1

Sophie Carter
HSTCMP 290: History of Human Rights
March 18, 2019
The history of lesbian publications in the United States was short at the time the

Daughters of Bilitis (DOB), America’s first lesbian political and social organization, published

the first edition of their groundbreaking magazine, ​The Ladder.​ In 1947, ​Vice Versa​ took the title

of the ​first​ lesbian magazine ever published, and its extremely short run (a nine month period

from 1947 to 1948) set the precedent which ​The Ladder​ would follow some ten years later

(​Streitmatter). T​he voices of lesbians were undermined by their position as social outcasts, and

they were even underappreciated among the voices of the homophile movement (the

pre-Stonewall movement for gay rights), which Marcia Gallo, scholar of the lesbian rights

movement, describes as heavily male-dominated (​Introduction​). Despite the oppressive political

tone of the 1950s, ​The Ladder​, as Gallo asserts, “supports assessments of the mid-1950s as a

complicated time of nascent civil rights struggles that included gender and sexuality as well as

race and economic status” (​Introduction)​ . As such a touchstone publication for LGBTQ+ history,

it is unfortunate how little historical analysis is available on ​The Ladder,​ specifically, and its role

in the emerging civil rights movements.

The overlap between the roles and goals of a publication and those of an activist

organization was a main tension for ​The Ladder,​ wanting to maintain a certain sense of

journalistic objectivism while seeking civil rights action. This tension is clear when reading

through ​The Ladder​’s early (1956–1957) editions; their purpose statement asserts the value of

participating in research and working to “[change] the penal code,” among their many other

goals (​1956,​ 1.1.4). DOB focused on a few areas of large-scale institutional change, one of which

was their goal of removing ​homosexuality​ from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
 2

Disorders (DSM). This progress can be traced back to the ‘50s, when articles expressed a sense

of openness to, but skepticality toward, the idea that their sexuality could be altered by various

psychiatric interventions. It goes on into the ‘60s, when numerous civil rights movements were

gaining momentum and pushing forward the conversation surrounding homosexuality as a

mental disorder, and to the ‘70s, when the issue both peaked and fell out of ​The Ladder​’s

discourse. Tracing this path—is important to understanding the progress of civil rights discourse

within gay rights activist groups, as this classification and the conversion therapy that resulted

from it were a central human rights issue within the gay liberation front. It is a unique and

valuable perspective, as well: lesbian discourse in this history is too often drowned out in favor

of gay men, and the existence of such an influential publication as ​The Ladder​ demonstrates that

significant discourse ​did exist.​

DOB’s purpose statement includes the desire encourage participation in research in

addition to the aforementioned changing of the penal code as it relates to policing sexuality

(​1956,​ 1.1.4). The goal of supporting research is key to understanding ​The Ladder​’s original

perspective on relating homosexuality as a psychological condition: it explicitly advocates

sponsoring public discussions lead by psychiatric professionals, among others, as a means of

improving social discourse surrounding sexuality (​1956​, 1.1.4). The non-combative tone with

which DOB reports the findings of “sexuality studies” is strategic: their goal is to be accepted by

broader American society. To arguments that lesbianism could disrupt the existing social

structure, ​The Ladder​ responds with the ethos of psychiatry (​1956​, 1.2.4). Surprising by modern

standards is the acceptance of the major belief within establishment psychiatry that

homosexuality could be “cured”: “Medical men are now learning that some homosexuals can be
 3

helped by psychiatry, and perhaps few have actually been cured” (​1956​, 1.2.4). Outside of these

references, the classification of homosexuality as an illness remains largely unquestioned in

DOB’s publications throughout the 1950s, suggesting a belief, even from the lesbian community,

that they were indeed afflicted with a “disease.”

In the first available 1957 edition, the DOB added ​physiological ​to section one of their

purpose statement, suggesting a continuing acceptance of their classification as scientifically

abnormal (​1957​, 1.4.1). Further, reports within the publication of a DOB-run panel with a

psychiatrist demonstrates the overlap of progressive and regressive ideas, by modern standards.

The psychiatrist in this case refers to homosexuality as a “choice” influenced by a “fear” of men

and asserts Freudian theories about women’s maternal need and the need and for male

affirmation, all while supporting the claim that lesbianism should be accepted in American

society (​1957,​ 1.4.5–6; 1.8.3). This tension between the ideas of homosexuality as an acquired,

undesirable trait and of it not warranting treatment illustrates the conflict in the psychiatric

community around reclassifying ​homosexuality​.

The Ladder​’s attitude toward change is perhaps best seen in a description of the two

methods of “combating anti-homosexual culture”: the “Palliative” and the “Curative” Methods

(​1957,​ 1.5.4–5). The premise of the Palliative Method is that its proponents abide by established

laws, be reserved about their sexuality, police the lesbian community, and go about change in a

“dignified” manner. The Curative Method, in contrast, is more visible: it encourages followers to

openly combat puritan repression of sexuality and promote scientific research. However, the

latter motive assumes, as an article from ​The Ladder​ puts it, “that that they are not born

homosexual but are in some way emotionally disturbed and could be cured to some degree.” ​The
 4

Ladder​, for the most part, takes the Curative approach—its activist stance along with its faults.

“Curative” methods at this time, however, ranged from standard psychotherapy to the use of

“electric shock . . . herbs and drugs, testosterone, and even lobotomy” (​1957​, 1.5.8). The central

point ​The Ladder​ seems to make consistently, then, is that lesbianism may be acquired and

therefore may be “treated,” but the central cause of psychosocial troubles for individual lesbians

is social rejection (​1957,​ 1.5.9). By this logic, it is the heterosexual norm and society’s insistence

on it that leads lesbians to seek psychiatric help, if anything. This revelation, printed in February

1957, is the first of many claims in ​The Ladder​ which follow this line of reasoning.

Just months later, in May of the same year, the DOB sponsored a panel at which one

psychiatrist, Dr. Robbins, argued that sexuality was not the cause of psychological distress

(​1957,​ 1.8.4). However, even seemingly progressive claims by other psychiatrists missed the

mark: in the same panel, another psychiatrist argued the differences between the “psychopathic,

dangerous homoerotic” and the “average homosexual.” By this logic, he claimed that most

“overt” homosexuals were not dangerous and “perhaps some of the harsh laws regarding

homosexuals should be changed while still protecting children from either heterosexual or

homosexual attack” (​1957​, 1.8.3). The association of sexuality with pathology reinforces a

misjudgement of the lesbian as not only “emotionally or psychologically disturbed” but also

criminal. The experimental “treatments,” often forced upon supposedly pathological individuals,

ranged from unethical to barbaric (Haldeman, 260). Yet another psychiatrist brought a more

intense perspective of the repercussions of psychiatric categorization of homosexuality; Dr.

Schmidt detailed

. . . injections from goat glands (which made the older prisoners act "like kids". . .),
pituitary injections, sterilization, orchiectomy, 25,000 spinal fluid exams, insulin shock,
 5

[and] electro-shock, but none of these “cures” had much effect on homosexual behaviour.
(​1957​, 1.12.12)

Categorization of “homosexuality” as a recognized “sickness” within the DSM rationalized the

use of tactics like these in search of a “cure.” ​The Ladder​’s writers attended and reported on all

of these psychiatric panels, and despite their repulsiveness (particularly to the modern reader),

the articles take a relatively neutral stance, reflecting their presupposition that there are ways in

which sexuality can be altered and that research, even the like detailed above, could make strides

toward that goal.

The Ladder’​ s tone surrounding homosexuality as a mental disorder grows more diverse

moving into the 1960s, as some articles continued to be sympathetic to both sides of the

argument and others took a stand against its classification in the DSM and in the public eye. The

first 1964 edition of the magazine opens with bipartisanship on the issue:

There is no real reason why lesbians cannot recognize the possibility of change
for some and still preserve their own liberty to decide whether or not they
personally wish to attempt the process. (​1964,​ 9.1.5)

This instance in ​The Ladder​ itself again assumes that lesbianism could be a “menace” and

“burden to society,” alluding to the aforementioned notion of homosexuality as a dangerous

pathology. However, degrading narratives about lesbianism as a pathology in the mass media

generated backlash from DOB contributors. In the third 1964 edition is a response to a ​New York

Times​ article entitled “Growth of Overt Homosexuality in City Provokes Wide Concern.”; the

Ladder​ contributor is resolute in her disdain for the presupposition that psychoanalysis can

and/or should be used to “cure” homosexuality (​1964​, 9.3.10). Here, as in other instances, DOB

competes with mass media to shape the public’s image of a lesbian. In this case, the author

asserts that what is published in the ​Times​ is taken as fact in the public eye (​1964​, 9.3.11).
 6

This began a long battle with media propagation of stereotypes and pseudoscience DOB

was determined to fight. Despite ​The Ladder’​ s explicit support of what DOB considered to be

scientific and credible sexuality studies, the infamous Bieber study—a now discredited,

methodologically flawed study in which Bieber’s conclusions implicated “smothering” mothers,

“feminine” fathers, and other environmental factors as causes of homosexuality—took hold in

the popular media, and DOB found themselves having to defend their organization against

criticism (​1964​, 9.3.12). In fact, though their methods were most always flawed, a wide field of

studies in the 1960s–1980s supported the idea that homosexuality was learned, and as such,

could be unlearned, reflecting the principles of behaviorism; these studies were the basis of

arguments provided by advocates of conversion therapy (Satira, 650). Against this menace, DOB

takes a completely different tone: “The Bieber study starts with the unscientific, culture-bound

assumption that homosexuality is sick and must be explained and cured, rather than with an

open-minded conception that it may be a sane and legitimate way of life” (​1964,​ 9.3.12). DOB’s

direct responses to Bieber’s study were steadfast, criticizing him for making moral judgements

under the guise of science to the detriment of gay and lesbian individuals:

It seems to me that [the view of homosexuality as a sickness] is usually a moral

judgment in disguise. . . . That homosexuals can be “cured” has yet to be proved,
although of course anyone's attitude to sex, whatever it may be, could be
profoundly disturbed by the kind of drastic “aversion treatment” of which one
sometimes reads with horror in the press. (Iris Murdoch, ​1964,​ 9.3.20)

Yet, the same article uses “choice” language: “It is possible that those who choose, or who find

themselves instinctively upon, the homosexual road. . .” (​1964,​ 9.3.22). Despite a tone that is

sympathetic to “well-meaning” people who misguidedly believe pseudoscience, they end with a

progressive claim that has seldom been seen before in the magazine’s history: “if there is illness
 7

here it is our society at large that is ill, in the sense of prejudiced or morally blind” (​1964,​

9.3.23). Condemnations of American society and its unwillingness to humanize the gay and

lesbian communities would become a theme of the magazine as the civil rights movements

progressed. These examples of relative conservatism versus progressivism illustrate the

beginnings of the transition of ​The Ladder​ from its roots into a true civil rights publication.

In late 1964 and 1965, DOB’s attitude regarding “scientific” sexuality studies settled,

moving from their original standpoint (being that scientific studies were yet to reach

conclusions) to a definitive stance on the results of sexuality science: “Homosexual behavior is

acknowledged as being different from the statistical norm but is not treated as being pathological

or socially dysfunctional” (​1964,​ 9.2.5). This was despite the categorization of homosexuality in

the DSM and popular belief to the contrary. With this newfound concrete stance, DOB began

using their first definitive civil rights language:

Homosexuals should form political pressure groups to fight for their rights. . . .
Homosexuality is virtually impossible to cure, and studies which claim the
opposite are questionable. . . . We are at present seeing an upsurge of the Negro
minority. Homosexuals too should raise their voices “to establish themselves as
persons” and demand their rights. (On a lecture to the New York Mattachine
Society by Dr. Hendrik M. Ruitenbeek, ​1965​, 9.7.4)

Along with civil rights language, these editions continue identifying “curative” methods as an

affront in themselves, calling them “brainwashing techniques” and “sadism” (​1965​, 9.7.10–12).

These criticisms of society place DOB within civil rights dialogue for the first time: “But . . . the

psychotherapists are insisting on the rightness of their society's heterosexual bias.” (​1965,​ 9.7.10)

The removal of ​homosexuality​ from the DSM was recognized as “THE most important single

issue facing [the gay rights] movement” (​1965​, 9.8.15), as it was integral to their right to simple

existence, and in that, DOB created an activist stance:

 8

[An argument for civil rights] is immoral if we are not prepared, at the same time,
to take a positive position that homosexuality is not pathological. If
homosexuality indeed IS a sickness, then we have no right to remain
homosexuals; we have the moral obligation to seek cure, and that only. (​1965,​
9.8.17)

The centrality of homosexuality as an illness to DOB’s civil rights language stemmed from “the

fear of forced ‘cure,’” which still, at this time, consisted of practices ranging from psychotherapy

to electroconvulsive therapy (​1965,​ 9.10.19).

These “cures” followed the lead of the first-ever Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders (DSM), published in 1952, which classified ​homosexuality​ as a ​“sociopathic

personality disturbance.” Though the reclassification of the “disorder” to “sexual deviation” in

the DSM II just after the aforementioned ​Ladder​ editions (1968) demonstrated an improvement,

it was by no means justice for anti-conversion activists (​Drescher, 5). Progressive psychologists

of the time like Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker touted studies that demonstrated a larger gay

population than was previously thought to exist and that most gay individuals are no more

psychologically disturbed than their heterosexual counterparts, yet the American Psychological

Association, creators of the DSM, took approximately a decade after these findings for the

downgrade to “sexual deviation” (Drescher, 6). Though these experimental steps toward change

were significant, “​the most significant catalyst for diagnostic change was gay activism”: after

being barred from the 1970 APA conference due to the “hard words” of their protest, activists

established panel discussions at the APA’s 1971 San Francisco conference to discuss the

implications of DSM classifications with leading psychiatrists (​Drescher, 7; Baughey-Gill, 12).

The following year, activist groups appeared at the conference with Dr. ​John Fryer—known to

the conference only as “Dr. H Anonymous”—to discuss his own experience as a gay man in
 9

psychiatry (​Drescher, 7)​. The 1968 DSM reclassification coincided with the beginning of what is

broadly regarded as the gay rights movement, which began with the Stonewall riots in 1969.

The activist stance observed in the mid-60s alongside the growing civil rights movement

develops greatly in ​The Ladder’​ s 1970 issues, consuming a majority of the publication’s

material. Somehow, however, the discussion of psychiatry as it pertains to sexuality seems

notably absent. n the purpose statement that resides on the first page of nearly every issue, the

phrase “with particular emphasis on the psychological, physiological and sociological aspects” is

cut. Sometimes DOB even turns the accusatory tone toward their own group, asserting that some

individuals’ acceptance—even appreciation—of the label of “sick” or “mentally disturbed” is

holding the lesbian community back (​1970,​ 14.7.13). These statements gave rise to backlash

from some readers and clashes among groups along the conservative–progressive spectrum: one

reader’s response asserts the right of the individual to protect their economic security and family

as opposed to being a vocal activist, reminiscent of ​The Ladder’​ s original stance (​1970,​

14.10.45). Other DOB pieces represent the resistance of more conservative activists to

radicalism, which they believed was representing the lesbian rights movement negatively in the

popular press (​1970​, 14.9.21). Despite these vocal protests found in the magazine’s commentary,

The Ladder​ as a whole had become exponentially more radical. It attacked hetrerosexual culture,

specifically heterosexual men, in a way that was unprecedented, contrary to the sympathetic tone

of earlier editions of the magazine.

Though the removal of ​homosexuality​ from the DSM finally occurred in 1973 and was a

great success for gay rights activists, the damage from the previous two decades of the APA

lending its ethos to discriminatory laws and public mentality in the United States had a lasting
 10

impact (​Baughey-Gill, 13)​. The changes ,beginning with the APA protests and forward into more

broad demonstrations, were happening in the same time period and city in which DOB published

The Ladder,​ yet discussion of it is markedly absent from its pages. Instead, ​The Ladder​ was

focusing on revising its outline, purpose, and philosophy.

In the 1971 issue, the magazine’s purpose statement in its entirety is gone, replaced with

a broader statement regarding the women’s liberation movement—which lesbians are to be a

vocal and leading minority in—specifically stating that occupations and lifestyles have no

standard of sex or sexuality (1971, 15.7.2). Though this change in itself doesn’t appear a major

shift in perspective, it reflects a distancing of the 1971 ​Ladder​ from its former stances. Criticisms

continue of activist branches and their varying levels of radicalism, which interestingly focus not

on methods of protest or openness of sexuality, but instead on the acceptance of lesbianism as a

disorder. These editions directly call out ​The Ladder’​ s editions from the previous two decades

for their lenience and open questioning about the merit of psychiatric definitions of

homosexuality and specifically lesbianism. These issues assert that ​The Ladder​ of the ‘50s and

‘60s sought the approval of a male-dominated, heterosexual culture—specifically, the field of

psychiatry, which was dominated by white, heterosexual men (​1971​, 15.9.4). Letting themselves

be defined by the majority’s standards was an affront to those adopting postmodern

philosophical thought. A highly distinguishing difference between the pre- and post-civil-rights

Ladder​ discourse is in the reservedness of its language: the pre-1970 ​Ladder​ advocated a

“respectable” tone chiefly aimed at gaining acceptance from the heterosexual majority. This is in

contrast to its later renditions’ radicalism and language reflective of that: discussion—both

critical and supportive—of “radicalesbianism,” civil rights discourse, and the capitalist system,
 11

all of which went unspoken throughout the first decade of the magazine’s run (​1971,​ 15.11.26;

15.9.34; 16.1.17). This seems to be more reflective of a change in the popular feminist

movement than ​The Ladder​ itself; the publication’s articles are more critical of these topics,

possibly as a result of DOB’s relative centrism among radicalesbianist voices. This topic is

openly addressed: the schism in the homophile movement—at this point a declining term—is

generational, with ​The Ladder’​ s homophiles at the conservative end and the younger, radical

lesbian-feminists at the liberal end. All this is to say that the days of ​The Ladder’​ s days of careful

questioning, relatively light criticism of the implications of homosexuality as a psychological

disorder were put on the backburner in favor of a back-and-forth about civil rights culture and

philosophy. The one-time importance of the psychology of sexuality to the homophile movement

was seen as retrogression: any discussion of the subject was merely “psychiatric claptrap about

the mental disease known as Lesbianism. It was some six or seven years ago that I swore never

to read another line about this ‘illness’ and never to argue the point” (​1971​, 15.11.20).

Of course, however, the persistent issue of coerced or forced psychiatric “treatment” had

yet to disappear from popular, mass-media debate. As such, despite ​The Ladder’​ s severe decline

in the number of articles devoted to the topic of homosexuality as a mental disorder, it took on

more minor roles in ​The Ladder’​ s narrative. Discussion of psychological definitions became

intertwined with the discussion of the patriarchy (​1971​, 14.9.19). A psychiatric minority in favor

of homophilic ideology emerged to combat the use of conversion therapy within their field

(​1971​, 14.9.35). After this feat of resistance by the progressive minority against the elite, it

seems to disappear from ​The Ladder’​ s narrative around gay rights. Perhaps this is, in part,

because of the relatively small impact the DSM change really had in practice. Robert L. Spitzer,
 12

a leading psychiatric opponent of the classification of ​homosexuality​ in the DSM, infamously

began conducting conversion therapies, claiming that sexuality could be changed (Satira,

651–652). Not only was the idea of changing one’s sexuality something that was opposed widely

by the gay activist community but it also raised the question, why and how does one “cure”

something that is not an illness? However, it would seem logical that DOB’s activists would

continue the dialogue around conversion therapies if this were the case. More likely, it seems,

from their language in the 1970s editions of the magazine, is that the philosophy of ​The Ladder

changed. To an extent, this is demonstrated by the changes in its purpose statement, going from

attempting to assimilate and be accepted by the heterosexual majority to rejecting their standards.

Their philosophy has evolved from modern to postmodern, and because psychiatry was

controlled by the elite—even though their authority produced a tangible, individual impact in the

form of conversion therapy—it fell out of DOB’s dialogue.

Tracing ​The Ladder’​ s progress over this fourteen-year span gives a significant

perspective from the gay liberation movement. It distinguishes a lesbian voice within a

male-dominated dialogue, demonstrates the transition from a goal of assimilation to radical

social change, and shows how DOB’s perspective on conversion and the pathology

narrative—the most decidedly human-rights issues of the gay liberation movement—moved

from neutrality to outrage to irrelevance. This progression informs the way historians can reflect

on the homophile and gay liberation movements, specifically as they relate to lesbian liberation,

as well as the way activist publications interact with their readership to produce both cultural and

tangible change. To human rights historians, ​The Ladder’​ s progress provides an example of how

an activist organization like the Daughters of Bilitis influences policy, the unexpected ways in
 13

which policy, in turn, influences the focus of activist organizations, and how ​homosexuality​ as a

pathology developed throughout the era of civil rights.

 14

Bibliography

Baughey-Gill, Sarah. "When Gay Was Not Okay with the APA: A Historical Overview of

Homosexuality and its Status as Mental Disorder," ​Occam's Razor​ 1, no. 2 (2011).

Drescher, Jack. "Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality." ​Behavioral Sciences​ 5, no. 4

(2015): 565-75. doi:10.3390/bs5040565.

Milar, Katharine S. "The Myth Buster." American Psychological Association. February 2011.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/myth-buster.

Satira, John M. “Determining the Deception of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts.” ​William &

Mary Law Review​ 58, no. 2 (November 2016): 641–80.

http://offcampus.lib.washington.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di

rect=true&db=a9h&AN=120356203&site=ehost-live.

Introduction.​ Included in ​The Ladder: A Lesbian Review, 1956-1972: An Interpretation and

Document Archive​, Introduction by Marcia M. Gallo. (Alexandria, VA: Alexander Street

Press, 2010).

Streitmatter, Rodger. "Vice Versa: America's First Lesbian Magazine."​ American Periodicals 8

(1998): 78–95. http://www.jstor.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/stable/20771114.

1956​. Included in ​The Ladder: A Lesbian Review, 1956-1972: An Interpretation and Document

Archive​, Introduction by Marcia M. Gallo. (Alexandria, VA: Alexander Street Press,

2010).

1957​. Included in ​The Ladder: A Lesbian Review, 1956-1972: An Interpretation and Document

Archive​, Introduction by Marcia M. Gallo. (Alexandria, VA: Alexander Street Press,

2010).
 15

1964​. Included in ​The Ladder: A Lesbian Review, 1956-1972: An Interpretation and Document

Archive​, Introduction by Marcia M. Gallo. (Alexandria, VA: Alexander Street Press,

2010).

1965​. Included in ​The Ladder: A Lesbian Review, 1956-1972: An Interpretation and Document

Archive​, Introduction by Marcia M. Gallo. (Alexandria, VA: Alexander Street Press,

2010).

1966​. Included in ​The Ladder: A Lesbian Review, 1956-1972: An Interpretation and Document

Archive​, Introduction by Marcia M. Gallo. (Alexandria, VA: Alexander Street Press,

2010).

1970​. Included in ​The Ladder: A Lesbian Review, 1956-1972: An Interpretation and Document

Archive​, Introduction by Marcia M. Gallo. (Alexandria, VA: Alexander Street Press,

2010).

1971​. Included in ​The Ladder: A Lesbian Review, 1956-1972: An Interpretation and Document

Archive​, Introduction by Marcia M. Gallo. (Alexandria, VA: Alexander Street Press,

2010).