Staff Perspective: A Brief History of LGB Individuals and the Military (Part 2)
LGB Service members have faced workplace stigma, institutional heterosexism, and discrimination for decades. In spite of exclusionary policies, LGB persons have long served in the U.S. military. Same-sex behaviors have been prohibited in the military setting as far back as the Revolutionary War. In 1942, the first policies explicitly prohibiting gay and lesbian individuals from joining the military were enacted. While in WWI sodomy laws were the basis for exclusion, WWII focused on exclusion on the basis of “sexual proclivities”. In 1953, President Eisenhower issued executive order 10450 prohibiting federal personnel from participating in “subversive” groups, maintaining that “sexual perversion” presents a security risk.
Staff Perspective: LGB History in Psychology and the Military (Part 1)
Prior to the 1970s, exclusion of non-heterosexual individual from military service was based on psychiatric nomenclature classifying non-heterosexual orientation as a mental illness (Johnson, et al. 2015). After the removal of homosexuality from the DSM-III, the DoD had to provide a non-medical explanation for continued exclusion of non-heterosexual individuals from the military. In 1981, the DoD set forth a Directive 1332.14, a federal policy maintaining homosexuality was incompatible with military service; as a result, any Service member attempting to engage in same-sex behaviors would be subject to mandatory discharge. This policy was comprised on the basis of the following three rationales: 1) LGB persons would jeopardize the military mission; 2) LGB persons would negatively impact morale and unit cohesion; and 3) inclusion of LGB persons in the military would increase risk of breaches in security. The result of this statute was the separation of approximately 17,000 Service members between 1980 and 1990 (Jones & Koshes, 1995). Over time, the list of objections to exclude LGB persons from military service grew to include the view of same-sex behavior as morally reprehensible, concerns regarding increased health costs (attributable to HIV/AIDS treatment), erosion of military readiness, deterioration of military effectiveness, decline in unit cohesion, challenges in recruiting and retention, violation of modesty rights for heterosexual Service members, and violation of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice’s prohibition against sodomy (Alford & Lee, 2016; Goldbach & Castro, 2016).
Exclusionary policies remained in spite of decades of research literature offering no evidence to support such claims. When President Bill Clinton took office in 1993, his proposal to allow gay individuals to openly serve in the military was met with much resistance. Still, the absence of literature supporting the claims that inclusion of LGB persons in the military would be detrimental could not be ignored. In an attempt to compromise, congress enacted the National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 (1993), known as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT). According to this new legislation, LGB active duty personnel could only be discharged from military service if there was evidence of same-sex behavior or the propensity to engage in such behavior (National Defense Authorization Act of 1994, 1993). In other words, LGB persons could only serve their country if they remained closeted. DADT was the first policy focused on ramifications of non-heterosexual identity, rather than behavior alone. Between the years of 1994 and 2009, over 13,000 LGB Service members were administratively discharged on the basis of DADT (Kamarck, 2015). Throughout the period in which DADT was enforced, LGB individuals continued to endure discrimination, victimization and harassment (Alford & Lee, 2016).
By 2011, the U.S. was one of few NATO member countries to ban openly LGB individuals from military service. Finally, in September 2011, DADT was repealed. Although the repeal of DADT allowed LGB Service members to openly serve in the military, LGB individuals continued to experience discrimination within the military system. For example, the federal government, under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits. On June 26, 2013 in the U.S. Supreme Court case United States vs. Windsor, restricting the interpretation of marriage to heterosexual unions only was deemed unconstitutional and same-sex couples were sanctioned the same benefits and entitlements as heterosexual couples (Kamarck, 2015).
While DADT was repealed, some military leaders maintain a negative view of policy change and anti-discrimination laws. Moreover, stigmatizing attitudes and the perceived need to conceal one’s sexual-orientation identity often persists. Although disheartening, this is not surprising given the long history of heterosexism in military culture. Cultural heterosexism, i.e., the perpetuation of heterocentric beliefs by sociopolitical systems (Cahill et al., 2000; Herek, 1990; Pachankis & Goldfried, 2004), has flooded the military culture. Discrimination at the institutional level can reinforce negative beliefs and stereotypes, thus resulting in internalized stigma.
It is important to note that persons who identify as transgender were not afforded protection under this act, until very recently. This was particularly concerning given that there is a higher proportion of transgender individuals in the military than in the general population (Goldbach & Castro, 2016). The previous DoD policy called for the separation of transgender persons. Nevertheless, a recent review of the policy called to end the ban on transgender troops serving in the U.S. Military and for the first time in history transgender Service members can serve openly and cannot be discharged or otherwise separated from the military on the basis of their transgender identity. Under this new policy, the DoD called for: 1) the issuance of a training handbook for commanders, transgender Service members, and the force; 2) the issuance of medical guidance for providing transition related care to transgender Service members; and 3) provision of all medically necessary care related to gender transition (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 2016).
Making Sense of History
Contemporaneous research literature reveals that non-heterosexual individuals are at increased risk for mental health problems (including anxiety, mood and affective disorders, substance use disorders, and suicidal ideation and attempts) than their heterosexual counterparts (Cochran et al., 2003; Herek & Garnets, 2007; Meyer, 2003). The minority stress model suggests that the marginalization endured by non-heterosexuals leads to unique challenges and stressors in their lives, which may provide a context for understanding the increased rates of mental health problems observed within this community. The emotional consequences of coping with societal oppression and stigma are clear (Willis, 2004); the field of psychology has certainly contributed its share to furthering the stigmatization by viewing non-heterosexual behavior as a disorder (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1952; Meyer, 2003). The military has reinforced the pathological view of non-heterosexual behaviors with decades of workplace stigma, institutional heterosexism and discrimination.
Virtually every clinical psychologist, at some point in their career, will work with a non-heterosexually oriented client, a person who is questioning his or her sexual identity, or a family member of someone who is of a non-heterosexual orientation or questioning. Although members of the LGB community are faced with unique issues and experiences, the research literature on these needs remains limited (Pachankis & Golfried, 2004). It is my hope that one day the military will propose clinical recommendations based on LGB affirmative clinical practices. In spite of advancements in the understanding of same-sex attraction, the vestiges of heterosexism, homonegativity, and binegativity subsist in the field of psychology and pervade the military culture, which inevitably continue to influence the assessment and treatment of LGB Service members and Veterans.
Understanding the history and marginalization that non-heterosexually oriented individuals endure, provides a context for understanding the increased prevalence of mental health problems within this community and distrust of mental health treatment providers (Cochran et al., 2003; Herek & Garnets, 2007; Meyer, 2003). It is my hope that a better understanding of this history will help to guide treatment implications in the future!
Sharon Birman, Psy.D., is a CBT trainer working with the Military Training Programs at the Center for Deployment Psychology (CDP) at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland.
REFERENCES
Adam, B. D. (1995). The rise of a gay and lesbian movement (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Twayne.
Alford, B. & Lee, S.J. (2016). Toward complete inclusion: lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender military service members after repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. National Association of Social Workers. doi: 10.1093/sw/sww033
American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1973). Homosexuality and sexual orientation disturbance: Proposed change in DSM-II (retired). Retrieved from www.psychiatryonline.com/DSMPDF/DSM-II_Homosexuality _Revision.pdf
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Badgett, M. V. L. (1995). The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(4), 726-739. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2524353
Cahill, S., South, K., Spade, J., & National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2000). Outing age: Public policy issues affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender elders. Washington, DC: Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce. Retrieved from http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and _research/outing_age
Callahan, E., & Leitenberg, H. (1973). Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81(1), 60-73. doi:10.1037/h0034025
Cochran, S. D., Mays, V. M., & Sullivan, J. G. (2003). Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 53-61. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.1.53
D’Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities: The making of a homosexual minority in the United States, 1940-1970 (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Don’t Ask , Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (2010). Pub L. No 111-321, 124 Stat. 3513.
Drescher, J. (2010). Queer diagnoses: Parallels and contrasts in the history of homosexuality, gender variance, and the diagnostic and statistical manual. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(2), 427-460. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9531-5
Duberman, M. B. (1993). Stonewall. New York, NY: Dutton.
Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.),The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Volume VII (1901-1905): A case of hysteria, three essays on sexuality and other works (pp. 123-246). London, England: Imago.
Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. (n.d.) Creating a safe clinical environment for lesbian, gay. Bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) patients. Retrieved from http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=contentSearch.veritySearch&nodeID=1
Goldbach, J. T., & Castro, C. A. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) service members: Life after Don’t ask, Don’t tell. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(6), 1-7. doi:10.1007/s11920-016-0695-0
Herek, G. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3), 316-333. doi:10.1177/088626090005003006
Herek, G. (1992). The social context of hate crimes: Notes on cultural heterosexism. In K. Berrill & G. Herek (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men (pp. 89-104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 905-925. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00544.x
Herek, G., & Garnets, L. (2007). Sexual orientation and mental health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 353-375. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091510
Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 1, 18-31. doi: 10.1080/08853126.1957.10380742
Johnson, W., Rosenstein, J., Buhrke, R., & Haldeman, D. (2015). After "don't ask don't tell": Competent care of lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel during the DoD policy transition. Professional Psychology-Research and Practice, 46(2), 107-115. doi:10.1037/a0033051
Jones, F.D. & Koshes, R.J. (1995). Homosexuality and the military. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 16-21.
Kamarck, K.N. (2016). Diversity, inclusion and equal opportunity in the armed services: Background and issues for congress. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R44321.pdf
Kauth M. R. (2006). Sexual orientation and identity. In R. D. McAnulty & M. M. Burnette (Eds.), Sex and sexuality (pp. 153- 184). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674-697. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Ministrial Advisory Committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Health and Wellbeing, Department of Mental Health. (2009). Well Proud: A guide to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex inclusive practice for health and human services. Retrieved from http://www.glhv.org.au/files/WellProud_updated2011.pdf
Morin, S. (1977). Heterosexual bias in psychological research on lesbianism and male homosexuality. American Psychologist, 32(8), 629-637. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.32.8.629.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. (2016). DoD Instruction 1300.28: In-Service transition for transgender service members. Retrieved from: http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/2016/0616_policy/DoD-Instructi...
Pachankis, J., & Goldfried, M. (2004). Clinical issues in working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41(3), 227-246. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.41.3.227
Robertson, P. K. (2004). The historical effects of depathologizing homosexuality on the practice of counseling. The Family Journal, 12(2), 163-169. doi:10.1177/1066480703261976
Walker, J. A., & Prince, T. (2010). Training considerations and suggested counseling interventions for LGBT individuals. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 4(1), 2-17. doi: 10.1080/15538600903552756
Willis, D. (2004). Hate crimes against gay males: An overview. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 25(2), 115-132. doi:10.1080/01612840490268090
LGB Service members have faced workplace stigma, institutional heterosexism, and discrimination for decades. In spite of exclusionary policies, LGB persons have long served in the U.S. military. Same-sex behaviors have been prohibited in the military setting as far back as the Revolutionary War. In 1942, the first policies explicitly prohibiting gay and lesbian individuals from joining the military were enacted. While in WWI sodomy laws were the basis for exclusion, WWII focused on exclusion on the basis of “sexual proclivities”. In 1953, President Eisenhower issued executive order 10450 prohibiting federal personnel from participating in “subversive” groups, maintaining that “sexual perversion” presents a security risk.
Staff Perspective: LGB History in Psychology and the Military (Part 1)
Prior to the 1970s, exclusion of non-heterosexual individual from military service was based on psychiatric nomenclature classifying non-heterosexual orientation as a mental illness (Johnson, et al. 2015). After the removal of homosexuality from the DSM-III, the DoD had to provide a non-medical explanation for continued exclusion of non-heterosexual individuals from the military. In 1981, the DoD set forth a Directive 1332.14, a federal policy maintaining homosexuality was incompatible with military service; as a result, any Service member attempting to engage in same-sex behaviors would be subject to mandatory discharge. This policy was comprised on the basis of the following three rationales: 1) LGB persons would jeopardize the military mission; 2) LGB persons would negatively impact morale and unit cohesion; and 3) inclusion of LGB persons in the military would increase risk of breaches in security. The result of this statute was the separation of approximately 17,000 Service members between 1980 and 1990 (Jones & Koshes, 1995). Over time, the list of objections to exclude LGB persons from military service grew to include the view of same-sex behavior as morally reprehensible, concerns regarding increased health costs (attributable to HIV/AIDS treatment), erosion of military readiness, deterioration of military effectiveness, decline in unit cohesion, challenges in recruiting and retention, violation of modesty rights for heterosexual Service members, and violation of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice’s prohibition against sodomy (Alford & Lee, 2016; Goldbach & Castro, 2016).
Exclusionary policies remained in spite of decades of research literature offering no evidence to support such claims. When President Bill Clinton took office in 1993, his proposal to allow gay individuals to openly serve in the military was met with much resistance. Still, the absence of literature supporting the claims that inclusion of LGB persons in the military would be detrimental could not be ignored. In an attempt to compromise, congress enacted the National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 (1993), known as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT). According to this new legislation, LGB active duty personnel could only be discharged from military service if there was evidence of same-sex behavior or the propensity to engage in such behavior (National Defense Authorization Act of 1994, 1993). In other words, LGB persons could only serve their country if they remained closeted. DADT was the first policy focused on ramifications of non-heterosexual identity, rather than behavior alone. Between the years of 1994 and 2009, over 13,000 LGB Service members were administratively discharged on the basis of DADT (Kamarck, 2015). Throughout the period in which DADT was enforced, LGB individuals continued to endure discrimination, victimization and harassment (Alford & Lee, 2016).
By 2011, the U.S. was one of few NATO member countries to ban openly LGB individuals from military service. Finally, in September 2011, DADT was repealed. Although the repeal of DADT allowed LGB Service members to openly serve in the military, LGB individuals continued to experience discrimination within the military system. For example, the federal government, under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits. On June 26, 2013 in the U.S. Supreme Court case United States vs. Windsor, restricting the interpretation of marriage to heterosexual unions only was deemed unconstitutional and same-sex couples were sanctioned the same benefits and entitlements as heterosexual couples (Kamarck, 2015).
While DADT was repealed, some military leaders maintain a negative view of policy change and anti-discrimination laws. Moreover, stigmatizing attitudes and the perceived need to conceal one’s sexual-orientation identity often persists. Although disheartening, this is not surprising given the long history of heterosexism in military culture. Cultural heterosexism, i.e., the perpetuation of heterocentric beliefs by sociopolitical systems (Cahill et al., 2000; Herek, 1990; Pachankis & Goldfried, 2004), has flooded the military culture. Discrimination at the institutional level can reinforce negative beliefs and stereotypes, thus resulting in internalized stigma.
It is important to note that persons who identify as transgender were not afforded protection under this act, until very recently. This was particularly concerning given that there is a higher proportion of transgender individuals in the military than in the general population (Goldbach & Castro, 2016). The previous DoD policy called for the separation of transgender persons. Nevertheless, a recent review of the policy called to end the ban on transgender troops serving in the U.S. Military and for the first time in history transgender Service members can serve openly and cannot be discharged or otherwise separated from the military on the basis of their transgender identity. Under this new policy, the DoD called for: 1) the issuance of a training handbook for commanders, transgender Service members, and the force; 2) the issuance of medical guidance for providing transition related care to transgender Service members; and 3) provision of all medically necessary care related to gender transition (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 2016).
Making Sense of History
Contemporaneous research literature reveals that non-heterosexual individuals are at increased risk for mental health problems (including anxiety, mood and affective disorders, substance use disorders, and suicidal ideation and attempts) than their heterosexual counterparts (Cochran et al., 2003; Herek & Garnets, 2007; Meyer, 2003). The minority stress model suggests that the marginalization endured by non-heterosexuals leads to unique challenges and stressors in their lives, which may provide a context for understanding the increased rates of mental health problems observed within this community. The emotional consequences of coping with societal oppression and stigma are clear (Willis, 2004); the field of psychology has certainly contributed its share to furthering the stigmatization by viewing non-heterosexual behavior as a disorder (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1952; Meyer, 2003). The military has reinforced the pathological view of non-heterosexual behaviors with decades of workplace stigma, institutional heterosexism and discrimination.
Virtually every clinical psychologist, at some point in their career, will work with a non-heterosexually oriented client, a person who is questioning his or her sexual identity, or a family member of someone who is of a non-heterosexual orientation or questioning. Although members of the LGB community are faced with unique issues and experiences, the research literature on these needs remains limited (Pachankis & Golfried, 2004). It is my hope that one day the military will propose clinical recommendations based on LGB affirmative clinical practices. In spite of advancements in the understanding of same-sex attraction, the vestiges of heterosexism, homonegativity, and binegativity subsist in the field of psychology and pervade the military culture, which inevitably continue to influence the assessment and treatment of LGB Service members and Veterans.
Understanding the history and marginalization that non-heterosexually oriented individuals endure, provides a context for understanding the increased prevalence of mental health problems within this community and distrust of mental health treatment providers (Cochran et al., 2003; Herek & Garnets, 2007; Meyer, 2003). It is my hope that a better understanding of this history will help to guide treatment implications in the future!
Sharon Birman, Psy.D., is a CBT trainer working with the Military Training Programs at the Center for Deployment Psychology (CDP) at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland.
REFERENCES
Adam, B. D. (1995). The rise of a gay and lesbian movement (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Twayne.
Alford, B. & Lee, S.J. (2016). Toward complete inclusion: lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender military service members after repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. National Association of Social Workers. doi: 10.1093/sw/sww033
American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1973). Homosexuality and sexual orientation disturbance: Proposed change in DSM-II (retired). Retrieved from www.psychiatryonline.com/DSMPDF/DSM-II_Homosexuality _Revision.pdf
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Badgett, M. V. L. (1995). The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(4), 726-739. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2524353
Cahill, S., South, K., Spade, J., & National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2000). Outing age: Public policy issues affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender elders. Washington, DC: Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce. Retrieved from http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and _research/outing_age
Callahan, E., & Leitenberg, H. (1973). Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81(1), 60-73. doi:10.1037/h0034025
Cochran, S. D., Mays, V. M., & Sullivan, J. G. (2003). Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 53-61. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.1.53
D’Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities: The making of a homosexual minority in the United States, 1940-1970 (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Don’t Ask , Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (2010). Pub L. No 111-321, 124 Stat. 3513.
Drescher, J. (2010). Queer diagnoses: Parallels and contrasts in the history of homosexuality, gender variance, and the diagnostic and statistical manual. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(2), 427-460. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9531-5
Duberman, M. B. (1993). Stonewall. New York, NY: Dutton.
Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.),The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Volume VII (1901-1905): A case of hysteria, three essays on sexuality and other works (pp. 123-246). London, England: Imago.
Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. (n.d.) Creating a safe clinical environment for lesbian, gay. Bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) patients. Retrieved from http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=contentSearch.veritySearch&nodeID=1
Goldbach, J. T., & Castro, C. A. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) service members: Life after Don’t ask, Don’t tell. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(6), 1-7. doi:10.1007/s11920-016-0695-0
Herek, G. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3), 316-333. doi:10.1177/088626090005003006
Herek, G. (1992). The social context of hate crimes: Notes on cultural heterosexism. In K. Berrill & G. Herek (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men (pp. 89-104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 905-925. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00544.x
Herek, G., & Garnets, L. (2007). Sexual orientation and mental health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 353-375. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091510
Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 1, 18-31. doi: 10.1080/08853126.1957.10380742
Johnson, W., Rosenstein, J., Buhrke, R., & Haldeman, D. (2015). After "don't ask don't tell": Competent care of lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel during the DoD policy transition. Professional Psychology-Research and Practice, 46(2), 107-115. doi:10.1037/a0033051
Jones, F.D. & Koshes, R.J. (1995). Homosexuality and the military. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 16-21.
Kamarck, K.N. (2016). Diversity, inclusion and equal opportunity in the armed services: Background and issues for congress. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R44321.pdf
Kauth M. R. (2006). Sexual orientation and identity. In R. D. McAnulty & M. M. Burnette (Eds.), Sex and sexuality (pp. 153- 184). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674-697. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Ministrial Advisory Committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Health and Wellbeing, Department of Mental Health. (2009). Well Proud: A guide to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex inclusive practice for health and human services. Retrieved from http://www.glhv.org.au/files/WellProud_updated2011.pdf
Morin, S. (1977). Heterosexual bias in psychological research on lesbianism and male homosexuality. American Psychologist, 32(8), 629-637. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.32.8.629.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. (2016). DoD Instruction 1300.28: In-Service transition for transgender service members. Retrieved from: http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/2016/0616_policy/DoD-Instructi...
Pachankis, J., & Goldfried, M. (2004). Clinical issues in working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41(3), 227-246. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.41.3.227
Robertson, P. K. (2004). The historical effects of depathologizing homosexuality on the practice of counseling. The Family Journal, 12(2), 163-169. doi:10.1177/1066480703261976
Walker, J. A., & Prince, T. (2010). Training considerations and suggested counseling interventions for LGBT individuals. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 4(1), 2-17. doi: 10.1080/15538600903552756
Willis, D. (2004). Hate crimes against gay males: An overview. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 25(2), 115-132. doi:10.1080/01612840490268090