Also, if “it” should have been reclassified, how would you propose it be reclassified?

No, but then neither can Nicolosi.

Remember the vote on the removal of the designation from the DSM in 1973 was accomplished by the actions of fraud and not based upon science. It was conducted by (with the appearances of being sanctioned by the APA, when in fact the literature disseminated was done so by deceit and was not sanctioned) radicals within the APA. Had the membership been properly informed of the facts and science (and many years of witnessing this very “change” in patients who were treated for other, unrelated issues, which obviously underpinned the attractions since the attractions dissipated once therapy ameliorated the challenge presented to the therapist) instead of being sent propaganda and fraudulent comminications on the APA letterhead without their knowledge or consent, the vote would probably gone in the opposite direction.

So why have the APA members never in the last 33 years become aware of this fraud and put it back in? (And please don’t try the stock answer of “everyone’s intimidated by the Gay Mafia(tm)” without explaining just how the majority of the 155,000+ member APA is being intimidated).

And again the claim that treating for unrelated issues will somehow poof away the gay- then the obvious question once again is: why does dedicated “ex-gay” therapy exist at all? Shouldn’t NARTH simply close up shop and their therapists search for unrelated issues to treat whenever someone with unwanted same-sex attractions comes in?

The descision to change the Presidency had been discussed prior to the flap in re the article. To my knowledge it was Dr. Nicolosi, Dr. Charles W. Socarides and Dr. Benjamin Kaufman who formed Narth. Dr. Socarides I believe was the first President.

I think you meant “election BY members” instead of “election OF members” and if so that is my understanding also, that the election of Dr. Byrd was on a vote of the Board, not a membership vote.

Remember the vote on the removal of the designation from the DSM in 1973 was accomplished by the actions of fraud and not based upon science. It was conducted by (with the appearances of being sanctioned by the APA, when in fact the literature disseminated was done so by deceit and was not sanctioned) radicals within the APA. Had the membership been properly informed of the facts and science (and many years of witnessing this very “change” in patients who were treated for other, unrelated issues, which obviously underpinned the attractions since the attractions dissipated once therapy ameliorated the challenge presented to the therapist) instead of being sent propaganda and fraudulent comminications on the APA letterhead without their knowledge or consent, the vote would probably gone in the opposite direction.

The dysfunction should have been reclassified, not removed.

Interesting quote from Dr. Byrd. He certainly is an activist, I cannot imagine why he would say that. He has been for quite a long time.

I did not think he was very religious until I became aware of his books and writings on LDS theology. At least he has said publicly that he is not “very religious.”

He must be thinking about these terms in ways different than me.

In the world of the academy, homosexuality is an issue on which there is little genuine intellectual exchange these days. And it’s this topic that FAIR has asked me to address. I should perhaps add to the introduction so that you can appreciate my perspective. You need to know that I am not much of an activist on this issue or any other issue. I direct a research organization, teach at the medical school, and manage to provide therapy for a unique population–men who are distressed by their unwanted homosexual attraction.

“…not much of an activist?”

What would it take to become an activist?