10.1080/19359700902735671. [Cross Ref] 55. Silverstein C. The implications of removing homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder [Letter to the editor] Arch. Sex. Behav. 2009;38:161–163. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9442-x.[PubMed] [Cross Ref] 56. Stoller R.J., Marmor J., Bieber I., Gold R., Socarides C.W., Green R., Spitzer R.L. A symposium: Should homosexuality be in the APA nomenclature? Am. J. Psychiatr. 1973;130:1207–1216. doi: 10.1176/ajp.130.11.1207. [PubMed] [Cross Ref] 57. Spitzer R.L. The diagnostic status of homosexuality in DSM-III: A reformulation of the issues. Am. J. Psychiatr. 1981;138:210–215. [PubMed] 58. Gadpaille W. Homosexuality. In: Kaplan H., Sadock B.J., editors. Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. 5th ed. Williams and Wilkins; Baltimore, MD, USA: 1989. pp. 1086–1096. 59. Vedantam S. What one fewer planet means to our worldview. The Washington Post. Aug 28, 2006. p. A02. 60. Zachar P., Kendler K.S. The removal of Pluto from the class of planets and homosexuality from the class of psychiatric disorders: A comparison. Philos. Ethics Humanit. Med. 2012;7:4–10. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-7-4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] 61. Lev A.I. Gender dysphoria: Two steps forward, one step back. Clin. Soc. Work J. 2013;41:288–296. doi: 10.1007/s10615-013-0447-0. [Cross Ref] 62. Mass L. Homosexuality and Sexuality: Dialogues of the Sexual Revolution. Volume 1 Harrington Park Press; New York, NY, USA: 1990. 63. Krajeski J. Homosexuality and the mental health professions. In: Cabaj R.P., Stein T.S., editors. Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health. American Psychiatric Press; Washington, DC, USA: 1996. pp. 17–31. 64. Cochran S.D., Drescher J., Kismodi E., Giami A., García-Moreno C., Reed G.M. Proposed declassification of disease categories related to sexual orientation in ICD-11: Rationale and evidence from the Working Group on Sexual Disorders and Sexual Health. Bull. World Health Organ. 2014;92:672–679. doi: 10.2471/BLT.14.135541. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref] 65. Institute of Medicine . The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding. The National Academies Press; Washington, DC, USA: 2011. Articles from Behavioral Sciences are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 2, 2017 Report Share Posted March 2, 2017 Long long meaningful passages is on the borderline of bad posting already... but do you REALLY need to put in the references? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Naruwan Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 References are lit! Good stuff! But my eyes are seeing stars already. Keep them coming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve5380 Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 I like to see any de-pathology of homosexuality. But I trust more my non-academic perceptions of the nature and reasons of homosexuality than the long dissertations by psychologists, sexologists, pathologists and any other -ists. They make too many free speculations in an aura of 'science' that is not earned. After all, the original idea that homosexuality is a disorder comes from the same "experts", all making money off it. We should forget of the pseudo-science and feel happy to be homosexual, because this gives irrefutable prima facie proof that there is nothing wrong with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew ang525 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Really like Taiwan Government - 台北市政府開放同性伴侶申請社會住宅的政策 社會住宅 is something like our HDB public housing scheme. Some news about it - http://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=13196 http://news.cts.com.tw/cts/general/201703/201703051856568.html http://www.ettoday.net/news/20170305/878123.htm Of course their anti-LGBT will attack the policy - https://taiwanfamily.com/101659 (i really dont understand why a lot of singaporeans like to laugh at TW government --- in many aspects, they are really progressive.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Yes men yes women Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, Andrew ang525 said: (i really dont understand why a lot of singaporeans like to laugh at TW government --- in many aspects, they are really progressive.) They think an amicable and peaceful negotiation process means the people are civilized. Taiwanese people are the ones having the last laugh on this. What's the point in being cordial and agreeable when things are not done? spr and Andrew ang525 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts