Asking similar questions facilitated a comparison of survey results with those of an earlier study of general psychiatry training directors. The reported departmental attitudes about whether homosexuality represents a pathological condition were essentially equivalent in general and child programs. Child and adolescent training directors were, however, less likely to have a favorable view of disclosure of sexual orientation to patients, less likely to know LGB residents or faculty, and less likely to report LGB residents an asset to their departments. The prediction that the majority of child and adolescent training programs would reflect a heightened awareness of the vulnerability of LGB youths was not confirmed. Compared to similar studies, the results were not too different except in the case of the siblings of one study where the incidence was much higher.
Some evidence is considered for the speculation of a nongenetic, congenital cause of homosexuality.
Both the diagnostic process in mental health and the manner in which mental health treatment is formulated and delivered are political. The author first considers the political aspect of diagnosis and then the political aspects of treatment. He begins by focusing on the psychiatric diagnosis of homosexuality as a particularly good example of the political use of mental health classification. He then turns to some of the larger political debates regarding the classification of mental disorders, and to the political issues involved in the delivery of mental health treatment to gay men and lesbians, women, and other minorities. Finally, he discusses a model for affirmative treatment of vulnerable populations.