Dr. Roughton's Progress Report on Overcoming Anti-Homosexual Bias (TAP 29/4) cites examples of continuing bias in The American. Dr. Kaufman's response (TAP 30/1) serves as a fresh example of such bias. Then to further demonstrate that The American harbors antihomosexual bias, the editors of TAP saw fit to punctuate the Kaufman-Roughton exchange about admission of gay candidates with a free advertisement for one of the most fanatical antigay organizations in the nation—Dr. Socarides' NARTH (TAP 30/1). As a gay candidate, I find this disheartening. When I read TAP I feel as if I'm living out Woody Allen's dream—I've been admitted to a club that will not have me!
Kaufman, an officer and charter member of NARTH, objects to Roughton's Progress Report on the grounds that it “begs us to let political correctness shape science.” His letter is a clear demonstration of what psychoanalysts have been doing for years—arrogantly covering deeply held bias under the guise of “science,” without regard for the norms of scientific inquiry.
Kaufman complains, “My major concern with Roughton is simply that he tries to suppress any further debate on the health issue of homosexuality.” What irony that those words should come from a man who has worked hard to keep some of us out of The American altogether. “Perverts” like me were kept out of the psychoanalytic debate for a long time, and Dr. Kaufman would like to keep it that way. How can you have a debate if you start with a conclusion and only give voice to those who already agree?
Some will say that I am biased because I am gay. Are we to believe that these men who have run a veritable crusade to convert homosexuals are neutral, objective, and unbiased? Dr. Socarides dismisses even neuroanatomical and genetic research done by gay scientists as having “a political agenda” (MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour, as transcribed in TAP 28/1). Using his logic, should we not disregard all of his work on pathological parenting as the cause of homosexuality, simply because he has fathered a gay son? Dr. Socarides talks openly with journalists about his gay son while arguing the need for stronger societal oppression of homosexuality and selling his new book, Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (New York Times, Dec. 24, 1995). Even as he publicly makes a big deal out of this simple fact of his personal life, Dr. Socarides apparently fails to see the blatant hypocrisy in his debasement of the contributions of gay professionals.
Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Socarides are entitled to their opinions, but is it right for The American to promote NARTH? The NARTH Bulletin (Vol. 2, No 1) is a vulgar collection of sensational propaganda about sadomasochists, pedophiles, and “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS.” There is praise for a children's book that teaches that incest causes homosexuality and illustrates a little boy in bed with his uncle. Far more political than psychoanalytic, the Bulletin's editor boasts that “NARTH remains the only professional organization to oppose the gay agenda within the mental health field.” Not limiting themselves to mental health, the officers have made well-publicized statements to help limit the civil rights of gay Americans. It is no surprise to me that their ranks have swelled with religious fundamentalists, and that the American Psychiatric Association is debating the ethics of their treatment of gay people. Yet NARTH's officers continue to invoke the authority of the American Psychoanalytic Association in their public statements asserting the pathology of all homosexuality and in their attempts to limit our civil rights (Affidavit, District Court, Denver, CO, Case No. 92CV7223, October 8, 1993).
At best, the editors of TAP were insensitive to the concerns of gay candidates and potential candidates when they chose to place the prominent boxed ad for NARTH immediately following the contentious debate about admission of gay candidates. At worst, there is the implication of TAP'S tacit approval of NARTH's attempts to pathologize and exclude us.
Drs. Kaufman and Socarides repeat ad nauseam that gay activists and the Committee on Issues of Homosexuality are trying to shape science with political correctness and take away their First Amendment rights. This passionate cry about a nonexistent threat distracts us from the reality that most thoughtful people simply don't buy their bigoted formulations.
I chair the Task Force on Psychoanalysis of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, and I assure you that we have no plans to try to shut down or shut up The American. Personally, I am working too hard at becoming an analyst to desire the demise of the institution. In fact we'd be very pleased if The American would provide more genuine psychoanalysis for gay people; if analysts would analyze. Perhaps when we all feel safe enough to acknowledge just how much we don't know, then we will see our biases and learn together.
Paul Lynch