'Curing' gay sheep

I believe psychological disorders are classified as disorders only if they significantly impair a person's ability to function in society. It's as much judgement call as it is science.

Hmmm. I disagree. Here's a standard definition.

Behavioral health care professionals call disorders, illnesses or diseases that have prominent emotional, behavioral, and psychological symptoms mental disorders.

Disorders are diagnosed by symptoms, rather than impairing ability. I believe that's why homosexuality was described as such in the first place - it's a set of behaviors that can be reliably characterized. Impairment, however, is very subjective. Also, once a person was successfully treated, if the impairment went away, they'd have to be classified as not having the disorder. But then if treatment was dropped, they'd have it again, and so forth.

It seems like a small thing, but if it leads you to conclude that peer review, repeatable studies and the other facets of science are "judgement calls", I think it's a misunderstanding.

Robear wrote:
As I said, I agree that it's not. I'm merely saying that there is a possibility (not a likelyhood) that that is incorrect.

A dangerous observation in America, where the belief is that this statement makes all of science's conclusions suspect.

All of science's conclusions are suspect. That's what makes it science. As soon as you believe something immutably, it becomes faith.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Robear wrote:
As I said, I agree that it's not. I'm merely saying that there is a possibility (not a likelyhood) that that is incorrect.

A dangerous observation in America, where the belief is that this statement makes all of science's conclusions suspect.

All of science's conclusions are suspect. That's what makes it science. As soon as you believe something immutably, it becomes faith.

I believe what he meant is that the language used controls how the statement is viewed. What you've just said is 100% correct, but a slight variation has been used for many years to call into question all kinds of things from evolution to cosmology to global warming. Science is not definate, by its very nature, and this is how it works, as you say. It's worth it to couch that statement each time with enough detail to avoid the "It's just a theory" type of rebuttal.

Well, I'm hoping everyone here is intelligent enough to realize the difference between the scientific and common usages of the word "theory."

This whole thing just might incite some General Stryker type to harness the new hormone therapy to rid the world of gays once and for all using some sort of doomsday device...

Robear wrote:
I believe psychological disorders are classified as disorders only if they significantly impair a person's ability to function in society. It's as much judgment call as it is science.

Hmmm. I disagree. Here's a standard definition.

Behavioral health care professionals call disorders, illnesses or diseases that have prominent emotional, behavioral, and psychological symptoms mental disorders.

Disorders are diagnosed by symptoms, rather than impairing ability. I believe that's why homosexuality was described as such in the first place - it's a set of behaviors that can be reliably characterized. Impairment, however, is very subjective. Also, once a person was successfully treated, if the impairment went away, they'd have to be classified as not having the disorder. But then if treatment was dropped, they'd have it again, and so forth.

It seems like a small thing, but if it leads you to conclude that peer review, repeatable studies and the other facets of science are "judgment calls", I think it's a misunderstanding.

I said classified, not diagnosed, but point taken about the treatment, and your definition seems more accurate.

My point however, is that disorders are in the Big Book of Disorders (DSM IV, according to my wife) because they're viewed as a problem. Most disorders are easy to view as a problem (schizophrenics and the like) and I imagine most are backed by very solid statistics conveying why they are a problem, but there's certainly a societal influence (the judgment call) underlying some disorders - the sexual ones, for instance, formerly including homosexuality.

For this reason, I think it is unlikely homosexuality's status as disorder will ever be reinstated unless it is due to societal pressures.

Staats wrote:

For this reason, I think it is unlikely homosexuality's status as disorder will ever be reinstated unless it is do to societal pressures.

If society gets that bad, I doubt they'd call someone a "homosexual" when "mincing pink cowboy" is available.

My point however, is that disorders are in the Big Book of Disorders (DSM IV, according to my wife) because they're viewed as a problem. Most disorders are easy to view as a problem (schizophrenics and the like) and I imagine most are backed by very solid statistics conveying why they are a problem, but there's certainly a societal influence (the judgment call) underlying some disorders - the sexual ones, for instance, formerly including homosexuality.

I can see that, but remember, back in the 50's, homosexuality was a *crime* in many areas of the US. That would not have seemed remarkable at the time, but as it turns out, it was not a situation based on scientific research, but rather one based on Judeo-Christian religious doctrine. It would have been quite a shock to find out that these people were not actually criminal deviants in daily life.

See the distinction I'm getting at? If it's a judgement call, then it's valid to argue that because homosexuals are actually different as a group from the rest of society, they are deviant - leaving the value judgment to the listener. However, science seems to show us that homosexuals are not actually deviant in the value judgement sense - their problems in society are more likely the result of the way society has traditionally viewed them, rather than their own "mental disorder".

It's a lot harder to argue that homosexuals are bad and corrupting if it's clear that society's judgment is based on flawed reasoning. (Maybe we are saying the same thing here.)

Robear wrote:

It's a lot harder to argue that homosexuals are bad and corrupting if it's clear that society's judgment is based on flawed reasoning. (Maybe we are saying the same thing here.)

We're roughly on the same page here, I think.

My point however, is that disorders are in the Big Book of Disorders (DSM IV, according to my wife) because they're viewed as a problem. Most disorders are easy to view as a problem (schizophrenics and the like) and I imagine most are backed by very solid statistics conveying why they are a problem, but there's certainly a societal influence (the judgment call) underlying some disorders - the sexual ones, for instance, formerly including homosexuality.

The DSM's have always been incredibly political. Battered Woman's Syndrome (it was called something else, but that's what it was,) was kept out of DSM IV due to pressure from feminist groups. They feared that if the tendency of certain women to seek out abusive relationships were to become an official mental disorder, it would be harder to prosecute abusive men - "she goes and looks for this stuff, you know?" The same thing happened with homosexuality in DSM-III - pressure from activists got it delisted.

In all, the DSM-IV-TR a useful guide for keeping psychologists on the same page, but it's nothing to put TOO much stock in. Any system in which a condition can be (de)classified when it becomes (un)popular is not a system to be trusted, overmuch. It's not science, and shouldn't be treated as such. I don't think the DSM-IV-TR is a good base to make an argument either for or against homosexuality. The opinion (and it is an opinion,) of that book is no more valid than yours or mine, despite it recognition by psychologists. Keeping a condition in or out of the Big Bible of Crazy is absolutely a judgment call.

DSM-IV-TR does its level best to operationally define as much as possible, but in the end, it's still a bunch of people deciding which symptoms are just damaging enough, and which aren't. The one overriding criteria for ALL disorders in DSM-IV-TR is that it must cause either marked impairment in functioning, physical, emotional or social, or cause marked distress in the sufferer. If one or both of these is not present, then there is no disorder, according to DSM-IV-TR, regardless of what symptoms are present. The book takes the following stance: If a person hears voices which are not there, but is able to function well in all ways, and is not bothered by the symptoms, and is perhaps even happy in life, then who's to say it's a problem? Honestly, I can't say I disagree.

The very few exceptions to this rule lie in things like sadism - if, in the last six months, the person has acted on their sadistic sexual fantasies with an unconsenting person, even with no distress on their part, they are a sadist, in the eyes of DSM-IV. But these cases are the extreme exception, especially due to the strict 6-month requirement. At 6 months and 1 second since your last infliction of pain on an unconsenting person, DSM-IV-TR denies that you have a disorder, any more. Arbitrary? Absolutely.

Anyway, this is a surprisingly good conversation, given that the topic's old hat for this forum. Please continue on.