The author introduces the main question of her research, where is the profession’s greatest responsibility – to support the values of the community or to provide real help and understanding into what is often labeled ‘deviant behavior’.From a diagnosis standpoint, the author illustrates the concerning direction taken in the publication of the DSM III in which the word homosexuality was removed and particularly male patients began receiving treatment for Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood. This distinction forces a split between gender and sexuality that denaturalizes sexual object-choice and renaturalizes gender ideas. The author provides a simple summary of these ideas in the statement “The reason effeminate boys turn out gay, according to this account, is that other men don’t validate them as masculine” (159). This suggests two things: first, that ‘gayness’ can be cured by appropriately conditioning boys according to their appropriate gender at an early age and second, that homosexuality should not exist.Reinforcing this idea, therapy for gay youth is reported in the article to focus on ‘curing’ the child by providing him with more masculine role models and expecting more masculine behavior out of him. Approaches to the subject that offer actual ethical treatment for gay people as real people are described as ‘narrow.’ Having summarized the findings of Green and Freidman in a highly critical light, the author concludes the article with scientific support that suggests a genetic or biologic element to homosexuality and a proven history that nurturing does not fully eradicate the condition. However, even this shift represents a dangerous turn as there are now biological studies underway to see if homosexuality could be prevented in the womb.One example of how this concept is reinforced in popular culture can be found in the TV series “Will and Grace.”

You may also like