One might be tempted to dismiss the position of Counter-Currents on the homosexual question as merely wrong-headed, ill-informed, or even amateurish. However, I believe that many of the writers there are intelligent, historiographically literate, and are probably aware that they are producing an argument with an agenda attached.
Jewish Promotion of Homosexuality among non-Jews
On a related note, the accusation that hostility to homosexuality is Jewish may be regarded as a passive, or barely concealed, attack on Christianity. Again, this is not surprising in itself, but it is incongruous in the context of apparent arguments being made in favor of movement unity. Essentially, the argument put forth by Johnson is that it is wrong to critique homosexuals because that is bad for movement unity, when in fact the apologetic itself purposefully attacks Christians (a very numerically substantial element of our movement) as ‘Jewish.’ In such a manner, our erstwhile architects of unity are in fact the cause of disunity, not merely by their very presence but by the divisive nature of their own arguments. Given what we have discussed thus far, it should be clear that if we had to choose between Christians and pseudo-pagan homosexuals, our movement would be numerically, demographically, tactically, socially, and intellectually enriched by choosing the former over the latter.
We should also consider modern Jewish attitudes, and what Jews are promoting to us today, rather than what they preached to themselves thousands of years ago. It goes without saying that a people engaged in ethnic warfare would arm itself with the best tools possible while simultaneously weakening the opposing tribe. Jews chose to arm themselves with social mores designed to boost their numbers, but what they did preach to their opponents? Until the late 19th century the Jewish interaction with European culture was more or less limited to financial matters. This changed with the intrusion of the Jews into the mass media and from there the further intrusion into almost every arm of culture. If culture is understood as the way in which a nation speaks to itself about itself, then one must understand that the presence of an alien body in this process can be devastating. The Jews posed themselves as French, German, British, etc and began to speak to these peoples, not as Jews, but as one of their own. The cultural conversation thus took on a different light altogether, and with different end goals. Without realizing it, these nations were no longer speaking to themselves about themselves, but were instead being fed fabrications by outsiders — both about themselves and about the world. A nation’s dreams and aspirations became its nightmares and self-recriminations. A nation that once talked to itself about its future now talked to itself incessantly about its putatively guilty past.
As Jews flooded the medical and scientific professions in the late 19th century, they brought with them the desire to interrupt the European self-conversation about race, biology, and related subjects. One of these was homosexuality. In this area, and for the last century or more, Jewish activists have ‘distinguished’ themselves by normalizing and promoting homosexuality, and by campaigning for cultural and legal changes on behalf of homosexuals. Many of these Jewish activists originated in orthodox communities where homosexuality was outlawed, but they nevertheless preached toleration of homosexuality to non-Jews. Albert Moll (1862–1939), who would go on to be “a great influence on Freud,”1 came from a Polish Jewish merchant family and “belonged to the Jewish religious community.”2 Typical of his ethno-religious group, Moll frequently utilized his position within the field of medical psychology to form an oppositional bloc against prevailing opinions in nineteenth — and early twentieth-century non-Jewish society. Indeed, large numbers of Jews tactically ambushed several medical disciplines during this period for precisely this reason. Historian Elena Macini writes that “Jews flooded medicine at this time not only for social standing but also in an era that witnessed the efflorescence of race science, for the opportunity of self-representation. … The presence of Jews in the medical sector in general, and in race science in particular, allowed them to assert Jewish equality and very often moral superiority.”3 With Berlin as the center of German medicine, and Jews comprising one-third of doctors in the city,4 the domination and re-orientation of entire disciplines was not only feasible but disturbingly easy.
A key aspect of advocating for Jewish equality and moral superiority was the Jewish advocacy of social, racial and religious pluralism — which came to include ‘sexual pluralism.’ This position often came into conflict with non-Jewish efforts to promote Nationalism, particularly ethnically-based Nationalism, and corresponding efforts to confront social and cultural decay. A universal theme in Albert Moll’s works were arguments against German attempts to reckon with late Imperial and Weimar-era social and biological degeneration via eugenic programs. For example, in his Handbuch der Sexualwissenschaften (1911) Moll expressed the hope that mooted plans for sterilization programs would “not be implemented and that our race-improvers do not get too much influence on our legislation.” When German science in the late 1920s became concerned with degeneration and decline, gravitating even further towards eugenics, Moll preceded Boas in rejecting the findings of behavior genetics, arguing that “the fact we find so many valuable people, despite the hereditary burden, is caused by regeneration in countless cases. … We can hardly ever say something about the condition of offspring with any certainty at all.” Moll was, therefore, the quintessential Jewish physician: political and ethnic interests were never far from his dubious practice of medicine.
Moll worked tirelessly to persuade leading non-Jewish scholars like Richard von Krafft-Ebing to reject the idea that sexual abnormality was the result of biological and psychological disorder. In Freud: Biologist of the Mind, Frank J. Sulloway writes that “Krafft-Ebing’s decision around the turn of the century to separate the doctrine of degeneration from the theory of homosexuality was in response to the thinking of his younger and more critical colleague Moll.”5 However, there is a significant reason to doubt the validity of Krafft-Ebing’s personal change of perspective given that the most pertinent, later, editions of his Psychopathia Sexualis that showcased this change were in fact edited by none other than Moll himself.
Moll’s work centered on the argument that there were alternative, valid, “identities,” and as such, he argued that homosexuality was a “valid sexual identity.”6 Whereas earlier non-Jewish psychiatrists observed “unsavory and often contemptible personal characteristics” among sexual inverts (including their tendency to be liars, their moodiness, love of gossip, and vanity and envy), Moll argued instead that “homosexual men were not corrupt, but merely womanish,”7 comprising a kind of “third sex” — a theory that would later be advanced much further by co-ethnic Magnus Hirschfeld. In Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880–1914, E.R. Dickson remarks that Moll’s theories were popularized and given substantial sympathetic coverage in Germany by the predominantly Jewish Social Democratic press during the trial of Oscar Wilde in England in 1895 (RE. the contemporary scene, see my Occidental Observer colleague Brenton Sanderson’s “Jewish media influence as decisive in creating a positive public culture of homosexuality“). Dickson writes that “public policy towards homosexuality was also one more issue Social Democrats could use to point to the hypocrisy of bourgeois sexual mores and to elaborate on their own naturalist alternative. Social Democrat Eduard Bernstein, for example, did precisely that in his reporting for German audiences on the Wilde case in London (where he was living as a journalist).”8
Even more radical than Moll was Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935). Like Moll, Hirschfeld came from a family of Jewish merchants and, also like Moll, he advanced theories of social and sexual behavior amounting to “the existence of fundamental irreducible sameness in human beings.”9 Unsurprisingly, Elena Macini writes that Hirschfeld’s Jewishness was “a socially and politically determinant aspect of his life.”10 A common feature of his work was the hatred he had for Christianity — a hatred both Jewish and homosexual in origin. Indeed, his critique of that religion resembled in many respects that concocted by Freud. To Hirschfeld, Christianity was “essentially sadomasochistic, delighting in the pain of ascetic self-denial.”11 Western Civilization had thus been “in the grip of anti-hedonist exaggerations for two thousand years,” thereby committing “psychic self-mutilation.”12 It was, therefore, Western society, rather than homosexuals and other outsiders, that was sick and degenerate, and Hirschfeld’s prescribed ‘cure’ was one destined to be demographically destructive — the promotion of sexual hedonism and the acceptance of a wide array of “identities” and “sexualities.”
Hirschfeld, described by Mancini as “cosmopolitan to the core,” essentially created the first homosexual “communities,” beginning in Berlin where the Hebrew “transvestite” (a term he coined) was known as “Aunt Magnesia” by the city’s perverts. Hirschfeld organized homosexuals, encouraging them to openly flaunt their predilections and to get involved in the growing campaign for “emancipation” that was developing under the auspices of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee which he had formed in 1897. Hirschfeld pioneered modern Social Justice Warrior tactics by urging celebrities and high-profile politicians to add their names in support of the campaign for “sexual equality.” Hirschfeld and his protégés also produced a vast number of books, manuscripts, papers, and pamphlets concerning sexuality, transvestitism, “transgenderism” (another Hirschfeld term) and fetishes. Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science (Institut füer Sexualwissenschaft) was the world’s first gender identity clinic and his staff performed the first known transsexual surgeries. Through the Institute for Sexual Science which he founded in 1919, Hirschfeld also documented thousands of cases of sexual inversion and further bolstered his theory of the “Third Sex.”
Despite the bankruptcy of his science, the dramatic success of the Committee at mobilizing large sectors of German and European society on behalf of homosexuals was due to Hirschfeld’s personality. Like Moll, he was an aggressive and relentless agitator. Respecting few social codes, he was the darling of the Social Democrats and the reviled enemy of Weimar conservatives (Hitler referred to Hirschfeld as “the most dangerous Jew in Germany”). By the end of the 1920s, Hirschfeld’s activism meant that Weimar Germany saw homosexuality less as a medical disorder and sign of degeneration than as a major cause célèbre. Hirschfeld’s perverse bonanza came to an end in 1933 when on May 6th Nationalist German student organizations and columns of the Hitler Youth attacked the Institute for Sexual Science. The Institute library was liquidated and its contents used in a book burning on May 10. The youths also printed and disseminated posters bearing Hirschfeld’s face complete with the caption: “Protector and Promoter of pathological sexual aberrations, also in his physical appearance probably the most disgusting of all Jewish monsters.” Hirschfeld himself had been on an international speaking tour since 1931. He lived in exile in France until he died of a heart attack in 1935. But unfortunately, this individual enjoyed significant post-humous success. In terms of theory, Hirschfeld had “subverted the notion that romantic love should be orientated toward reproduction,” arguing instead for the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles and hedonistic, non-reproductive, sexual relations in general.13
Hirschfeld’s use of the weaponized concept of love was itself a legacy of Hirschfeld’s “scientific mentor” and co-ethnic Iwan Bloch (1872–1922). Like Moll and Hirschfeld, Bloch had no background in zoology, evolutionary studies or animal behavior. Trained as a dermatologist, Bloch was also attracted to the cause of “sexual minorities” and became an ardent campaigner on their behalf. He joined with Moll and Hirschfeld in attacking the non-Jewish consensus that sexual inversion was pathological and coined the term sexualwissenschaft or sexology to give academic and medical respectability to what was essentially a Jewish intellectual reaction against non-Jewish efforts to categorize harmful social and sexual pathologies. He was also a keen promoter of perversion and pornography. He was the “discoverer” of the Marquis de Sade’s manuscript of The 120 Days of Sodom, which had been believed to be lost, and published it under the pseudonym Eugène Dühren in 1904. In 1899 he had published Marquis de Sade: His Life and Works under the same pseudonym. In 1906 he wrote The Sexual Life of Our Time in its Relations to Modern Civilization, for which he gained the praise of Sigmund Freud for attacking “bourgeois” (non-Jewish) sexual mores, attacking the perception of sexual inverts as pathological, and calling for Europeans to adopt a more pluralistic and hedonistic sexual life.
By the time Moll, Hirschfeld and Bloch had essentially co-opted and redirected the study of human sexual behavior, Jews were flooding the new “discipline” in increasing numbers. Albert Eulenberg (1840–1917), with a background in neurology and electrotherapy, began styling himself a sexologist. With Bloch and Max Marcuse (1877–1963) he co-edited the Zeitschrift fur Sexualwissenschaft (Journal for Sexology) and with Hirschfeld, he co-founded the Berlin Society for Sexual Science and Eugenics. The eugenics aspect of the society’s name was, of course, a clever piece of deception, intended to ingratiate it with non-Jewish eugenic societies for the purposes of eventual subversion with Jewish oppositional ideas. Nor was the tactic new. Eulenberg, Hirschfeld, and Moll all claimed to be eugenicists but, like the Jewish-dominated German League for Improvement of the People and the Study of Heredity, astute Nationalists perceived the attempt at co-option from within, and all were attacked by National Socialist publisher Julius F. Lehmann as “part of a targeted subversion on the part of Berlin Jews.”14
Although Jewish sexology, and with it the promotion of homosexuality, was effectively shut down by the National Socialists, it would live on in exile, along with other poisonous doctrines, with the Frankfurt School. After the war, it would return, with Horkheimer and Adorno, to Frankfurt, where the Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science would be re-established and then led by their protégé Volkmar Sigusch (who coined the term ‘cisgender,’ now much-beloved by SJWs). From there it would spread throughout the West. Since taking on the leadership of the Institute, Sigusch has acted as a theorist and expert on social policy issues, and he has played a key role in liberalizing Germany’s laws penalizing homosexuality. Until 2006, Sigusch led Frankfurt University’s Institute for Sexual Science and its associated sexual medicine clinic. In 2005, he published Neo-sexuality: On the Cultural Change of Love and Perversion. In early March 2011, he released Searching for Sexual Freedom. Sigusch, who has done much to continue the advance of ‘sexual pluralism,’ has been described by Der Spiegel as “one of the main thinkers behind the sexual revolution of the 1960s.” Despite his non-Jewish ethnicity, these works reveal that he is the spiritual and ideological son of Moll, Bloch, Hirschfeld, and Eulenberg. Yet more reasons, perhaps, to question the argument, advanced by Counter-Currents, that “homophobia is Jewish.”
The Promotion of Homosexuality within White Nationalism
One might be tempted to dismiss the position of Counter-Currents on the homosexual question as merely wrong-headed, ill-informed, or even amateurish. However, I believe that many of the writers there are intelligent, historiographically literate, and are probably aware that they are producing an argument with an agenda attached. One of the more annoying aspects of their position, however, is that it is framed under the rubric that ‘homosexuality is beside the point.’ Even if this were true, which in terms of our demographic and social concerns it is not, Counter Currents have not stuck to their professed ‘line.’ In fact, through the publication of volumes such as James O’Meara’s The Homo and the Negro, and a number of articles acting as apologetics for homosexuality, they’ve done quite the opposite. I only very recently looked at The Homo and the Negro for the first time and was stunned at the publication, by an ostensibly Nationalist organization, of a set of writings that promotes pederasty.
In The Homo and the Negro O’Meara advances a number of arguments that should now be familiar, and with which we have already dealt with. O’Meara writes of the “futility” of the Right due to its “Judeo-Christianity.” He writes of a rampant “homophobia” (do White Nationalists now routinely use Jewish coinages like this?), which he defines as “a fear of homosexuality.” From here, O’Meara writes, apparently with the support of his publisher, that the American Right “cannot be a vehicle for the preservation and expansion of White culture since its Judeo-Christian element leads it to oppose the culture-creating and culture-sustaining element of homoeroticism.” Quite how the grooming and buggery of teenage boys in antiquity led to the creation of culture is never clearly articulated by O’Meara, though one is left with the distinct impression that he is speaking from a perspective of sexual preference rather than intellectual inquiry. Such fantasies may be assumed to lie behind his further elaboration that “the homosexual is the ideal type in a masculinist, homoerotic system.” Capping all of this nonsense is his assertion that “family values are Judaic,” and that the Right, by being hostile towards homosexuals, “deprives itself of the elitist cultural creativity of homosexuals.”
Are family values really Judaic, as O’Meara claims? Consider one example contrary to this homosexual apologetic in the form of what Tacitus said of the ancient Germans:
Their marriage code, however, is strict, and indeed no part of their manners is more praiseworthy…This they count their strongest bond of union, these their sacred mysteries, these their gods of marriage. Lest the woman should think herself to stand apart from aspirations after noble deeds and from the perils of war, she is reminded by the ceremony which inaugurates marriage that she is her husband’s partner in toil and danger, destined to suffer and to dare with him alike both in in war. The yoked oxen, the harnessed steed, the gift of arms proclaim this fact. She must live and die with the feeling that she is receiving what she must hand down to her children neither tarnished nor depreciated, what future daughters-in-law may receive, and may be so passed on to her grandchildren.
Moreover, recent DNA studies in England support previous research from the University of Oslo suggesting that Viking men were family-oriented, coming from communities where the marriage bond was strong and did not engage sexually with the women of lands they conquered. Rather it was found that Viking raiding parties were accompanied by significant numbers of women, and possibly whole families. One might also consider the ancient Brehon Law of the Irish mentioned earlier, which promoted the sanctity of the marriage bond, and reproduction within it.
Again, are family values Jewish? Perhaps only in the mind of a manipulative homosexual who wishes to cynically use ethno-nationalistic instincts and a righteous hostility towards Jews in order to advance his own agenda — by tarring everything that he himself abhors as “Jewish.” In reality, the proffered vision is a homo-nihilistic fantasy in which wholly imagined pederastic Männerbund antics take the place of the reproductive monogamous family unit as the lifeblood of the nation. O’Meara glorifies the work of Hans Blüher, a man condemned in his lifetime by Heinrich Himmler and Der Stürmer as a “notorious pederast,” who once wrote that: “In general, the greatest form of love is not between man and woman; with that there are children; that is something animalistic. The greatest form is the sublimated love between man and man. It is only from this that the greatest things in world history have come about.” O’Meara’s ideas are, ultimately, a poisonous doctrine that lowers the status of the family and reproduction in favor of a counter-productive sexual pathology. Such behavior is best described from an ethno-nationalist perspective by National Socialist theorist Reinhard Heydrich, who described the antisocial as having a natural inclination towards “disorder and subversion,” thereby “placing themselves at the disposal of the enemies of our people, and acting as a tool and weapon for their plans.”
In truth, homosexuality has been part of the demographic problem in the West. I once published on social media that society never really accepted homosexuality, but rather that society itself first became ‘homosexual’ in its traits before it could tolerate actual homosexuals. As the West became progressively more childless, promiscuous, hedonistic, and brimming with delusional self-confidence, the differences between the normal and the abnormal narrowed, and there appeared fewer reasons to continue to deny ‘equality’ to the sexual invert. As mentioned previously, Havelock Ellis observed that societies with demographic concerns will have harsh penalties for both homosexuality and abortion/infanticide. The West is in demographic free fall but, ignorant of the profound implications of this racial death, it’s people are actually in the process of indulging in a culture cultivated for their demographic assassination. Homosexuality has never been more tolerated. Abortion has never been easier and less stigmatized. Whites have never been closer to leaving the stage of history.
Promiscuity has replaced the pushchair. A glance at the modern generation of Whites of child-bearing age is sobering. Rates of sexually transmitted disease in America have never been higher. According to senior physicians, the UK is heading for a “sexual health crisis.” The same phenomenon has been reported in Australia, Canada, Ireland, France, and Germany. Meanwhile, the Gatestone Institute reports that: “Abortion has recently assumed epic proportions in countries such as Sweden or France. In France, there are 200,000 abortions a year. To put things in perspective, there are in France around 750,000 births a year. France, therefore, is aborting 20% of its babies/fetuses/embryos/cell clusters — choose according to your personal convictions — each year.” You can be sure that it isn’t French Muslims who are aborting their babies by the hundred thousand, and this perhaps explains why they’ve been telling the Archbishop of Strasbourg that “France will be theirs one day.”
In The Population Bomb (1968), the Jewish biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote that the best method to reduce population is the legalization of abortion. That was without considering the effect of birth control, or the cultural impact of tolerance of homosexuality and the Hirschfeld-derived glorification of perverted, empty, childless visions of “love.” When Europeans began to legalize both birth control and abortion 40 years ago, a few years after Roe vs. Wade (1973), the Catholic Church warned of the risk of Europe entering into a “morbid civilization.” This, of course, is the same Catholic Church likely to be denounced as “Judaic” by James O’Meara and his sponsors. In truth, and as someone raised in a Protestant home, I must concede that had the Catholic Church had more power to enforce its doctrine, Europe would still be flourishing demographically, and a mass Muslim invasion would be nothing but a nightmare never to come to fruition.
Why would O’Meara and Counter-Currents publish and promote such ideas, denigrating the family and selfishly glorifying their own preferences? Here it is necessary to confront the issue of the homosexual personality and to return to our central argument of the incompatibility of homosexuality and Alt-Right principles. As stated earlier in this essay, psychological studies indicate that homosexuals score higher than the sexually normal on traits associated with psychopathy, including higher rates of promiscuity, a greater tendency to high-risk activity, higher rates of intimate partner violence,15 low levels of impulse control, and a tendency towards bouts of exaggerated sense of self-esteem/importance. In addition, studies have found that homosexuality was 10 times more common among the men and 6 times more common among the women with borderline personality disorder (BPD) than in the general population or in a depressed control group.16 An extensive 2008 study confirmed and expanded upon these findings, arguing that “subjects with BPD were significantly more likely than comparison subjects to report homosexual or bisexual orientation and intimate same-sex relationships.”
Prior to the peaking of ‘sexual pluralism’ in the last decade, research into the homosexual personality was behind much of the stance in the United States in terms of excluding homosexuals from the military, law enforcement, and government security. It was argued that homosexuals “possessed an inordinate amount of psychopathology and character flaws such as instability, illegal conduct, dishonesty, untrustworthiness, poor teamwork, and relationship forming skills. Gay men were described as being highly strung and neurotic.”17 Combining an understanding of homosexual personality traits with homosexual apologetics produced within White Nationalism, it becomes clear that dishonesty (“homosexuality is beside the point, let’s not discuss it”) and manipulative behaviors (“hostility to homosexuality is Jewish”), and an exaggerated sense of self-esteem/importance are at least primary concerns to those wanting to steer the cause of Whites in the right direction. Evidence of the latter is surely in evidence both in O’Meara’s claim that the Right persists in depriving “itself of the elitist cultural creativity of homosexuals,” and Greg Johnson’s apparent belief that homosexuals are “real assets” to the movement because they “are intelligent and accomplished…Are freer to speak their minds because they give fewer hostages to fortune. They also have more free time and more disposable income to devote to the cause.”
Such promotions of homosexuality are inherently insidious and are proof that, consciously or not, issues of White success, particularly demographic success, are likely to always be subordinated by the homosexual in favor of theories of life or behavior which glorify or excuse his own predilections. The fact that an ostensibly nationalist writer can openly praise a pederastic author who denigrated the reproductive relationships of normal, healthy families is a sign of a degenerative rot that has developed in the corners of this movement. The toleration of such a rot has been the cause of disunity — not surprising given the apparent success of the lie that “tolerating homosexuals will increase our unity.” Quite the contrary. I have nationalist friends of many stripes, and a number of them have previously avoided aligning themselves rhetorically or materially with institutions like the National Policy Institute, or concepts such as the Alt-Right, because of an apparent tolerance of homosexuals and their apologetics. As a father of three, I have also had serious reservations about the kind of movement I am trying to raise my children in. Raising them in an environment that tolerates the open promotion of pederasty is out of the question.
This essay will cut out some of the rot, and bring clarity to some issues and questions that have been left to fester. It is largely a thankless task, and a dirty one too, but the Augean Stables must be cleansed.
1 F.J. Solloway, Freud, Biologist of the Mind: Beyond the Psychoanalytic Legend (Harvard, 1979), 314-5.
2 V. Roelcke, Twentieth Century Ethics of Human Subjects Research: Historical Perspectives From Steiner Verlag (Stuttgart, 2004), 26.
3 E. Mancini, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom: A History of the First International Sexual Freedom Movement (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 29.
4 A. Killen, Berlin Electropolis: Shock, Nerves and German Modernity (University of California Press, 2006), 63.
5 Solloway, Freud, Biologist of the Mind: Beyond the Psychoanalytic Legend (Harvard, 1979), 300.
6 E.R. Dickson, Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880-1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 155.
7 Ibid, 156.
8 Ibid, 157.
9 Mancini, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom, 30.
10 Ibid, 4.
11 Ibid, 160.
13 E.R. Dickson, Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880-1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 7.
14 J. Glad, Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century (Hermitage, 2006), 133.
15 Ard & Makadon. (2011).Addressing Intimate Partner Violence in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26:8, 930-933.
16 Zubenko, Soloff, & Schulz (1987). Sexual practices among patients with borderline personality disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(6), 748-752, and developed further in Reich & Zanarini (2008).Sexual Orientation and Relationship Choice in Borderline Personality Disorder over Ten Years of Prospective Follow-up. Journal of Personality Disorder, 22(6), 564-572.
17 G. Hagger-Johnson ‘Personality, Individual Differences, and LGB Psychology,’ in Clark and Peel (eds) Out in Psychology: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer Perspectives (Chichester: Wiley, 2007), p. 83.