heterosexuals from the general population. A (n immediately earlier) 1972 study on homosexuality published by Siegelman found higher levels of “neuroticism” among “joiners” of “homophile” organizations than “non-joiners”-that is, Sielgelmann was studying the very people who were in the midst of radicalizing the APA. Second, the authors chose to study only individuals who had never previously been in a psychiatric hospital, the population that actually contained the largest proportion of the very condition they claimed to be studying, i.e., psychopathology . 14% of the male and 7% of the female homosexual responders had prior psychiatric hospitalizations. Among the heterosexual responders, none had. All these were excluded in advance from the study! By a very conservative estimate, the number of homosexuals reporting hospitalization is at least five times as high as it should have been, if the hypothesis that there is “no difference” between homosexuals and heterosexuals were true. In short, the study indicated exactly the opposite of what its authors claimed it did -even ignoring a recruitment bias that worked to suppres s such evidence (excluding a-priori any subjects with the strongest among indicia for psychopathology-psychiatric hospitalization). It is consistent with other studies they published before and later, all demonstrating a strong association among homosexuality, suicidality, and alcoholism in both males and females, statistically significant and significantly greater than in matched heterosexual populations. And yet, none of these facts were reported or discussed by the authors of the brief -perhaps because to reference them outside of indirect review articles (e.g., Gonsiorek’s, where the actual data is not just two steps away from potential scrutiny but three or more) might draw attention to its less palatable findings. Study No. 2: The Evelyn Hooker Study Evelyn Hooker claimed that her study, “The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual,” showed that “homosexuals were not inherently abnormal and that there was no difference between homosexual and heterosexual men in terms of pathology,” and that such tests could not distinguish homosexual from heterosexual psychology. In fact, the study was too poorly performed to demonstrate either. It should have (but did not): . Formulated the hypothesis (purportedly) to be tested, to wit: “Those male homosexuals who do not disproportionately demonstrate any casually observable psychological maladjustment will be indistinguishable in their performance on standard projective tests from a similarly-selected group of male heterosexuals.” Even were this hypothesis to have been support by her research, from it one may not conclude that projective testing would be unable to distinguish homosexual from heterosexual psychology, nor to distinguish a bias in psychopathology (of type or frequency) characteristic of homosexuals, let alone that there are no differences in psychopathology between homosexual and heterosexual men. Indeed, such a study could not even verify its own hypothesis, but merely provide one small bit of evidence for it , and that meaningless since the hypothesis is on its face trivial. . Identified a set of projective tests adequate to screen for psychopathology and normative differentiation. If larger, pre-existing controls exist for the tests then the standardized norms can be used as they are vastly superior to ad -hoc or norms based even on control groups of matched size. She rather abandoned the larger standardized norms and invented her own. . Selected two groups of men, one homosexual, the other heterosexual, and matched them for age and other demographic characteristics. . Had a group of expert administrators and test interpreters blind to the subjects’ sexuality administer the tests to each group.