In some of my previous articles (just Google my name and the word Barbwire) I have made a case that the “heterosexual” and “homosexual” dichotomy is socio-political fiction and therefore so-called “sexual orientation” is also fiction. But for the sake of addressing the claims of the APA, let’s go along with these categories as having some scientific merit.
The American Psychological Association (APA) is a very prominent professional and self-described ‘scientific’ organization: It is the most prominent of the US psychological associations. The public, both in the US and internationally, relies on it for allegedly unbiased factual information, especially for supporting decisions on important social issues and for developing curricula for schools.
In addition, individuals and parents rely on the site to gain knowledge about their own and their children’s psychological development. There would be no reason for the unsuspecting public to believe anything other than that the APA, as a scientific organization with strict bylaws and standards, presents scientific fact to the best of its ability.
However, the APA is misleading in its public presentation of the issues surrounding the issue of homosexual attractions and practice to such an extent as to be materially dishonest and, in the process, inflicting harm not only in the US, but also around the world. This may very well be intentional. See here: Why the APA Cannot Be Cited…)
It is worth noting here that two eminent psychologists, Rogers H Wright and Nicholas A Cummings (a former President of the APA), in their book, Destructive Trends in Mental Health : The Well Intentioned Path to Harm , (NY: Routledge (2005), decry the erosion of the patient care ethic and well-established standards of scientific research by special interest groups promoting political agendas. Cummings had this to say in this interview: “By the mid-1990s, the Leona Tyler Principle was absolutely forgotten. The political stances seemed to override any scientific results.” “We developed a group of psychologists that numbered around 200 to 250 that rotated themselves through all the offices of the APA. When a rule was passed that you couldn’t serve more than X number of sessions on council or in a certain particular office, they would rotate. They would run for another office and come back to council. So for years about 200 to 250 people were running the APA, and they were a very select inbred group. They were ultra-liberal and anything that wasn’t ultra-liberal was anathema.” The former APA president states,”Unbiased, Open Research (on homosexuality) was never done.” See here.
Read more at BarbWire