Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

An investigation of an experimental program to train boys to be boys.

Jim Burroway

June 7th, 2011

Part 2: Psychology, 1970 style
Society has come a long way in its attitudes toward homosexuality and gender identity since 1970, the year when Kaytee decided that Kirk needed treatment. Under today’s standards, attempts to cure or prevent homosexuality by UCLA’s Gender Identity Clinic, if it still existed, would garner intense scrutiny from ethics review boards and condemnations from mental health organizations. But in 1970, UCLA’s goals were squarely in the very middle of the mainstream of psychological thought.

When Kirk’s mother called Dr. Green in 1970, the American Psychiatric Association still considered homosexuality a mental illness. And any quick reading of reputable journal articles describing homosexuality and gender non-conformity from that time shows that mainstream psychology regarded it as far more than just a mental illness. Amid the jargon and clinical descriptions, the dry graphs and charts, the advertisements for Methadrine ( for “the patient who won’t fit in”) and Thorazine (“Quickly puts an end to his violent outbursts”), words like “deviants,” “maladjustment,” “perversion,” and “pathology” stood in as commonplace synonyms. These words described not just homosexuality and gender variance, they also described the people who suffered — and in these journals they invariably suffered — from these conditions. Rekers would write more than eighty papers and articles on homosexuality over the course of his career, and each of those papers today strikes us as hopelessly anachronistic and antagonistic against gay and transgender people. But if you were to compare his early papers with others from the same era — even with some of the relatively positive papers on homosexuality — you might be hard pressed to notice much out of place.

Homosexuality wasn’t just a mental illness in 1970, it was also against the law in every U.S. state and territory except Illinois. Gay and transgender people were denied security clearances17 and they couldn’t work for the federal government because of an Eisenhower-era Executive Order.18 If they were discovered serving in the military, they might find themselves facing a dishonorable discharge which would have made finding a job afterward extremely difficult. Even though the Stonewall rebellion occurred just the year before, that nascent awakening hadn’t made much of an impression on society yet. Police all over the country were still raiding gay bars and clubs, and judges were still sentencing gay and transgender people to jail, probation, and treatment centers.

Some of those treatment centers were very well funded. California’s Welfare and Institutions Code required that the Department of Mental Health perform research into “the causes and cures of homosexuality” (a legal requirement which remained, unnoticed, until 2010).19 The Federal government, through the National Institutes of Mental Health, poured millions of dollars into institutions like the State University of New York at Stony Brook, the Roosevelt Institute in New York, Johns Hopkins University, the Fuller Theological Seminary’s School of Psychology in Pasadena, and, of course, UCLA.20

UCLA’s Neuropsychiatric Institute wasn’t just one of the world’s great research facilities, it was home to some of the top experts on gender identity. Dr. Robert Stoller, who established the Gender Identity Clinic at the Institute in 1963,21 is credited with coming up with the concept of “gender identity” as a distinct concept in which one’s self-perception of his or her gender can be different from one’s apparent anatomical sex.22

Stoller was a leading expert on “transsexualism,”23 but he didn’t venture much into homosexuality in the 1960s, calling it “a large issue beyond my present understanding.”24 But by the 1970′s he was willing to tackle homosexuality as well, since he regarded homosexuality and transsexualism as two expressions of the same problem. Stoller believed that the most feminine boys — the most extremely feminine boys — would grow up to become transsexual. But those boys who somehow managed to pick up some stray bits of masculinity along the way had considerably more options available to them. With a touch more masculinity, a boy might avoid becoming transsexual and instead become merely homosexual. Add still more masculinity, and maybe he would be straight but a cross-dresser. More masculinity still, and he’d be “normal.” How much masculinity a boy picked up depended entirely on his mother.25

This meant that feminine boys weren’t the only ones in psychology’s crosshairs. Mothers were targeted as well. This was nothing new. Psychology had long blamed mothers for all sorts of problems in their children, including schizophrenia,26 autism,27 asthma,28 and, of course, homosexuality and other forms of gender non-conformity. Stoller told a panel at a 1976 American Psychoanalytic Association meeting, “Most feminine boys result from a mother who, whether with benign or malignant intent, is too protective, and a father who either is brutal or absent (literally or psychologically).”29 That statement apportions some blame on the father, but Stoller let them off the hook because, after all, it was the mother who chose to have the father in the picture to begin with. “He was chosen by his wife to be a distant, passive, nonparticipating man.”

Stoller was just one of the many stars at UCLA. Dr. Ivar Lovaas, who established the ward that housed the clinic, was head of UCLA’s Neuropsychiatric Institute. He was already famous for his controversial behavioral treatment program for autistic children, some of which involved electric shock therapy. Some of his behavior modification techniques (minus the electric shock therapy) made their way into UCLA’s treatment program for suspected “prehomosexual” or “pretranssexual” children. Another UCLA researcher, Alexander Rosen, published several important articles describing his work with gender nonconforming children and adults. Three of his early papers were co-written with Stoller. Later, he would co-write at least fourteen more with Rekers. Peter Bentler was another noted researcher, and his contributions were in the field of “psychometrics” — in developing psychological tests and performing complex statistical analyses in order to interpret the results. He would write five papers with Rekers and Rosen, including three papers vigorously defending the Clinic’s experimental children’s program against its more vocal critics.30

Richard Green was a well-regarded expert on gender non-conformity, especially in what would later be called “Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood,” or GIDC. He began his work as a grad student in 1957 with John Money, who was then a major authority in children’s gender and sexual development at Johns Hopkins Medical Center in Baltimore.31 Money believed that a child’s gender identity at birth was a blank slate. Whether that child later saw itself as a boy or girl depended solely on how that child was raised. “The label ‘boy’ or ‘girl’”, he wrote, “has tremendous force as a self-fulfilling prophecy. … Whatever the status of your chromosomes, hormones, sex organs, and individuality, their directional push was no match for societal pressures when it comes to differentiating your gender identity.”32

In 1961, Green co-wrote a paper with Money where they likened the process to the “imprinting” that takes place with newly-hatched ducklings, which can be induced to follow any substitute parent with the same devotion they would otherwise show for their own mother.33 Consequently, Money and Green agreed, at least during their collaboration in the early 1960s, that “part of the successful rearing of a child is orienting him, from birth, to his biologically and culturally acceptable gender role.”34

Green moved to UCLA in 1962 where he entered his residency under Stoller. Green would later write that Money and Stoller were like fathers to him. Along with his real father, “[t]hese three men set the course of my life.”35 He and Stoller built the organizational infrastructure that made UCLA one of the most important institutions for studying and treating gender and sexuality issues for the next two decades.36The Gender Identity Clinic was very well funded, with the children’s programs earning some $220,000 (equivalent to about $900,000 in today’s dollars) in federal grants between 1973 and 1975 alone.37 Green became the center’s director until sometime around 1971,38 and his easygoing personality and wit made him an ideal public spokesman for the clinic.

With all of these psychological, legal and cultural strictures against homosexuality and gender variance, it would have been an exceedingly rare mother who wouldn’t be worried about what may be in store for her effeminate son — and to feel personally responsible for it. As Lovaas would later observe, “Mothers came to us with enormous guilt. They thought they had caused this problem. … You make a statement like that to a mom, and she would pay any amount of money to take care of that!”39 In that respect, Kaytee was a perfectly typical mother. She also had two reasons to consider herself an extremely lucky one. First, UCLA’s world-famous Neuropsychiatric Institute was only an hour’s drive from their Saugus, California home. And second, she wouldn’t have to pay any amount of money to treat Kirk; the U.S. government would pick up the tab.

And so when Kaytee saw Dr. Green on television urging mothers of effeminate boys to call the clinic as soon as possible, she did what just about any other concerned mother in 1970 would do. She called the number on the screen and made an appointment.


The Play’s the Thing
“Well, my mother went with me. Bless her heart, she’s gone now.” Kaytee said, recalling the first time she drove Kirk to UCLA in her ancient push-button Dodge. “I got pulled over by a policeman because I was going too slow.”

When the Murphy clan arrived at the Neuropsychiatric Institute, they were in for a shock. They had never been to a psych ward before. “We walk in, and here’s a guy that’s stressed out on drugs and he was in a straightjacket and he was screaming like a maniac, and that scared me because I didn’t know that much about drugs. It scared Kirk and it scared my mother.”

After gathering their wits, they continued on to their appointment. “We went on up to the third floor to Dr. Lovaas’s wing,” she remembered. “I liked Dr. Lovaas, but he was in charge of the psychiatric wing, and he did the shock therapies for autistic children. So he really didn’t have anything to do with Kirk. But Dr. Green was under Dr. Lovaas as the way I understood it.”

“Dr. Green had two college boys that were working with him — assistants, aides whatever you want to call them. The only one I can remember, his name was George. The other one, I don’t remember his name at all.”

“George” would be George Rekers. He had just earned his bachelor’s degree at Westmont College in Santa Barbara a few months earlier. He joined UCLA under a pre-doctoral fellowship from the National Science Foundation, and was looking for a research assignment when a grant award arrived from the National Institutes of Mental Health to study behavioral treatment methods for gender-variant children. Dr. Lovaas assigned Rekers to the project and became his mentor.

Kaytee remembered the young research assistant simply as George. When I first spoke with her, she didn’t know that he would later become a psychologist and major anti-gay activist. “He was very, very kind to Kirk and Kirk liked him, and Kirk communicated really well with him,” she remembered. “And when Dr. Green and George and the other one came to Kirk’s birthday party at our house in Saugas, I had bought water guns and they were all shooting water guns at each other. Kirk just thought that was just the cat’s meow, you know.”

Playing, it would turn out, would be the key to the experimental treatment for Kirk. The program was divided into two parts. The first part was devoted to evaluating the extent of Kirk’s femininity. The second part involved experimental procedures to eliminate the feminine and accentuate the masculine. Using some of the procedures that Lovaas developed a few years earlier,40 Rekers would determine both the diagnosis and progress towards a “cure” by observing which toys Kirk played with in the clinic’s playroom

Kaytee described the playroom where the experiments took place. “The room they took Kirk into had long tables along it and there were all these toys,” she remembered. “There were dolls, doll houses, chatty babies and chatty brothers and I don’t know, all kinds of girl’s stuff. And then they had helicopters and GI Joes — I don’t remember if it was GI Joes or what but it was something like that.”

There was also a one-way mirror on one wall of the room through which Rekers and other research assistants could observe Kirk from the next room. Kaytee also watched Kirk that first day from behind the one-way mirror. “Well of course he went immediately to the girl’s stuff,” she said. “And then, George or the other assistant or Dr. Green sometimes, after the session, they would come out or bring me into another room, and they would just highlight with me what went on that day.”

The team observed Kirk over several sessions to evaluate how effeminate this little boy really was. They watched him when he was alone in the playroom, when a stranger was present, when his mother was present, and when his father was present. According to the data that Rekers would later publish,41 Kirk nearly always played with the girls’ toys, with one key exception. When his father was in the room, Kirk’s behavior changed. He played exclusively with the boys’ toys. Rekers was puzzled. He would later write,

[W]e interviewed his father to attempt to find an explanation for his SD [discriminative stimulus] control over his son’s behavior. Initially, the father insisted that he had never seen Kraig act feminine; but after repeated questioning, he recalled that on one occasion he had discovered Kraig in the act of cross-dressing and had spanked him for it. Evidently, that one intervention was responsible for a long-lasting effect on Kraig’s sex-typed play in his father’s presence.42

Evidently is right. That incident with Kirk’s cousin clearly left a lasting impression. This may also explain why Rod really didn’t think there was that much wrong with Kirk. After all, if he didn’t see it after that incident, then there wasn’t much for him to worry about. It also belies Rekers’s suggestion that Kirk’s condition was so compulsive that it would almost suggest “irreversible neurological and biochemical determinants.”43 If it was that compulsive, how was it that Kirk could switch it off so easily whenever his father was present? The answer to that question, it turns out, would have important implications for Kirk’s treatment.

Mark also remembers going to the clinic occasionally and playing in the playroom. “I can’t say whether I was being observed or not. I can only remember two times of having a sit-down session with either Green or Rekers. One time was ink spots, and one time was the Barbie Doll/GI Joe, which one are you going to pick?”

Mark now wonders if he was being used as part of a control group or, in particular, whether he may have been set up as a benchmark for Kirk. That thought haunts him. “I can tell you I didn’t like going there” he said. “I remember I used to get nauseous on the elevator. There were times that I would go up and down the elevator just to make myself nauseous so we would leave.”

With the initial observation portion of the program complete, they were ready to begin their experimental treatment, the goal of which was “to extinguish feminine behavior and to develop masculine behavior.”44 The first part of that experimental treatment took place in the same playroom as the observation portion of the program. This is how Rekers described it in his publishing debut:

For each therapy session, the following conditions were in effect: the mother was instructed to wear her earphones and to sit with a large book in her lap. She was told to attend selectively to masculine verbal and play behavior by smiling to Kraig and complimenting him on his play, and to ignore feminine behavior by picking up the book to “read”. She was told that more specific instructions would be delivered over the earphones, to enable her to carry out these general instructions effectively.

…When Kraig began tantrum or other uncooperative behaviors (he typically did when his mother ignored him), the experimenter was particularly supportive of the mother. In fact, when the mother first withdrew her attention for Kraig’s feminine play, he put so much “pressure” on her (by alternating between crying and aggressing at her) to reinstate the attention, that we had to terminate the session and ask Kraig to leave for a minute. Before sending Kraig back to the playroom, we reassured the mother empathetically that she was doing the right thing and was doing it well, and that we would continue to be available in the observation room to assist her.45

Today, Kaytee says she only remembers the observation portion when she sat behind the one-way mirror with the staff as they watched Kirk play. She says she doesn’t remember being in the room with Kirk and wearing the headphones, nor does she remember Kirk’s crying. That was perhaps the most surprising thing about this investigation. Critics nearly always remarked on the incident where a session was suspended because of Kirk’s distress. But Kaytee says she doesn’t remember it.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the incident didn’t happen as Rekers described it. Kaytee says she doesn’t remember a lot of things. She also admits to a lot of guilt for having taken Kirk to UCLA to begin with. And it shouldn’t be too surprising if she may feel complicit in Kirk’s treatment. Part of Rekers’s strategy entailed enlisting her as a co-conspirator, and he remarked that Kaytee exuded greater confidence as time went on because “she had been able to help actively by being the therapist.”46 But Kaytee just remembers being overwhelmed by the attention. “I was awed about what was going on. I guess I was pretty naïve, but like, one more time, I just trusted them to do the right thing.”

Because of this trust, and despite whatever stresses Kirk may have endured, the treatment continued for several more sessions. After Kirk stopped playing with the girls’ toys with his mother in the room, they would observe him playing alone to see if his new behavior remained consistent. It didn’t. The therapy resumed with his mother back in the room again. After his play was “corrected” again even when playing alone, Rekers would also sometimes allow his mother to engage positively with Kirk regardless of which toys he played with. This was to see if in his new play preferences were permanent. Sometimes they weren’t, so they’d go back to having Kirk’s mother alternately engaging and ignoring him based on which toys he played with again.

Child experts say that consistency is the most important quality in dealing with children; Kirk must have been baffled by all this. Behavior that was intolerable one moment would suddenly become acceptable the next. This went on for several weeks, with several play sessions taking place during each weekly visit.47 Donna and her mother would go to the Murphy’s house to watch Maris and sometimes Mark while Kaytee and Kirk went to UCLA. She remembered overhearing the adults talking about Kirk taking part in an experimental research program for boys who liked to play with girls’ toys. “I knew what was going on and why he was going, but probably not the ramifications,” she said.

She also overheard them discussing Kirk’s treatment at UCLA, about the tables with girls’ toys and boys’ toys. And she overheard them despair that Kirk continued to prefer the girl’s toys, a preference that is borne out by the data published in Rekers and Lovaas’s paper. But Kirk finally caught on to what was expected of him, and after fifty-five sessions at UCLA, he began to consistently refuse to play with the girls’ toys. Rekers was especially pleased to report that in the 56th session, “on entering the room, Kirk said out loud, ‘I wonder which toys I will play with. Oh, these are girls’ toys here, I don’t want to play with them.’ Then Kraig commenced to play with the masculine toys.”48 But according to Rekers’s published data, Kirk played alone in the 56th session. No one was there to hear him say this except for the observers behind the one-way mirror. Did the smart and highly observant young boy figure out that somehow he was being watched?

Rekers judged the clinical portion of the therapy a success. There was one problem though: Kirk would revert back to his natural preferences when he went home. The mouse was only halfway to the cheese. Clearly, more needed to be done.

Notes:

17. Lewis, Gregory B. “Barriers to security clearances for gay men and lesbians: Fear of blackmail or fear of homosexuals?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11, no. 4 (October 2001): 539-558. [BACK]

18. Executive Order 10450–Security requirements for Government employment (April 27, 1953). Available online at the National Archives web site at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10450.htm. [BACK]

19. Kincaid, Timothy. “California no longer looking for ’causes and cures of homosexuality’.” Box Turtle Bulletin (August 25, 2010). http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/08/25/25758. [BACK]

20. Burke, Phyllis. Gender Shock: Exploding the Myths of Male and Female (New York: Anchor Books, 1996): 32. [BACK]

21. Bryant, Karl Edward. “The politics of pathology and the making of Gender Identity Disorder.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Santa Barbara (September 2007): 73. [BACK]

22. Stoller, Robert J. “A contribution to the study of gender identity.” International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 45, no. 2 (April 1964): 220-226.

Stoller, Robert J. Sex and Gender: Vol 1. The Development of Masculinity and Femininity (New York: Science House, 1968). [BACK]

23. Gender identity specialists today use the word “transgender” to describe a host of cross-gender identities and modes of gender expression. Transgender is most often used to describe those whose inner sense of maleness or femaleness conflict with either their anatomy at birth or their ascribed gender (a more common problem with intersex individuals). The term can also be used to describe those who cross-dress, are intersexed, or exhibit other characteristics that are seen as gender variant.

“Transsexual” is an older term that was coined by the medical and psychological community to describe those whose gender identity is different from the gender ascribed to them at birth. It is not an umbrella term in the way “transgender” is. However, many people who fit the strict definition of transsexual prefer to identify as transgender instead because they see “transsexual” as a clinical term that sometimes caries emotional connotations of being labeled as suffering from a disorder. Others however prefer the precision that the word “transsexual” has to describe their particular identity.

While recognizing the sensitivities involved with the word “transsexual,” I have decided to use the word in accordance with the Media Reference Guide by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), dated May, 2010. I am using the term “transsexual” and its derivative forms for two reasons: 1) to be consistent with the terminology the professionals used in their writings, and 2) to be precise in describing the particular areas of research being discussed.

For more information, please refer to GLAAD’s Media Reference Guide, available online at http://www.glaad.org/publications/mediareference. [BACK]

24. Stoller, Robert J. “Does sexual perversion exist?” The Johns Hopkins Medical Journal 134, no 1 (January 1974): 43-57. [BACK]

25. Stoller, Robert J. “Boyhood gender aberrations: treatment issues.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 26, no. 3 (June 1978): 541-548. [BACK]

26. Just a few examples include:

Dworin, Jack; Wyant, Oakley. “Authoritarian patterns in the mothers of schizophrenics. Journal of Clinical Psychology 13, no. 4 (October 1957): 332-338.

Lu, Yi-chuang. “Mother-child role relations in schizophrenia: A comparison of schizophrenic patients with nonschizophrenic siblings.” Psychiatry 24, no. 2 (May 1961): 133-142.

Lidz, Ruth Wilmanns; Lidz, Theodore. “Homosexual tendencies in mothers of schizophrenic women.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 149, no. 2 (August 1969): 229-235. [BACK]

27. For example, Kanner, Leo. “Autistic disturbances of affective contact.” Acta Paedopsychiatrica 35, no. 4 (1968): 100-36. [BACK]

28. Block, Jeane; Harvey, Elinor; Jennings, Percy H.; Simpson, Elaine. “Clinicians’ conceptions of the asthmatogenic mother.” Archives of General Psychiatry 15, no. 6 (December 1966): 610-618. [BACK]

29. Stoller, Robert J. “Boyhood gender aberrations: treatment issues.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 26, no. 3 (June 1978): 541-548. [BACK]

30. Bentler, Peter M.; Rekers, George A.; Rosen, Alexander C. “Congruence of childhood sex-role identity and behaviour disturbances.” Child: Care, Health and Development 5, no. 4 (July 1979): 267-283.

Rekers, George A.; Bentler, Peter M.; Rosen, Alexander C.; Lovaas, O. Ivar. “Child gender disturbances: A clinical rationale for intervention.” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 14, no. 1 (Spring 1977): 2-11.

Rekers, George A.; Rosen, Alexander C.; Lovaas, O. Ivar; Bentler, Peter M. “Sex-role stereotypy and professional intervention for childhood gender disturbances.” Professional Psychology 9, no. 1 (February 1978): 127-136.

Rekers, George A.; Crandall, Barbara F.; Rosen, Alexander C.; Bentler, Peter M. “Genetic and physical studies of male children with psychological gender disturbances.” Psychological Medicine 9, no. 2 (May 1979): 373-375

Rosen, Alexander C.; Rekers, George A.; Bentler, Peter M. “Ethical issues in the treatment of children.” Journal of Social Issues 34, no. 2 (Spring 1978): 122-136. [BACK]

31. Green, Richard. “John Money, Ph.D. (July 8, 1921 – July 7, 2006): A personal obituary.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 35, no. 6 (December 2006): 629-632.

Early papers that Green wrote with Money include:

Green, Richard; Money, John. “Incongruous gender role: Nongenital manifestations in prepubertal boys.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 131, no. 8 (August 1960): 160-168.

Green, Richard; Money, John. “Effeminacy in prepubertal boys: Summary of eleven cases and recommendations for case management.” Pediatrics 27, no. 2 (February 1961): 286-291.

Green, Richard; Money, John. “Stage-acting, role-taking, and effeminate impersonation during childhood.” Archives of General Psychiatry 15, no. 5 (November 1966): 535-538. [BACK]

32. Money, John; Tucker, Patricia. Sexual Signatures: On Being a Man or a Woman (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1975): 86, 87. [BACK]

33. Green, Richard; Money, John. “Effeminacy in prepubertal boys: Summary of eleven cases and recommendations for case management.” Pediatrics 27, no. 2 (February 1961): 286-291. [BACK]

34. Green, Richard; Money, John. “Incongruous gender role: Nongenital manifestations in perpubertal boys.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 131, no. 8 (August 1960): 160-168. [BACK]

35. Green, Richard. “John Money, Ph.D. (July 8, 1921 – July 7, 2006): A personal obituary.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 35, no. 6 (December 2006): 629-632. [BACK]

36. Bryant, Karl Edward. “The politics of pathology and the making of Gender Identity Disorder.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Santa Barbara (September 2007): 72. [BACK]

37. Burke, Phyllis. Gender Shock: Exploding the Myths of Male and Female (New York: Anchor Books, 1996: 46-47. [BACK]

38. In papers published in 1968 and 1970, Green is identified as the clinic’s director. In 1971, Green established the prestigious journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, and in a paper published in the first volume of that journal he is identified as “associated with the Gender Identity Research and Treatment Program.”

Green, Richard. “Tomboys and sissies.” Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2, no. 4 (April 1968): 4, 7-8, 12.

Green, Richard. “Little boys who behave as girls.” California Medicine 113, no. 2 (August 1970): 12-16.

Green, Richard. “Two monozygotic (identical) twin pairs discordant for gender identity.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 1, no. 4 (December 1971): 321-327. [BACK]

39. Burke, Phyllis. Gender Shock: Exploding the Myths of Male and Female (New York: Anchor Books, 1996): 50-51. [BACK]

40. Lovaas, O. Ivar.; Freitag, Gilbert; Gold, Vivian J.; Kassorla, Irene C. “Recording apparatus and procedure for observation of behaviors of children in free play settings.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2, no. 2 (June 1965): 108-120. [BACK]

41 Rekers, George A. “Stimulus control over sex-typed play in cross-gender identified boys.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 20, no 1. (August 1975): 136-148. [BACK]

42. Rekers, George A. “Pathological sex-role development in boys: Behavioral Treatment and Assessment.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. (1972): 155. [BACK]

43. Rekers, George A.; Lovaas, O. Ivar. “Behavioral treatment of deviant sex-role behaviors in a male child.” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 7, no. 2 (Summer 1974): 173-190. [BACK]

44. Rekers, George A.; Lovaas, O. Ivar. “Behavioral treatment of deviant sex-role behaviors in a male child.” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 7, no. 2 (Summer 1974): 173-190. [BACK]

45. Rekers, George A.; Lovaas, O. Ivar. “Behavioral treatment of deviant sex-role behaviors in a male child.” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 7, no. 2 (Summer 1974): 173-190. [BACK]

46. Rekers, George A.; Lovaas, O. Ivar. “Behavioral treatment of deviant sex-role behaviors in a male child.” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 7, no. 2 (Summer 1974): 173-190. [BACK]

47. Bates, John E.; Skilbeck, William M.; Smith, Katherine V.R.; Bentler, Peter M. “Intervention with families of gender-disturbed boys.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 45, no. 1 (January 1975): 150-157. [BACK]

48. Rekers, George A. “Pathological sex-role development in boys: Behavioral Treatment and Assessment.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. (1972): 100. [BACK]