TraditionalValues.org
– LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) groups are clearly upset about TVC’s aggressive opposition to the passage of hate crime legislation and the inclusion of undefined “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” in the so-called hate crime bills, H.R. 1913 and S. 909.
During the debate over passage of H.R. 1913, lesbian activist Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) was repeatedly asked by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) to define “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in the bill. She refused to do so. She refused because the LGBT crowd wants the flexibility to add whatever “sexual orientation” or “gender identity“ they wish in the future. Their ever-expanding definitions will protect a whole range of serious mental disorders in the future.
In fact, there is a growing battle looming involving LGBT activists and those who will be updating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. A group of LGBT psychiatrists and psychologists want the APA to remove a wide range of paraphilias (sexual orientations/disordered desires) from the DSM when the new version is published in 2012. These activists want pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, tranvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism removed from the DSM!
LGBT activists claim the American Psychiatric Association has a “very precise definition” of sexual orientation – which includes four sexual orientations: sexual attraction to males; sexual attraction to females; sexual attraction to both; and sexual attraction to neither.
The American Psychological Association, not the American Psychiatric Association has posted a definition of “sexual orientation” on its site. The psychological association says that “sexual orientation” “exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality.”
The psychological association also claims that “sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.”
This “continuum” concept explains why LGBT activists do not want “sexual orientation” defined in any federal law. They want the option of adding any new deviant behavior to a federally-protected class under the law.
Rep. Steve King discussed the blurry definitions of sexual orientation and gender identity during his debates and speeches on H.R. 1913. He pointed out that there are numerous definitions of sexual orientation and gender identity – and all are confusing. According to King, “Sexual orientation as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary (medical dictionary), we have sexual orientation by Merriam-Webster as one’s attraction to a preference in sex partners.
Here is another definition from American Heritage Stedman’s medical dictionary: Sexual orientation would be sexual activity with people of the opposite sex, the same-sex or both. So, one says it is the attraction, it is in the head. The other says it is the activity. … And, we have two polar opposite definitions coming from the Democrats, neither of which is in the bill. One definition says homosexual, heterosexual, nothing else, not even bisexual. The other [Hastings] says every kind of proclivity, paraphilia, all philias, whatsoever, [from] Mr. Hastings from Florida.”
The bottom line is that the Democrats refuse to clearly define sexual orientation or gender identity in the legislation – and various sources have conflicting definitions of what these terms mean.
LGBT activists claim that a “sexual orientation” is not the same as a paraphilia. Yet, a sexual attraction toward an object or person – however bizarre – is still a sexual orientation. The person is clearly “oriented” sexually toward that person (or thing) or gains sexual satisfaction by engaging in deviant behaviors.
A sexual orientation can be normal or abnormal. Paraphilias are abnormal sexual orientations.
The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association claim that heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality are “normal.”
The paraphilias listed in the DSM are abnormal sexual orientations toward non-human objects or individuals and include the category of fetishes – or bizarre sexual orientations or attractions that can involve inflicting pain on themselves, animals, or other people. These fetishes include Transvestic Fetishism, which is cross-dressing.
Transgender activists want “gender identity” included as a protected class in the so-called hate crime bills, H.R. 1913 or S. 909 because they want their Gender Identity Disorder as a protected class under federal law. This would include protecting Transvestic Fetishists, transsexuals, and she-males (individuals who undergo only half of a so-called sex change operation).
As Rep. Steve King has pointed out, “Gender identity can be whatever you think you are. I don’t know about the physical component of this, and sexual orientation can be what you think you are, what you act upon, or let’s just say the composite of the two. And the thought, the act and the physiology are the three categories we are trying to define here and blending and blurring them all together. So it is no wonder that when I try to explain this law, it sounds like gibberish, Mr. Speaker, because it is gibberish.”
LGBT radicals claim that the APA does not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder. This is true, but they fail to reveal why. The fact is that gays bullied the APA into removing homosexuality from the DSM in the early 1970s. It was not removed for scientific reasons, but due to political pressure. Had it not been for political pressure and bullying, the APA would never have removed homosexuality from the DSM. TVC’s report, “Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal,” details the shameful history of the APA caving to gay radicals.
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover has also chronicled the tragic history of the APA’s duplicity in aiding the LGBT agenda through mental health organizations: “The ‘Trojan Couch’ – How The Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science.”
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) would not put a definition of gender identity into H.R. 1913. This is by design. She knows that this is still considered a mental disorder – not a fixed identity – in the DSM. Yet, the gay, lesbian and bisexual movement is now working with transgender activists to make every one of these sexual behaviors into a federally protected minority group.
Playing Word Games
Gay propagandists have largely controlled the language in the discussion of sexual orientation, and gender identity during the past decades.
When you control the language, you control the debate as well. They are clearly losing control of the language now – due in large measure to the work that TVC has done – during the past several years.
LGBT activists are making a false distinction between “sexual orientation” and “paraphilias” and they are losing the battle over these words. There are supposedly “normal” sexual orientations and there are “abnormal” sexual orientations known as paraphilias (sexual deviations).
LGBT activists can claim that “sexual orientation” is limited to just four allegedly “normal” sexual orientations – but why limit the definition to just four? Clearly, there are many other sexual orientations. A person can be sexually oriented to have sex with infants, pre-teens, dead people and animals.
Just because the APA lists four supposedly “normal” sexual orientations doesn’t mean that this definition will continue to be limited to four. The LGBT lobby is constantly pushing to expand the numbers of sexual orientations that it seeks to have protected under federal law. This is why they do not wish “sexual orientation” to be clearly defined in federal legislation. And, the LGBT lobby is pushing the APA to remove numerous paraphilias that it considers to be normal – including pedophilia and sadomasochism.
It is clear from the DSM that the APA considers these four sexual orientations to be “normal.” The sexual orientations listed as paraphilias are considered abnormal. But, for how long?
The APA was pressured to remove homosexuality as a paraphilia from the DSM. When will it remove pedophilia as a paraphilia? When it will remove the sexual orientation of sadomasochism from the DSM? It is only a matter of time. A new version of the DSM is scheduled for publication in 2010. LGBT activists are working right now to influence the revision. In fact, a gay named Dr. Jack Drescher is a member of the APA’s DSM-V Workgroup on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders. Drescher has actually claimed that “Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation.” Imagine the damage this radical gay will do to the DSM-V.