Implications of the Stereotyping and Modification of Sex Role

Abstract

This article discusses and questions a study by Rekers and Lovaas (1974), which sought to "normalize" a young boy's sex-role behavior. The reasons given for treatment and the treatment itself are questioned. The ethical implications of the treatment and its outcome are then discussed, and alternative treatment procedures are suggested. Finally, the experimenters' description of the feminine sex-role is criticized.

Tratamento dado ao tema “Homossexualidade” em artigos do Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis: Uma Revisão Crítica

“…Em 1977, foram publicados três artigos (A5, A6 e A7), respectivamente, duas réplicas ao A3 (publicado em 1974), que descrevia um tratamento comportamental para desvio de papel sexual em um menino de cinco anos de idade, e uma tréplica do autor de A3, respondendo às críticas. Por tratar-se de um debate entre analistas do comportamento envolvendo o tema homossexualidade, são apresentados a seguir alguns dos argumentos de Rekers (1977) e as réplicas a eles feitas por Nordyke (1977). Rekers (1977), no documento A3, afirma que, em seu artigo com Lovaas (Rekers, & Lovaas, 1974) os autores expuseram uma racional de quatro itens para o tratamento de desvio de gênero: "1) aliviar o desajustamento, isolamento social e sofrimento pessoal do menino, 2) prevenir desajustes psicológicos e sociais severos na vida adulta que acompanham o transexualismo; 3) prevenir transexualismo, travestismo ou a homossexualidade per se como os resultados diagnósticos mais prováveis na vida adulta na ausência de tratamento e 4) responder ao pedido legítimo dos pais por intervenção profissional" (p. 560).…”

Sexual Behavior of Prepubertal Children

“…Since the diagnosis of GID was first introduced in the third edition of the DSM (American Psychiatric Association, 1980), the pathologization and treatment of cross-gender behaviors and identity (particularly in children) has been a source of debate within the literature (e.g., Bem, 1993;Fagot, 1992;Neisen, 1992;Nordyke, Baer, Etzel, & LeBlanc, 1977;Zucker 1999). Current concerns of a diagnosis of GID in children include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) the validity of the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV-TR; (2) limited research and methodological problemsreliance of caregiver-reports and controversial inclusion criteria for research participants; and (3) controversial therapies associated with GID, including reparative or conversion therapies-both of which have been opposed by the American Psychological Association (for reviews, see Bartlett, Vasey, & Bukowski, 2000;Kamens, 2011).…”

Commentary on Langer and Martin’s (2004) “How Dresses Can Make You Mentally Ill: Examining Gender Identity Disorder in Children”

“…Many of their arguments have been previously introduced by others (e.g., Nordyke, Baer, Etzel, & LeBlanc, 1977;Winkler, 1977; for review, see Zucker, 1990Zucker, , 2001, so I will not address them here. Quoting Pleak (1999), however, one particularly novel argument that they advanced was the notion that ''attempting to change children's gender identity for [the purpose of reducing social ostracism] seems as ethically repellant as bleaching black children's skin in order to improve their social life among white children'' (p. 14).…”