“Stop it, you’re making me sick!” It was the resounding phrase that the New Yorker Ron Gold blurted out in 1973 to the members of the all-powerful American Psychiatric Association (APA) in the middle of one of the conferences, held in Hawaii, to which the queer movement was entering to try to convince those men in suits, almost all white, to remove homosexuality from their list of mental illnesses. It officially happened in 1974 after an intense and organized activist campaign that would achieve what was then called “the greatest gay victory” to date.
The change was an unprecedented turning point due to the influence of the APA throughout the world, which thus paved the way for the abandonment of conceptions that held that having a sexual orientation other than heterosexual was a mental disorder that could be diagnosed. and heal. Thus, the triple notion of homosexuality as a sin, crime and disease coexisted, which has never been completely abandoned – 62 countries still criminalize it – but which was weakened until May 17, 1990, when the World Health Organization (WHO) It also decided to exclude it from its classification of mental illnesses while transsexuality did not leave the list until 2018.
But the same year that marks the 35th anniversary of that milestone, Meta, one of the most powerful companies in the world, has decided to change the moderation rules of its social networks to allow Facebook or Instagram users to call themselves “mentally ill.” to LGTBIQ people. Mark Zuckerberg’s company justified it by referring to the current “political and religious discourse on transsexuality and homosexuality”, in which context users “sometimes” use these expressions. Thus, he has decided to “welcome these speeches” in a step that delves into the turn trumpist of the company, in line with the rise of ultra rhetoric globally.
The expert voices consulted to contextualize this change point to an “international political context” very different from that of the 90s “especially in what has to do with information flows” through networks that “is related to the rise of populism of right in many parts of the world,” says Rodrigo Cruz, an expert researcher in disinformation, social movements and LGTBI rights at the Free University of Brussels.
The use of freedom of expression
The sociologist points out one of the main flags used by this alliance of far-right and ultra sectors worldwide: the supposed defense of freedom of expression. “This is one of its main values and claims, this idea that left-wing governments and movements such as the feminist movement or those in defense of human rights have silenced dissident opinions. These forces are using this issue at a global level and are trying to convince people to regulate social networks or label content as harmful,” explains the specialist.
Maintaining this is a pre-Freudian idea, we have to go back to 19th century psychiatry to find “scientific” foundations that support it and Freud in 1905 already provided elements to overthrow them.
Santiago Pedro
— Doctor in Psychology
In fact, when Zuckerberg announced the end of the Meta hoax verification program – which has brought to light the eternal debate about how to combat disinformation – he already appealed to the fact that “what began as an inclusive movement has increasingly been used to silence opinions” and it is something “that has gone too far.” There is also one of the keys for the doctor in Gender and Diversity Iván Gombel, who points out how “in the last decade the extreme right has appropriated the concept of freedom and has built a neoliberal conception” according to which “everything must be possible.” say”. “If you put a limit on me, you are oppressing me” in the face of a “community” idea of freedom based on “we must be able to set limits to safeguard human rights,” he summarizes.
For the doctor in Psychology from the University of Buenos Aires Santiago Peidro, who has studied the pathologization of homosexuality in psychiatric guidelines, the question of how Meta justifies the turn is also key. “It is good that everyone can express themselves freely, the problem is that when in 2025 someone describes a homosexual as mentally ill, what they are doing is freely expressing their ignorance. Maintaining this is a pre-Freudian idea, we have to go back to 19th century psychiatry to find “scientific” foundations that support it and Freud in 1905 already provided elements to overthrow them.”
It’s not that these political forces are questioning exactly what the WHO said 35 years ago, but rather that they want to create an environment in which that may no longer matter.
Rodrigo Cruz
— Sociologist and researcher
In this sense, Cruz is committed to transcending the LGTBI issue in the analysis of the change in Meta and believes that “what is at stake” not only has to do with the rights of the group, but that another “danger” emerges in the background. : “It is not that these political forces are questioning exactly what the WHO said 35 years ago, but what they want is to create an environment in which perhaps that no longer matters,” says the expert in reference to “the moment of feeling of loss.” from reliable sources of information” that gives wings to this discourse: if everything must be able to be said, to regulate is to silence and others have gone too far, “what are we going to do so that people have a reference to which they can look and say: this is verified information and this “Is this place reliable?” Cruz asks. “The most important health institutions and authorities in the world agree that homosexuality is not a disease, but does it matter? This is the risk.”
Hate, profitable business
But, in addition, there are also economic issues, specialists believe. On the one hand, this approach to the politics of Trump and Elon Mask has to do “with the need to continue having financial support” and to be able to benefit from this type of alliances, thinks the lawyer specialized in LGTBI hate crimes Charo Alises, but also with the benefit that those who raise anti-rights discourses can bring. “Hate has become a very profitable business. These audiences produce, share and disseminate highly engaging content and restricting it can cause them to migrate to other platforms. If they have made this decision it is because they know that this part of their audience is very significant,” says Cruz.
In recent decades there have been legal advances, but that homophobic, lesbophobic and transphobic substrate remains and has not been sufficiently addressed. Hate speech is not solved by fining or deleting messages on social networks, but with a profound change that is not happening, for example, in the classrooms.
Javier Saez
— sociologist and LGTBIQ+ activist
All of this occurs in a context of offensive against the rights of women, LGBTI or migrant and racialized people in different parts of the world. “In many countries these rights are serving as a kind of battlefield, our rights are that place where we can debate, an easy space to attack. We are vulnerable groups with whom it has been decided that we can play symbolically,” explains Gombel, who believes that “we must read what is happening not only in an LGTBIphobic way, but also in a masculinist way,” he says, recalling Zuckerberg’s own words about how “more masculine energy” is needed in companies.
This ultra wave is led by a conglomerate of political actors and social organizations that turned the Spanish Senate into the epicenter of their speech last December. This is another issue that has changed compared to the 90s: now these forces are organized at an international level and share ideas, names and strategies with the aim of overthrowing rights. “We have no evidence that Zuckerberg’s change is because it suited one of these actors, but what we can say is that it has to do with this political moment,” adds Cruz.
The LGTBIphobic “substrate” that remains
For the sociologist and LGTBIQ+ activist Javier Sáez, the key is to ask why “this type of increasingly coordinated agenda is successful: “In the case of LGTBI rights, I believe that in recent decades there have been legal advances, but a paradigm that considers compulsory heterosexuality normal is still maintained. This homophobic, lesbophobic and transphobic substrate remains and has not been addressed enough. Hate speech is not solved by fining or deleting messages on social networks, but with a profound change that is not happening, for example, in the classrooms.”
This is a pathologizing speech and we must take into account the media power that the company has to evaluate the harmful effect that its messages have because it has an enormous projection
Charo Alises
— Hate crime lawyer
The sociologist points to the coincidence that the change in the goal rules has coincided in time with the complaint filed with the Ministry of Equality against seven Spanish dioceses for allowing conversion therapies to be promoted to LGTBI people. These practices not allowed in our country are, in fact, the direct consequence of the pathologization of homosexuality or transsexuality by understanding that these can be “cured” or redirected, an idea that was useful during the Franco regime (and still serves in many places). ) to support practices such as electroshocklobotomies or psychiatric treatments.
Without going that far, the expert voices consulted point to the consequences that the modification of Meta will have for LGTBI people. “This is a pathologizing discourse and we must take into account the media power that the company has to evaluate the harmful effect that its messages have, because it has an enormous projection,” says Charo Alises.
Politics, economics and ideology are intertwined after the change promoted by Zuckerberg in a conglomerate of interests that reveal the role that these large companies can play. “What many studies tell us is that without them perhaps the political destiny of many countries in which the extreme right now governs would not have been the same. These companies contribute to building public opinion, but we cannot forget that they are also part of the political structure. I would ask myself: even before the last change, to what extent has Meta served to sustain and produce hate speech that is expanding? Gombel questions.
#happened #tolerated #call #homosexual #sick #rejected #years
