Homosexuality originally classified as “Mental Disorder” – No one is born Gay.

How the politicized removal of homosexuality from medical classification sparked a global ideological movement – at the cost of science, child welfare, and societal norms. Psychiatry’s redefinition of homosexuality, under activist and financial pressure—not science—sparked a global domino effect that now harms the very people it claimed to liberate.

 

DSM stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — it’s often referred to as the “bible of psychiatry.”

It’s published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and is used worldwide.

 

DSM Timeline of Homosexuality Classification

DSM Edition	Year	Homosexuality Status	Notes
DSM-I	1952	Listed as “Sociopathic Personality Disturbance”	Homosexuality categorized as a mental illness linked to criminal behavior.
DSM-II	1968	Reclassified under “Sexual Deviations”	Listed alongside pedophilia, fetishism, and voyeurism.
→ Major Change	1973	Homosexuality removed from DSM-II	After activist pressure and a narrow APA board vote (58%), homosexuality was no longer classified as a disorder. Replaced by “Sexual Orientation Disturbance”
DSM-III	1980	Introduced “Ego-dystonic Homosexuality”	Meant for individuals unhappy with their same-sex attraction. This was seen as a compromise between political forces and psychiatry.
DSM-III-R	1987	All homosexuality-related diagnoses removed	Homosexuality fully declassified; no longer in any form part of DSM.
DSM-IV / DSM-IV-TR	1994 / 2000	Homosexuality absent	Only Gender Identity Disorder remained, later revised.
DSM-5	2013	Still absent	Focus shifted to Gender Dysphoria (for trans-identifying individuals), not sexual orientation.

 

Critics argue Political or ideological bias resulted in the 1973 removal of homosexuality while some DSM panel members have had ties to drug companies.

 

Who Controls the APA?

The American Psychiatric Association (APA)—which decides what is and isn’t a mental disorder (including the removal of homosexuality in 1973 and the creation of “gender dysphoria”)—is heavily funded and influenced by:

 

Big Pharma

• Up to 30% of APA’s funding has come from pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, and Janssen.
• Many members of DSM task forces (including DSM-5) received millions in undisclosed pharma payments, raising serious conflict-of-interest concerns.
• These same companies profit from hormones, puberty blockers, and psychiatric drugs now widely prescribed to children under “gender-affirming care.”

 

Woke-Aligned Billionaires

• Billionaires like Jon Stryker(heir to Stryker Medical Devices- Arcus Foundation) and Jennifer Pritzker (transgender philanthropist, Pritzker family fortune – Tawani Foundation) fund global LGBTQIA+ and transgender agendas. George Soros Open Society Foundation fund NGOs that push for curriculum reform and anti-discrimination laws, support media platforms and university research promoting gender identity theory, have ties to organizations that cite APA guidelines in advancing policy.
• Their foundations fund education, NGOs, medical institutions, and LGBTQ content in schools & university studies/research/courses — shaping both culture and policy.
• These billionaires also hold shares in medical-tech and biotechcompanies that profit from sex-change surgeries and long-term drug regimens.

 

Bottom Line:

The APA is not neutral. It is deeply influenced by ideological billionaires and pharma companies who benefit from expanding mental health diagnoses and normalizing irreversible gender treatments — especially in youth.

Homosexuality as a Mental Disorder — APA vs. WHO

 

The APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, not due to new science, but under political and activist pressure, with a narrow 58% board vote.

 

This was followed by WHO, which only removed homosexuality from its International Classification of Diseases (ICD) in 1990 — 17 years later.

 

However, WHO retained homosexuality-related diagnoses (like “ego-dystonic sexual orientation” and “sexual maturation disorder”) until 2022, when ICD-11 finally erased them.

 

These lingering codes meant that for decades, many countries and medical systems continued to treat homosexuality as a disorder, even after APA and WHO changes.

 

WHO is also ideologically compromised

Just like the APA, the WHO is influenced by Western donor agendas, including billionaire-backed foundations (e.g., Open Society, Arcus, Pritzker) and global NGOs promoting LGBTQIA+ normalization.

 

WHO decisions increasingly reflect ideological alignment with gender ideology, rather than pure medical science.

 

Their slow removal of homosexuality-related codes and shift toward promoting “gender-affirming care” shows how public health bodies are no longer politically neutral.

 

Bottom Line

Homosexuality was treated as a disorder by both APA and WHO for decades.

Its removal was not driven by scientific consensus, but political lobbying and Western ideological pressure.

WHO, like APA, is now part of the global network promoting LGBTQIA+ ideology in schools, medicine, and law—backed by billionaires and pharma interests, not biological proof.

 

Evidence: Medical Professionals promoting LGBTQIA+ Under Pressure – Not Conviction

 

1. Culture of Professional Fear & Censorship

• The UK’s Cass Review into the Tavistock Gender Clinic revealed a widespread climate of fear among clinicians. Many doctors said they felt unable to express doubts about gender-affirming care, fearing:
  • Loss of career progression
  • Reputational damage or “cancellation”
  • Silencing through HR complaints or social media backlash

 

The report described this as a “toxic, polarised” medical environment, where dissent is professionally dangerous, even if rooted in clinical concern.

“Clinicians felt they couldn’t question practices without being branded transphobic or bigoted. It was safer to stay silent or affirm blindly.”

– Excerpt from Cass Review testimony

 

2. Medical Journals & Institutions Enforcing Conformity

• Top medical journals (e.g., The Lancet, NEJM, JAMA) now refuse to publish dissenting views on LGBTQIA+ or gender-affirming care.
• Editors, often funded by foundations aligned with LGBTQIA+ advocacy and Big Pharma, set publishing standards that favor ideological alignment over open debate.
• This silencing pressures researchers and clinicians to self-censor or else face:
  • Grant loss
  • Academic blacklisting
  • Exclusion from conferences or editorial boards

 

3. Mandatory LGBTQIA+ Training in Medical Licensing

• In multiple countries (e.g., U.S., Canada, UK, Australia), medical licensing and continuing education now require LGBTQIA+ inclusivity training.
• Professionals who do not complete “affirmative care” modules risk:
  • Non-renewal of licenses
  • Loss of hospital privileges
  • Workplace discrimination claims

 

Example:

In Ontario, Canada, doctors must comply with gender-affirming standards or face complaints before the College of Physicians — some have already been investigated or disciplined for refusing to use preferred pronouns or questioning transition care for minors.

 

4. Whistleblower Suppression

Clinicians who speak out often lose jobs, funding, or face character assassination:

• David Bell (UK psychiatrist) was forced out after raising safeguarding concerns about Tavistock’s youth gender services.
• Kenneth Zucker, a world-renowned expert, was removed from Canada’s CAMH clinic for not fully endorsing affirming-only models — despite high success rates in treating gender-distressed youth without medicalization.
• Hilary Cass herself faced immense backlash for questioning the evidence base of youth gender medicine — despite her review being state-mandated.

 

5. Professional Guidelines Driven by Lobby Pressure

• Medical associations (APA, AMA, AAP, RCPsych, etc.) adopt “affirmation-only” guidelines following lobbying from activist groups like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) — not from high-quality, long-term scientific data.
• These guidelines then become career-threatening mandates for professionals:
  • Non-compliance can trigger ethics reviews or malpractice lawsuits.
  • Even suggesting psychological or developmental alternatives is now labeled “conversion therapy” in some jurisdictions.

 

A Profession under Ideological Siege

Doctors, psychiatrists, and medical researchers today are:

 

• Incentivized to affirm LGBTQIA+ ideology for job security, funding, and institutional approval.
• Punished or cancelled for dissent, even when their concerns are grounded in medical ethics and patient safety.
• Trapped in systems where ideology overrides biological science, and professional survival depends on submission to that ideology.

 

Medicine must return to evidence-based care. Lives — especially those of vulnerable children — depend on it.

 

https://www.facebook.com/suraj.vimu/videos/3851286878425250/?rdid=TTdeneWkrC8gW9VF#

This Sri Lankan expert from the Peradeniya University may not be aware of the above facts.

 

Is There a “Gay Gene”? Are People Born Gay?

• No single “gay gene” has ever been discovered.
• Thelargest-ever genome study on sexual behavior, published in Science (2019), analyzed over 500,000 individuals and concluded:

“There is no ‘gay gene.’ Instead, there are many genetic variants with very small effects, and even together, they explain less than 1% of same-sex sexual behavior.”
(Science, 2019)

 

Key Points:

• Sexual orientation isnot genetically predetermined like eye color or blood type.
• Environmental, cultural, psychological, and social factorsplay a major role.
• Claims such as “I was born this way” areideological, not scientific.

 

Even pro-LGBTQIA geneticists like Dr. Andrea Ganna admits:

“It will be practically impossible to predict an individual’s sexual behavior from genetics.”

 

After Declassification: rise of LGBTQIA+ Ideology & Global Push

 

What Changed?

• Once removed as a disorder,homosexuality became “normalized”.
• Legal, educational, and cultural institutions began promoting the idea thatgender and sexuality are fluid, chosen, or constructed.
• Medical journalsand professional bodies increasingly backed this new ideology—not because of new biological proof, but because of social-political shifts & massive funding.

 

Billionaire Funding & Pharma Ties

• Medical publications likeThe Lancet, NEJM, and JAMA receive significant private foundation funding, often from donors who also support:
  • Transgender and LGBTQIA+ rights campaigns.
  • Educational reform via groups like theOpen Society Foundation, Arcus Foundation, and Pritzker family foundations (Jennifer Pritzker funds both Big Pharma and trans causes).
• Big Pharma profitsfrom:
  • Lifelong hormone treatments.
  • Puberty blockers (e.g., Lupron).
  • Mental health drugs related to gender confusion and dysphoria.

 

School Indoctrination & Medical Harm: The Cascade Effect

 

Global Impact After Normalization:

• Curriculum changesworldwide promoted LGBTQIA+ as an identity and lifestyle.
• Children increasingly exposedto gender ideology from kindergarten levels.
• Social contagion effect: spikes in adolescent girls identifying as trans (esp. in the U.S., U.K., Canada).
• Puberty blockers and surgeries offered to minors—often without parental consent.

 

Reversal & Legal Blowback:

• K.: Tavistock Gender Clinic shut down; class action lawsuits pending.
• S.: 25+ states now restricting or banning child gender transition procedures.
• Sweden, Norway, Finland: Paused or restricted youth transition, citing lack of evidence and risingdetransition rates.
• Thousands reportingirreversible harm, mental health decline, regret, and legal action.

 

Sample Statistics:

• Over 4,000% increasein girls identifying as trans in the U.K. (2009–2019).
• 85% of childrenwith gender dysphoria resolve without medical treatment if not affirmed.
• Up to 30%of those who medically transitioned as youth now report regret and detransition symptoms (SEGM.org).

The Domino Effect of Declassifying Homosexuality

• Homosexuality was never biologically proven, nor is there a “gay gene.”
• Its declassification as a mental disorder waspolitical, not purely scientific.
• This paved the way forideological shifts in education, medicine, and law.
• Today, thetrans agenda—promoted as a civil right—has led to medical harm, lawsuits, social confusion, and backlash.
• Evidence-based policy, not ideology, must guide medicine and child protection.

Controversies & Concerns

While homosexuality ≠ paedophilia, the modern LGBTQIA+ movement has included fringe groups(e.g., MAPs — “Minor Attracted Persons”) trying to piggyback on civil rights narratives.

• North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA): A fringe group historically advocating for “man-boy love” tried to align with early gay rights groups
• However, concern persists over:
  • Over-sexualization of childrenvia Pride events, drag shows, and sex-ed curricula.
  • Grey areasin activism where child protection seems compromised.

 

What Is Paedophilia?

• Clinical definition (DSM-5):A paraphilic disorder characterized by persistent sexual attraction to prepubescent children (typically under 13).
• It isnot defined by the gender of attraction but by age.
• Paedophilia can involve attraction to:
  • Girls only (heterosexual paedophile)
  • Boys only (homosexual paedophile)
  • Both (bisexual paedophile)

 

So yes, some paedophiles are sexually attracted to boys, making them same-sex attracted — but their condition is not the same as homosexuality, which is attraction to consenting adults.

 

Evidence-Based Policy Over Ideology

• Homosexuality was never biologically proven nor genetically determined.
• Its removal as a mental disorder was political, not purely scientific.
• This paved the way for ideological shifts promoting fluid gender and sexuality concepts in education and medicine.
• The current transgender agenda has led to significant medical harm, legal challenges, and social confusion—especially impacting youth.
• Child protection and medical policies must be based on rigorous evidence, not ideology or industry interests

It is deeply concerning that many medical professionals, fully aware of these facts, continue to promote the narrative that homosexuality is genetic and innately normal—when in fact, it was never scientifically established as such. Its politicized removal from psychiatric classification laid the foundation for a global LGBTQIA+ movement that now intrudes upon cultural traditions, school curricula, and the lives of ordinary families and children.

Science must serve truth—not trends. And policy must protect the vulnerable—not appease powerful agendas.

 

It is a bitter irony that the LGBTQIA+ lobby, which claims to represent marginalized and vulnerable people, now wields disproportionate institutional power — punishing anyone who questions its ideology. Doctors, researchers, educators, and even parents are being silenced, discredited, or professionally destroyed not for hate, but for raising legitimate concerns backed by medical ethics and science.

 

The real victims today are those who dare to ask for truth, evidence, and child protection — and it is the so-called “tolerant” lobby that has become the enforcer of fear, not freedom.

 

 

Shenali D Waduge