Get Used to It: Ep. 94, "Sexuality, Gender, and Psychology: a Conversation with Dr. Linda Garnets"

(typewriter clicking) (upbeat music) - Hi, welcome to Get Used to It. I'm Sheila Kuehl, your host or hostess, or guide, or I don't know, prophet. And today we are doing one in our sort of series of voices of our lives, where we talk to a person from our gay and lesbian community who's made an impact on the rest of our lives. And today we have a very interesting subject matter that goes to the sort of impact of psychology on how the world views our community. For so long, we were, of course, considered sick and sinful. And thanks to the work of people like Linda Garnets, who we're talking to today, now we're only sinful. So we will talk about that, I hope, as we go along. But my guest today is Linda Garnets, PhD, psychologist, and researcher, and all around big honcho in the psychology movement. Welcome, Linda. - Thank you, Sheila, I'm delighted to be here. - Thank you. I don't know whether the people watching the show would have much of a sense of how this work came about and how it changed. They may have heard the name Evelyn Hooker, because I think some of the earliest work was hers. Could you tell us a little bit about sort of where we were in terms of how psychology viewed our community and what happened, really, starting, if it did start with Dr. Hooker's work. - Yes, it did. Actually. we started in psychology, more focusing on how sick we were. So of the theory being that all roads led to heterosexuality, if you wanted to be healthy. So from, really, illness model. And Evelyn was one of the first people who did work in the early 50s. And it's important for people to know that part of that context of her work came out of the homophile rights movement that was already, had been functioning and organizing in the 40s and 50s, because one of the reasons she did the first controlled study ever that compared gay men and heterosexual men. And people, of course, expected to find all sorts of differences, because the assumption at that time was that homosexuality in and of itself was a mental illness. And a number of gay male friends that she knew who were not institutionalized or in prison where the samples had come from said to her we know a group of people that you could talk to that are just natural folks out there. And it all got organized through that. And she did these studies. And much to even the people who were part of the study, of the researchers who thought they could definitely differentiate gay people from straight people, they weren't able to do that. Actually, the only difference they could talk about is when they did this particular test where you take, have people move figures in a house, that the gay people put two men in the house, and the straight people put a man and a woman. So that was the only differentiating factor. So it was a very, it came out in the... She did the research in the early 50s. The first study was reported in '55. And it was groundbreaking, because she basically was saying that in and of itself, being gay didn't have anything to do with being ill. - So the earlier studies had been done only in prisons and in hospitals? - Yes, the earlier studies had been done on very small samples. Much of the theory at the time was based on psychoanalytic thinking. So often it would come from studies that could be one, two, three, five people, in terms of people's individual practices. Or they went to institutions where people had psychological difficulties anyway, and also were gay. And then they based all the, and you would, would be understanding to know that all the studies at that time were also only done on men, because there was the assumption that, of course, you could just generalize to women, which we all know how dangerous that is to do. - So we would say whatever we find out about men, we generalized the women. - Exactly. - Well, so how did your own work begin to intersect with that? Or let's go back even further. How does a person decide they're gonna be a psychologist? I mean, what is it about just the general practice that would draw, that drew you, even however early it began to, you know, affect you. - There were a couple things that drew me really early. One is it might have been genetic, it was the same discussion we have about homosexuality. (Sheila laughs) Or it might have been growing up in a family that had its treachery, so you had to figure things out. But I was very perceptive. I, you know, one of the first I think psychological studies I did, I was probably four, at most five, but probably four. And my father wanted to know what we all got him for his birthday, 'cause he just couldn't wait. And I had a brother two years older than me and my mom. And I knew what we got him and I decided that the best psychological strategy would be move up to him and tell him exactly what we got him. 'Cause I believe that if we told him, he would never believe that's what it was. So of course, that's what I did. And then my mother and my brother pull me in the other room and they're furious at me because now he knows. And of course, I was right. (Sheila laughs) And he assumed it was something else. So that was my early training. So it really came out, one, just like really had this natural affinity. Second, because as I said, you know, how my particular family dynamics worked. It wasn't the safest environment emotionally to be in. And so I had to pay a lot of attention to what people were doing in order to be able to survive. - In order to survive. - In a way that would work for me. - [Sheila] Right. - And actually, also because I had a grandmother who lived in our house who was the most significant person to me, a very significant person to me. And I would actually let her win at games, and she had figured all this stuff out, and she had actually encouraged me, you know, to pay attention psychologically. It was all those things and just incredible curiosity about how the mind worked. So I really knew from the time I was like six or seven that this is what I thought I wanted to be. - And speaking of knowing from the time of six or seven, you know, a lot of people who've been on the show have talked with me about their own sort of dawning awareness about their own sexuality. How did this happen with you, that you came to understand that you were a lesbian? - Yeah, well, it actually started, although with my strong tomboy affinities, although at that time I didn't attribute it as anything. I didn't connected it to my sexuality. - Right, none of us did. Just thought we like to play-- - But I was spending a lot of time in that bathroom coming my hair just right and trying to pee the right way, a different way. And, you know, also having an older brother who I deeply admired. But what was happening even when I was in, you know, junior high school, for sure. I didn't actually officially kind of come out to myself till like the first year in college. But you know, through junior and high school, I just found that I much preferred the company of my female friends. And I'd sort of be, didn't know why they had to change so much when the guys came around, because I thought I was much more interesting and fun. And so I had, so I had that awareness then, but I didn't really have labels for it. It wasn't really, you know, it was a different time, 'cause this would be in the 60s. And there wasn't, you know, I certainly got involved with and was aware of the burgeoning feminist movement, but there wasn't that kind of models at the time. But once I got to went to University of Michigan and there was already activists on campus that were speaking a lot about, starting to speak about sexuality issues and so on. And that actually, between feminism and the beginning of the lesbian feminist movement really brought me to awareness. And then of course the real way it happened is falling in love with this woman who there we were on in Israel and on a porch outside this hostel. Although then hostel sounds like another meeting, too, but this is was friendly hostel. And you know, made love under the stars. And then I started to say, "I like this." - You say, hey, this is good. - "Gimme more of this." - This is a good thing. - [Linda] This is a nice thing. - But you must have worried. I mean, because there's so much social pressure about it. And of course we actually didn't know that we weren't sick. I mean, perhaps you always did. But again, it's sort of this intersection of your interest in how the mind works. - [Linda] Yes. - And then this own sort of discovery about yourself. Did you have a moment's hesitation? Did you have a concern? - I about seven years of hesitation. (laughs) - [Sheila] Yeah, I can't relate to that. - It took me a long time at that time, because when I really began to, you know, I had this first experience that I described to you. And then, you know, I try, you know, thought, oh, this is just a phase and dated men. But then when I realized that the boyfriends I was dating, we both were sort of attracted the same women. I mean, come on now. (Sheila laughs) And then I was very anxious about it. And because then I went off to graduate school in a very analytic place that really believed that we were still ill at that point, in 1970. And I, one of the first classes I went to is a class on psychopathology. And at Michigan at the time they did have a beginning speakers, a gay and lesbian speakers bureau, was one of the first in the country. And they were gonna have these four people come to class, two gay men and two lesbians. And they came in and they were, you know, and I was just scared when they were in the room, because there was others like me. And then after they left, the professor went from person to person, showing their psychopathology and how it connected to their being homosexual. So it was a very powerful message to me about it being sick and dangerous to come out. So that contributed to my fear about coming out in the program. Although, I did over time come out. And certainly was afraid that if I got found out, I would not be able to complete my degree. - So here you are in graduate studies, I mean, not to mention undergraduate, in psychology, and all the information that's given to you is that this is pathological behavior. - Yes. However, since I, another momentous moment that sort of leads to what you asked me a few moments ago, from Evelyn Hooker on up, is that, I'm talking now 1970, in 1973, there was a major change that happened, because actually a combination of our civil rights movement and feminism and gay-lesbian activism, and studies after Evelyn Hooker's that continued to compare heterosexual men and women with gay men and lesbians. And they never could find us any sicker than the rest of them. So finally in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association changed their psychiatric Bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, where for years, we were listed as mentally ill. And they removed that from it. So I always tease that the best psychotherapy cure I ever got is I went to bed sick and woke up healthy. - (laughs) Well, it actually, though, points out how powerful these definitions are, and how powerful sort of psychology and the notion of the sort of diagnosis, but also self-image is in our lives. I mean, sort of in the, you know, post-Freudian era we all grew up, unlike many of our parents, thinking of ourselves in psychological ways. You know, why do I do this? What is my motivation? Whereas, you know, parents, a lot of them just did what they did and didn't necessarily think about it. And that I think has made the study of psychology and the myths promulgated very, very powerful throughout the whole society. I mean, you know, there's a question of the chicken and the egg. Did everybody think we were sick, and so psychology said we were sick? Or did it validate, you know, and kind of spread the word? I don't know, maybe does this make sense to you? - It makes good sense. At least I'm gonna answer the question as I think it makes sense. - Okay, good. - That's the only way I can do it. Actually, we don't know if, in terms of the chicken-egg question, at least we know in terms of the formation of American psychiatry and psychology, that there really was based on theories, although people misread Freud, 'cause he actually didn't say as much detrimental things about us as people who interpreted him. But there really was in the, you know, beginning of the 20th century, which were out of now, thankfully. The sexologists and people's interpretation of Freud's thinking that really began to link the notion that that being a gay person in and of itself meant that you were sick in some way. And I really believe that those theories, I don't really believe, it's sort of been documented historically, had really fed people's beliefs. So, and then of course, and as I said, that's from the early, you know, 1900s through, it wasn't until 1973, that's late in the 20th century, when people finally made that change. And even though the change was made, and importantly, for something you asked me before about the changes, once that happened, many more people in general came out, including in psychology and other fields. So we had many more people in the early 70s like myself come out as a psychologist, and then begin to do things even within our own field to try to make changes. And as a result, by the late 70s there was an affirmative model of looking at gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender experience that was very different in the illness model. So there was an impetus for that in a very, you know, important way. - But even though the DSM-III changed that particular definition, there was still something detrimental in the DSM-III about us. - There was. And I have the pleasure of being part of getting it out of there. The second thing that was in there, so they decided, okay, in and of itself we're not sick, but they made up this topic called egodystonic. Now this is the way they do it, so of course you wanna understand the language, it's a code. But egodystonic homosexuality, all that meant is if you were a homosexual person and you were uncomfortable with it, that meant that something was wrong with you. Now of course, we can all laugh about this now, because we know that the reason, and that's what the evidence we use, that people are so uncomfortable because there were so negative attitudes. I don't think a healthy gay person could've not been uncomfortable and live in this society. And of course they never, and then they said, because of that, of course, if you could then help the person become heterosexual, they won't then have this problem. So for, we certainly, tongue in cheek, but seriously, tried to point out that they should then put in egodystonic heterosexuality, 'cause there's a lot of people walking around who really aren't comfortable being heterosexual. Would that be nice if they could be led to the choice of being whomever they want to be? - Or some recognition? I mean I'm only a politician, but I do know that external forces, often where discrimination is involved, are the things making us uncomfortable. You know, I mean, of course you're gonna be uncomfortable. The whole notion that you have to come out to make the decision to reveal to the world that you're gay or lesbian, and the fact that it is a decision and a difficult one is totally related to the response that you think you're gonna get. It really, you know, it's hard to be comfortable with yourself when everyone's giving you all these negative messages. - Absolutely. - But there it was, still in the DSM-III. - Right, despite that they're actually at the same time. Actually one of the things that also changed with DSM-III, 'cause there were, there was research that was done. A large study, actually, NIMH gave money for a large task force on homosexuality. And they did this large study and they found that the, quote, the "healthier" gay and lesbian people at the time. And it actually was a sample of white and African Americans, were those who were comfortable with their, you know, how they felt about themselves and lived in environments where they were getting not such hostile messages, but more positive messages in the spirit of what you're saying, that the social environment really was an integral factor. And it still is in making people either feel comfortable or not comfortable about their homosexuality. But the big difference was that in the past, everything, the illness model believed everything was the person. So if I was uncomfortable, then it was something inherently wrong, 'cause they still believed it was inherently wrong to be a gay person. All the models we have now are based more on a minority stress model, and what they take into account are the external factors of hostility, prejudice, you know, perceived stigma, that kind of thing, as well as someone's internal factors. - So it's sort of like, I think, a maturation process. I mean, when I was in my 20s, I used to wonder what was wrong with me. And when I got into my thirties, I started thinking, gee, what's wrong with them? I think that's the process that you've just described. - I am, and actually what's interesting about that, Sheila, is that the same process that I'm describing that, you know, actually, if you look at our, you know, LGBT movement from the homophile rights movement up, you would see that process happening, to switch from, you know, accommodation model that used to be more apparent in the 50s. You know, let's sort of fit ourselves in, to a model that said, you know, we're fine, you know, but your homophobia's sick. And it's the same process individuals go through. For individuals, it's much easier now. That's the best news, I hope we talk more about that. But for people to kind of come to terms with being comfortable being a queer person, they have to in some way take on whatever they've internalized about those negative social attitudes and really transform them into the positive realities, as you would say, of how fabulous we all are. - That's right, how fabulous we are. Although, are we still using the word fabulous? I heard that we, you know, we're kind of gonna give it a rest for a while. - After this show. - Okay. So here you are at Michigan, though. We are looking in your own history. Graduate school in Michigan. All of this fabulous... (Linda laughs) Stuff hadn't happened yet. - Right. - Now, at Michigan, you were called upon as a graduate student to do some research. Was your research involved in this area, or were you leaving that yet till the future? - It started to be, because one of the core, one of the core assumptions that still persists about the, to explain the causes of why people in the illness model, why people are sick, whether it was biological abnormality or something faulty in how you were socialized, was a notion of somehow being sexually inverted. And what sexual inversion really referred to, like in my case, would be, you know, a woman who, you know, who... Except for certain outside appearance would really be, be masculine in my characteristics, and that somehow I really wanted to be a man or be like a man. And the answer to that is not, but that was the prevailing view, okay, was this sense of inversion. And so a lot of what I started to explore when I was still in graduate school is these whole theories about gender and this dichotomous way of looking at gender and sexuality. So actually, my dissertation focused on moving out of these very traditional models of sex roles, gender roles, to looking at how to transcend them. And in that transcendence model, it really allowed a much more of a continuum of understanding people's gender and how they related to that and their roles as men or women. And that led to other research that I then did around applying these things to gay and lesbian experience. - So did you, after graduate school, did you go into practice? Did you stay in research? Is it a combination? I don't-- - Yeah. - [Sheila] Really understand the career path. - Well, the smartest career path is I came to California. (Sheila and Linda laugh) - Well, I could say that was a very good choice. - Don't you think? - But with apologies to all of our friends who are living in other states right here. - Oh, that's true. I'm also a New Yorker, so maybe that'll make at least it'll be bi-coastal here. - Okay. - What happened is that I already was beginning to be very much more interested in doing work in the gay-lesbian area. I mean, I was raised in a family where social justice was quite, you know, a serious matter across diversities, and, you know, wanted to apply all my thinking about that now to a member of a community, in addition to my, you know, ethnicity as a Jewish person or being a woman and so on. And so I initially got involved in one of the outcomes of this change in the law. I mean change in the, feels like the law, the diagnostic manual. - It's your law. - Yeah, my law. Was that there began to be formed, within the organized American Psychological Association, a committee to focus on, at that time it started with gay psychology, then gay-lesbian now it's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender will be added soon. And I did a lot of work. That's where I worked hard on getting this egodystonic homosexuality removed. And I also out of that effort helped identify, we did research on looking at psychotherapy practices with gay men and lesbians, and found that there was a lot of bias and misinformation. And also we ended up coming out with a document. This was looking at almost 2000 psychologists who reported information about their own practice or their own experiences. And as a result, we actually came up with some ideas that showed where there was bias and misinformation on the one hand, and models and approaches that really were very affirming and useful to people. And that started in the early 80s. And I'm delighted to say that it took a while, but now the American Psychological Association, in the year 2000, passed guidelines that the entire association has to follow in terms of doing the best helpful practice for gay men, lesbians, and bisexual men and women. - So this was a section of the APA that you, or do they call 'em sections or committees? - Yeah, well it was, they have committees within, they have committees and boards that are all made of psychologists. - And this is a national organization. - This is a national organization. And the thing I'm talking about, getting these guidelines, was passed by the entire association. And so it's how every person who practices should treat LGB folks. - So, but how did you go about doing this? I mean, what, I don't know how. Do you work with colleagues who were in this committee with you? - Yeah, yes. - You developed the questionnaire for the psychologists? - All of the above. We had a actually, I co-chaired a task force whose job it was is develop a survey. And we ended up getting almost 1600 psychologists to participate. And then to, and in the survey, we were able to develop biased practice and affirmative, useful practice. - You must have raised some ire somewhere, though. I mean, I'm certain that there were people in the association that thought this was the wrong way, wrong thing to do. - Absolutely. Fortunately, it was more among many members of the psychology community who, you know, had long been taught these more traditional models. And more in recent years, as it's been more of a backlash on, as we know in society in general, and within all the ways that we have shown that not only we're healthy and productive, but we can be innovative in how we live our lives, which I could talk more about. But there actually became a movement that was trying to bring back reparative therapy, or conversion therapy. And people aren't familiar with that, that was a model that was used, unfortunately, up through almost the 70s that believed that not only were we sick, but you had to change us. And sometimes those methods were quite brutal. People could get ECT or they could be shown pictures when they were being aroused that would be, and then give electric shock. And then that there had been really a movement within organized psychology to really not use, to acknowledge that as not a useful practice. But it kind of became resurging again in a group that was, as we know, everything in psychology also has political roots. So there was sort of more right wing folks that attach themselves to psychologists. And there's a group out there hate to name them, but called NARTH, who called themselves National Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. But they basically wanna take us back way before the 1940s to a time where we would be cured again. - [Sheila] Hmm. - So yes, there has been a backlash. - And was there a personal backlash? I mean, did you, did you feel heat from fellow psychologists who would say to you, "Why are you doing this?" You know, "This is not useful work within the association." - Probably because I tend to hang more with the people. (laughs) - More with people who agree with you? - Who would agree with me. - Don't we all. - Yeah. But I had, you know... I did have encounters with people. It was partly because that meant I was, you know, coming out more professionally, and so on. And yes, I would have, I'd run into colleagues from my graduate program and so on, who sort of wanted to know where they lost me, because they had really, you know, thought I was skilled at what I did, but, you know, didn't know this about me, and had concerns about the kind of work I was doing. And I would, at that time, probably sometimes get anxious. But more of the time, 'cause I really knew that we had a body of, the nice thing. The bad thing about psychology is it perpetuated our problems for so long. The good news is that we have in the last, you know, since the 1950s, Evelyn Hooker on up, we have so much research that just documents not only that we're healthy, but you know, a lot of different things about how we create our families and our lives and so on, that, you know, I just felt very confident in taking them on. But the important point, and this is probably true for many people, is because I did have a community. I had a community within psychology that supported me. I had a community, at this point, in Los Angeles, you know, of people. And so having that community support made a big difference, where certainly in the late 60s and early 70s, I felt much more isolated. And that would've made it much harder to stand up to some of the same people. - Now you did further work within the APA, as I remember, but I'm not sure what the sort of chronology is. So you can, if, you know, tell me kind of what came next after the work that you began in this committee. But I know that there was a time when you were spearheading a sort of an analysis or compendium of the research about this. - Yes, yes. - And I don't know if that came much later or what led to that and sort of what was going on in your own life that, you know, as you said, you were being more and more out, and how that affected your work. - Yes, well, I... The work you're talking about chronologically really did happen after some of the work I've just described. And it was partly 'cause I met like-minded colleagues who wanted to do research in this area and that it felt important. 'Cause one of the things I'm very good at is synthesizing information and materials. And I wanted to bring that skill to bear. I wanted to do, as you can tell, I, throughout my whole career as a psychologist, I've wanted the activism to be mixed. And I just felt like I had a particular area where I could do it in and make change in a major way. So that's why I was doing that. And there was two impetuses. One was that I really felt that there wasn't anything that was that sort of, there were a lot of articles and so on that pulled different things together. But I thought there was really enough body of information to pull it together that could guide theory in the area, research in the area, and also be a resource to LGB folks in general. And part of what helped that was that myself and colleague Douglas Kimmel, who's in Maine now, but had been at CUNY, we were asked to do a master lecture. The American Psychological Association holds master lectures every year, and they decide an area, this was on diversity. And they had never done two people before, but they saw the wisdom that, you know, women and men may see differently in this area. And they asked us to do a lecture where we really pulled together the best thinking and research we knew at that time. - So it's quite an honor, this lecture, right? I mean, it is the lecture of the year. - Well, there were, well, it was definitely an honor. There were a few other people, obviously, that year. Sheila, you know that bragging is not always my forte. - It just is not your, not your strongest suit. - Just bring it out. Yes, it was one of my-- - But still. - It was one of my greatest moments. I've had a few great moments in this kind of way, and this was one of them. Because we really got to pull the material together. We got to, you know, present it at the American Psychological Association. And there was a great diversity of people in the audience. And it was published through the American Psychological Association, published our piece that went out, under a title called, you know, "Diversity in American Psychology" and had dealt with other issues in terms of gender and racial, ethnic issues and so on. And out of that, I had been teaching, because another piece I had started in the late 80s is I was asked to teach a course at UCLA that now is effectively known as "dyke psych." (Sheila laughs) It's called the psychology of the lesbian experience, although I'm broadening it now, 'cause there's so many, it's much broader than that. And I've been teaching it since '87, and there was really, there were very, very few courses at the time being taught in that area. And so this kind of dovetailed with me also wanting a textbook and realizing the dissemination of information. So Doug and I did a text, did actually a book called The Psychological Perspectives on Gay and Lesbian Experiences. And actually, at home now, I have the second edition. It was popular enough that the second edition's coming out, now we've included-- - Very good. - Bisexuality in the title. And so, and that was great. At that time, many people thought it was a classic at that time, because there wasn't anything else that kind of pulled it together, and people found it really useful. So I continued that tradition into the 90s, and I did a second piece with a woman named Anne Peplow, who's a professor at UCLA. - Second piece, meaning a second major book for me to try. And this was really a focus that I've had for many years with the feminist movement and so on to deal with the intersection of gender and sexual orientation. So we did a special issue of American Psychological Association journal, called the Journal of Social Issues, on women's sexualities and perspectives on gender and sexual orientation, and coeded that and pulled together a lot of great thinking, including yours on the public policy side, for people to just understand the whole issue of women's sexualities across, because we no longer are just looking at things classifying us neatly into boxes of gay or lesbian or bisexual or whatever, but really much more broadly understanding. It's a continuum of experience for people that can change over time. And so that's been another contribution I'm very, very happy with, 'cause there hadn't been anything like that quite out either, so. - Well, let's say more about that, because you were talking about a couple of things you said, you know, we'll get back to. And I'm not certain that they're connected, but I wanna explore the sort of gender issues and sexuality issues that you and Anne explored in, you know, in the book. - Yes. - Because I think most people, if they've done any sort of Psych 1A kind of reading, you think, well didn't Dr. Kinsey, when he was talking about sexuality, didn't he kind of define it as a continuum? How did we get into this dichotomous, you know, you're either this or you're this kind of thinking? And it's really, of course, the same with gender. We tend to look at the physiological aspects of people and say, you're a woman, you know, he's a man. - [Linda] Exactly. - But psychologically, that is not such a perfect line, I guess, as you were exploring it. And it's not just about gender is not the same as homosexuality. I mean-- - Absolutely. - You know, a lesbian is not a woman who wants to be a man. So how did the book explore this sort of variety? - Well, actually, this partly comes from the tradition of Kinsey, although everyone didn't listen to him. I think one of my favorite parts about when he described how the world was a continuum, including sexualities, he said, I mean, come on, do you think the world's always just made of goats and sheeps? And I always tried to figure out who was whom, but I never quite did. (Sheila laughs) - Right. - Depending on my mood, I decided that. But it really came from a lot of work that I had done, actually, and thinking, actually that Anne Peplow had done and others. And it really was from the tradition of looking at all we learned from feminist theory and research, as well as what we've been learning when we look at lesbian, gay men, bisexual men and women, which is, so it's one of the fundamental things we were finding, as I said earlier, is that far from women being counterparts of men, whether it's straight or gay or whatever, that we're finding this great diversity within women's experience and men's experience. But we're also finding that differences about gender seem to be more profound, explaining a lot of things than whether you use a classification of gay or lesbian or bisexual. - Hm, so straight women and lesbians might have more in common than straight women and straight men. - Right, in fact, what all of the, one of the things, that's one of the reasons we argued to write the book, was because we knew a lot more about male sexuality. Again, we looked at it across not, you know, including heterosexuality and so on, than women and that it was, and actually many of the theories dominated looking, really, from a male perspective, and they were losing the richness that we find when we look at women's experiences. So that was one of the premises of the book, to put together a book that just really looked at those experiences. So that was one of the important premises for us to do the book in the first place. And had some things that, you know, helped to point that out. And of course, why we call it sexualities and sexual orientations is because we know that it's very rich and very diverse, as you said, psychologically. And in many other ways about how people think about their own sexuality or their own gender, 'cause we certainly did talk about transgendered issues as well. And so one of our premises was actually to get away from this categorical thinking. Kinsey told us to do that many years ago. We were just-- - Right. Everybody just ignored him. - Some of us heard him. - On that. (laughs) - [Linda] On that. (laughs) - Well, it's been interesting because you said that the issue of bisexuality has become of interest, which it wasn't in that very dichotomous view. You kind of were this or you were that. And psychologically, and I guess in sort of behaviors in the world, bisexual people were saying, wait a minute, you know, I am not straight when I'm straight and gay when I'm gay, I'm bisexual. That's a whole different thing. - [Linda] Exactly. - So we've needed to look at that, a very misunderstood population, I think, as well, by both sides. I mean, straight people think they're gay and gay people think they're pretending to be straight or taking straight privilege or whatever it is. And that's been a very beleaguered community in a way, I think. - Yes, although the good news, even, is that it's really been changing. 'Cause you're absolutely right. In the old model, you were either straight or gay. And then of course we know the hierarchy, you were either straight or gay. But there was no room for bisexuality. It was only when we developed the affirmative model, and we took this view of a continuum and got away from this either/or thinking that bisexuality could exist, not just as a behavior or how it was viewed in the past, transitory, you know, a phase. I'm guilty of that. I thought I was in that phase when I was coming out. Rather than appreciating that it could be one identity by itself. I mean one person I know said it very well, they said I'm trying to live a both/and life in an either/or world. But that really what changed is by the mid 80s, when there was more research had changed from looking at our causes to really understanding our communities, that bisexual research and bisexuality and bisexual movement became more important and more visible. And there's been much more research now, looking at bisexual experience, and much more connection for people. And of course, as you said, it's definitely a unique experience and identity for people. It's not an either/or thing, it's actually wonderful cause it really takes on and challenges so much of this thinking. You know, for example, it challenges the idea that gender is a primary reason for selecting somebody. One of my favorite quotes that I had found from a woman, African American bisexual woman, she says, "My sexual orientation is towards "people of color who can cook." (laughs) Now to me, that's a much better choice than just the gender of my partner. - Exactly, well, of course, and Woody Allen said, you know, when you're bisexual, you never will hurt for a date on a Saturday night. - [Linda] That's right. (laughs) - But transgender community has really had more difficulty, I think, because a friend of mine, in talking about gay and lesbian community, has said that in the old days, and maybe even still a little bit today, we had a very high yuck factor. That is, nobody sort of wanted to talk about it. I mean, when I ran for office, people would say don't talk about that. Let's talk about education, you know, or whatever I care about. And certainly the transgender community, which is just becoming a community, has had even more difficulty and probably a higher yuck factor these days, because we want to know what is it? I mean, you know, when a baby's born, that's what you say, "What'd you have?" - Exactly. - And it's really important, apparently, to know whether you had a boy or a girl, 'cause that's the only question we ever ask. So the transgender community must also have had difficulty in kind of even entering into this arena. And what kind of treatment are they getting now in the psychological community? - It's an excellent question. What's happened is that for many years, you know, transgendered folks in psychology and even today, and I'll talk about that, really were view as also having serious emotional problems. Either they were viewed, well it was always viewed as pathology. Either it was viewed, and unfortunately, this was something that had been talked about many, many years ago and there's a resurgence now. So they took us to see, this is the old danger. They took out homosexuality from this Bible, the DSM manual. But now they wanna put back in "gender identity disorder." And it is really a term that would continue to pathologize transgendered folks, that there is something wrong that goes on in their relationship between their biological sex and their gender. Or for all those, you know, quote, "sissy boys," you know, people who are drawn more towards activities that may be traditionally thought of as a member of the other gender that there's something wrong with them. So unfortunately, on the hard side for transgendered folks, that there's been that issue. Within our community, until more recently, the issue has been that people have wanted to kind of keep sexual orientation away from that. Although, that is really changing, at least as I have seen it. So that's been always the danger. The good news is that there has been this, again, in the transgendered political movement, and also among many of us in psychology who have an affirmative perspective, understanding that actually that it's really, it's sort of what I did my actually my dissertation about, it's like transcending these very dichotomous views of gender. I believe gender, as many others do, is a continuum just like sexuality, and people can fall in all different places about it. And that transgendered folks, you know, because there's a variety. People only think of people who have sex change operations, but we know that there has a much wider group of folks that fall within that continuum. And to me, they're doing, they are the kind of pioneers breaking out of these traditional views that say, you know, not only you have to be a boy and a girl, or a girl, but you have to really then have a certain set of qualities that match that. And so even within psychology, those things are really being, at least within the folks within the affirmative GLBT movement within psychology, they're really doing two things. One, fighting, to not let this gender identity disorder become part of this manual, and also really opening people's eyes to appreciate transgender folks and what they offer us. - So is it proposed to be a part of the manual but is not in it yet, and that's where the struggle is? - Yes, 'cause they're constantly revising the manual. So it's... - Mm-hmm. Finding all these new pathologies. - Right, yes. (Sheila laughs) - Oh, wow. - I heard one the other day, but I, so off topic, but they actually were thinking of putting one in called relationship disorder, which... - Well, that'll get a lot of people into therapy, even more. - Well then it was clear when you listened, the more they talked, you could see the connection between their concern that if they don't have it as a label, they can't get paid, so. - (laughs) Well. - So I must have one too, 'cause I'm in a long-term relationship, so I must have a problem. - Right, I think you have relationship order. - Yeah, there you go. - From what I've seen of your relationship. - That's true. - Maybe we need a little more disorder, you know? - Yeah, well maybe we, no, you don't need more disorder. I can guarantee it, because you're doing just fine. - [Linda] Thanks you. - And I'm interested, though, in a couple of things. One is to continue this thing about transgender folks. - Yes. - Have they in the APA, have they located themselves within this same committee related to gay and lesbian issues? I mean, I think it's a different issue in its own way, much more related to gender than sexual orientation. I could be wrong, you know, I'm an amateur. But there has been more of a welcoming, I think, lately, at least, in our gay and lesbian movement, of transgender issues, partly because there really was nowhere else where they would go or fit or have a sort of a base from which to operate. And has it been the same in the APA? - It's very parallel in what's happened. Because actually, within our association, there's this committee that I described that is part of the kind of central organization, and then there's various divisions. So we also have a division on, again, started with gay, then gay, lesbian, bisexual, and both the committee and the division are actively considering adding transgendered. And there's been the same level of discussion because there are some differences. But in the biggest rubric, when we really understand, as I was saying earlier, that we, that there's such an intertwine between these old bimodal views of gender and sexuality, that there is value of it being part of the group. And also there really isn't another place. There are other places they could be connected to, but I think we see it as part of our overall community. 'Cause as I said, it, they have, it's the same premise of that inversion model I described earlier that would wanna pathologize people having more gender diversity. The other thing that we also, along those lines, have really drawn from is traditions in other cultures. I mean, Native American culture has always had what might have been called transgendered folks, you know, in which they really see, they don't view it as psychosexual identity, but a spiritual, very important, honored, spiritual people who, you know, in fact, you know, had a gender that couldn't easily be labeled as masculine or feminine, and some whom had relationships with men and women, and so on. And so we've also been looking to other cultures to really understand the richness of this diversity. - But, there's the other side of looking at other cultures. I know you've done work in other countries. - [Linda] Yes. - And from what we hear from around the world, acceptance of gay and lesbian people, not to mention, you know, anybody else, has not really been that stellar, been very difficult. But I think you've done some work in Western Europe. - [Linda] Yes. - And I wonder if you would talk a little bit about that, if it's how very different from the United States approach or what that work has entailed. - Yeah. I actually, one of the most important things that informed this is that I was invited to do a variation of that master lecture. I got to do it again in a different form. In Europe, there an association of gay, lesbian, and bisexual psychologists. And so Doug and I went off and did that. And it was during Europe Pride in Amsterdam. So there's certain places, of course, I'd rather be living, you know, Scandinavian countries certainly got it right. (Sheila laughs) - 'Cause they're doing better than we're doing. - We are, that's right, I was gonna say, it's both better and worse. But there was a Congress going on that invited people from Western and Eastern Europe to talk about these very issues. And I've kept in touch with many of those people, and so I can speak to that. And I also did some work in Italy, and learned some differences there as well. - [Sheila] Yes, expand. - I will. But also for people to know that there has, in the 90s, there is now an international gay, lesbian, bisexual organization that also is trying to connect across not just Europe, but around the world and really take this on appropriately as a human rights issue, to deal with some of the things I'm about to say. So I also wanna make sure-- - Support them, of course. - Support them, make people aware of that. But the experience was varied, because in, as I said, in certain countries, you know, it was actually the view of sexuality and gender was such that people were very much more welcoming. It wasn't so stigmatized at all. And as we know, people could, you know, can get married and have kids and be more integrated into the life. I had experiences that were very poignant, particularly among some Eastern European country, of people that spoke to me. For example, I was presenting this model about coming out. And at that point, the model sort of said, you know, there was really a value of coming out in more different settings, not just to yourself, but you know, to your family and community and so on. And then, you know, and sort of at that time, the model, we have a different model now, but at that time the model was, you know, you were more mentally healthy if you, you know, told more are more people and so on. And so they came up to me and said, you know, we have to take issue with this model, because if we tell anybody and are found out, we'll be imprisoned or we'll be killed, or, you know, our families will be ostracized. I mean, that they're, that the issue you're addressing is for people to appreciate that people's openness and willingness and ability to be out at all, to find other people, or the quality of their life will totally depend on both the attitudes and the policies and the legal status within that particular country and how they view homosexuality. - [Sheila] Right. - 'Cause we know, for example, in certain central American countries, you're only defined as a gay person if in the sexual exchange, you're the person who's the receptive person, and the person who is sort of on the top in that sense, you know, is not necessarily even labeled that way. And those are the people that get more ostracized. So the answer to your question is yes, there was, there's a lot of discrepancy and it really depended on the interface of the kind of political regimes, and therefore, how they viewed gender, kinship, status, and then how they then would view homosexuality. - And does the field of psychology tend to follow the politics of a country? I mean, it probably would be dangerous to sort of stand up to the politics, although in a way, that's exactly what you've done in the United States. - Yes. - I mean, you do it, you may not have run the risk of prison, but you certainly would run the risk of being ostracized in the psychological community. But I, we found the same thing about women who were working on battered women's issues around the world. I mean, we, you know, someone would be in prison in Nicaragua for having done such a thing, or in El Salvador or, you know, beat to a pulp in the Philippines. Not to mention the women who were working in Israel and Palestine together on, you know, battered women's issues. So the danger of it, but I guess I don't wanna say the whole thing's entirely politicized. But you find then that the psychological response to gay lesbian issues in a country would be more or less along the lines of the politics? - Not necessarily, what I would say is that there's an intricate connection between the politics and to, truthfully, any of the fields of social science, in this case, psychology, you know, I can, I'd be happy to point out, but I guess I gave a few examples earlier that it is with the activism that's gone on in our country that things have changed within psychology. And then some of what we found in psychology has then been used in public policy in ways that have been useful to our community. - [Sheila] Right. - So for example, as I said earlier, it wasn't, we could have had 100 million studies showing that we were really not sick, but it all, it would not have gotten changed around in 1973 if there wasn't an active gay liberation movement that was also pushing for that. - Well, and it's true in public policy and wanting to decriminalize the behavior, for instance, in every state... - Exactly. - Of gay men and lesbians. We would point to studies and say, look, you know, we're fine, we're really okay, we're really healthy. This is not, if you wanna criminalize the behavior because you wanna say it's sinful, that's a different thing. Though we were supposed to have a separation of church and state, I thought, in this country. But if you wanna say it should be criminalized because it's "sick," guess what, here's a study. And so that, you know, was very helpful as well. - Yes, I can give a few examples. That's one of the other things that's been very exciting about fighting our battles within organized psychology, because we, you'll be happy to know we have excellent lawyers and we've had a lot of amicus briefs that have been been effective in child custody battles in many different areas. One of the most significant ones was in Hawaii when, you know, they, you know, they wanted, there was that test case and they were basically saying why can't these people get married? Is it gender discrimination not to and so on? And the state's compelling reason was because we all know that heterosexuals do better in raising their children. Well, we have an enormous amount of research that shows that that's just not true. In fact, not only showing in the ways in which the children raised in lesbian or gay families do as well as raise in heterosexual families, but even found some advantages, because we happened to do a more egalitarian model in our relationships and families. And it was that, you know, when the judge finally made his decision, it was that basis of, in part, of that research that helped him feel like, you know, the state was wrong. So one of the exciting things to me has been all the public policy implications, I mean effects, the enormous impact that's had. And then so answering your question, I think there's been a mutual thing between where the politics are, like in other, you know, the changes in our country and how people view themselves for sure, or what we can do. But there's been this forward thrust since we've had this liberation movement for some time now that's been helpful. And I think in other countries, one of the things I was so impressed with is the courageous people I met who were having these battles, even in countries that were much more repressive. And it was very helpful for them to have research and data and so on from other countries. You know, last year a Chinese psychiatric association changed their policy and took out homosexuality as a mental illness. And they partly were drawing from research that was being conducted in China, but there wasn't as much, but from other places around the world. So then there's some examples of those, what you're talking about. - So in your own life, has this, this ability to focus your work, your life's work, really, on these issues which are very personal, has it made a difference in your own sort of happiness factor? And I just think it's good for people to know the impact that a person's work can have on their own mental health, and who better than you to articulate it? - I can articulate for everyone else than in my own, but I'll do it anyway. (Sheila and Linda laugh) - Try it for yourself, because I'm not gonna try. - Although, you know me well enough. - I can say you look pretty happy, Linda, you know, but really. - Well actually, it's made an enormous difference. I always tease, but it's also really true. I mean, I love being paid to do my activism. (laughs) I mean, that is what, I mean, you know, that's a surface level, much more deeply, it has been transformative because, as anyone understands who does any social justice work in something that's important to them, it's what I believe. I feel the wonderful impact of feeling the ways I have had an impact and change on things on a local and national level, maybe even international level, that really is so important to me. It's certainly helped me in my own process of coming out and, you know, feeling, you know, a connection with and getting to know so many people in a diverse, in aspects of our community that have been so important to me. You know, it really has given meaning to my life. And I've been so pleased that I could draw since, as we know, we're one aspect of human diversity. And a lot of, talking about a lot of my work has been, you know, looking at all the intersections across race and gender and class and so on. And so being able to really feel like I'm making a difference in how people are getting to live their lives and the quality of service to their lives in the consulting work I've done, or certainly in the clinical work I've done to see people, you know. You know, it's transformative and it's just emboldened me to feel much more comfortable in, you know, in my own life. And, you know, maybe one of the, in most personal levels, one of the highest compliments I got was Barry, my partner has two kids. And when the young woman was getting married, she was looking for her husband and so on, she had told us that she was really looking for somebody who had a relationship like ours, because she really wanted that sense of friendship and egalitarianism and so on. And she did choose a man just like that. And it's been, so it was one of those among many personal-- - Talk about affirmation. - Yeah. - That was a real affirmation. - [Linda] Yeah. - Well, I know you won't be able to believe this, but the whole hour's gone by. - No. - (laughs) It really has. I think there's only a minute remaining. And so I just wanted to tell you this has been wonderful for me, so much information about the work that was done, not only by yourself, but colleagues with whom you've worked in terms of really freeing and liberating our community in so many ways. Because the way we think about ourselves really informs the way we can ask other people to think about us. And it's been a very, very important and basic kind of work, I think, for the movement. So I want to say thank you very much, Linda Garnets. Thank you to you for joining us today. And remember, how you think about yourself is how the world is going to think about you. And I hope that you will choose the affirmation model and get used to it. (upbeat music)