English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The final report of the United States National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality, commissioned in 1967 with Evelyn Hooker as its chair, was originally completed in October 1969. It was only officially published in 1972; the Nixon administration withheld the report as "too liberal and tolerant."' Historians have viewed the report in the context of the legacy of Evelyn Hooker, arguably the single most important-revolutionary even-social scientist in gay history.' Their accounts have largely depicted the report as a groundbreaking, positive development-and rightly so. Its policy recommendations to end sodomy laws and discrimination against homosexuals were historic for a major government-sanctioned report. It concluded that homosexuality was a "major problem for our society largely because of the amount of injustice and suffering entailed in it not only for the homosexual but also for those concerned with him."' Furthermore, as historian Henry L. Minton has observed, "the report challenged the psychiatric orthodoxy of labeling all homosexuals as path~logical."~ The emphasis on the progressive aspects of the task force's report, however, has obscured the ways in which its authors shared a common ideological vision-a specifically liberal heterosexism-that structured the report's typology of sexual orientations and policy recommendations. Not only did the authors assume the superiority of heterosexuality, the liberal measures they advocated were deliberately aimed at promoting heterosexuality at the expense of homosexuality. With a stated goal of addressing homosexuality in general, the task force's report instead focused almost exclusively on males and masculinity, and was concerned as much, if not more, with male heterosexuality. The report was liberal in a number of different senses of the word, some of them more apparent than others. For one, it reflected roots in liberal political thought in its focus on what anthropologist Chris Brickell calls the "generic liberal subject," which he argues is "male, White, and hetero~exual."~ Its emphasis on tolerance also revealed assumptions that, according to Brickell, have their basis in a liberal distinction between "the powerful 'we' who tolerate something with which 'we' do not agree, and a tolerable, less than agreeable 'they,' who are on the receiving end of the tolerator's bene~olence."~ Perhaps less irnmediately apparent, the report also revealed elements of liberal economic thought. Its authors shared a vision of a liberal economy analogous to the classical liberal belief in Ricardian and Smithian "free markets," but in this case of sexual-

Liberal Heterosexism: Masculinity, Male Heterosexuality, and the 1969 National Institute of Mental Health Task Force Report on Homosexuality