Gay rights, psychiatric fraternity, and India.

Abstract

Byline: T. Sathyanarayana Rao, G. Rao, M. S. V. K.. Raju, Gautam. Saha, Mukesh. Jagiwala, K. Jacob The recent past has been turbulent for Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people and Gay Rights in India. The Delhi High Court's landmark judgment in July 2009, which read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, was a major victory. It held that Section 377 to be violative of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the constitution, as it criminalized consensual sexual acts of adults in private.[sup][1] The judgment struck down a 19[sup]th century law, which the police used to threaten and blackmail LGBT people. Violation of the law is punishable by a fine and imprisonment. Subsequently, India's Supreme Court issued a ruling against human rights by reinstating the law that bans gay sex in 2013.[sup][2] The response from mental health and legal establishment to this manifest bigotry was weak.[sup][3] The hesitancy of the establishment to clearly support LGBT rights exposes their subscription to prevailing societal prejudices. Fortunately, the Supreme Court referred a batch of curative petitions against Section 377, to a five-judge Constitution Bench for an in-depth hearing.[sup][4] The Science Modern medicine and psychiatry, since the 1970s, have abandoned pathologizing same-sex orientation and behavior.[sup][5] The World Health Organization accepts same-sex orientation as a normal variant of human sexuality.[sup][6] The United Nations Human Rights Council values LGBT rights.[sup][7] Psychiatry's new understanding is based on studies that document a high prevalence of same-sex feelings and behavior in men and women, its prevalence across cultures and among almost all nonhuman primate species.[sup][8],[9] Investigations using psychological tests could not differentiate heterosexual from homosexual orientation. Research also demonstrated that people with homosexual orientation did not have any objective psychological dysfunction or impairments in judgment, stability, and vocational capabilities. The consistency of same-sex attractions, the failure of attempts to change, the lack of success with treatments and the harm caused by these efforts support the stability of homosexual orientation.[sup][3],[8],[9] Science continues to debate the relative contributions of nature and nurture, biological and psychosocial factors, to sexuality.[sup][3],[8],[9] However, classical theories of psychological development employ untestable conjectures and argue without proof that the origins of adult sexual orientation lie in childhood experience and development. Similarly, genetic and biological theories are reductionistic and do not explain complex aspects of human behavior, including natural inclination and choice. The universality of same-sex orientation and behavior and variations in its meaning and practice across cultures undermine single and simplistic explanations. Human sexuality is complex; the distinction between desire, behavior, and identity acknowledges the multidimensional nature of sexuality.[sup][3],[8],[9] The fact that these dimensions may not always be congruent in individuals suggests the complexity of the issues. Bisexuality and the discordance between biological sex and gender role and identity add to the complexity. The Cultural Context Anti-LGBT attitudes once considered the norm, have changed over time in many social and institutional settings in the west. However, heterosexism is also common; it idealizes heterosexuality and considers it the standard while denigrating and stigmatizing all nonheterosexual forms of behavior, identity, relationships, and communities. Religious and social orthodoxy and patriarchy complicate the issues in many conservative and tradition-bound societies. This is particularly true in India, making it difficult for LGBT people to be accepted as equals in society.[sup][3],[8],[9] The hesitancy of the Indian medical and legal establishments to fully support LGBT rights exposes their subscription to prevailing societal prejudices. …