The Employment Non-Discrimination Act     5/1/2002
A threat to morality, civil liberties and employers
By Robert H. Knight and Kenneth Ervin, II

ENDA puts the federal government in an adversary role against the basic sexual morality of the major faiths in America.

Introduction Targeting The Boy Scouts Expanding Federal Power 'Sexual Orientation' Threatening Religious Freedom Defending All Sexual Behavior Conveying Special Rights Outlawing Opposition Summary Endnotes Appendix

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has once again been introduced in Congress.¹ ENDA would prohibit discrimination based on "sexual orientation," thus opening businesses with 15 or more employees to harassment by homosexual activist lawyers.

ENDA is billed as an expansion of equality, but it is really a "gay" power grab that would severely curb constitutionally guaranteed "unalienable" rights that Americans hold dear, including the freedoms of speech, religion and association.

In brief, ENDA would:

• turn groups like the Boy Scouts into targets of federally-funded lawsuits;
• constitute a major expansion of federal power over the workplace by creating a new way for the government to manipulate employers;
• make people's sexual temptations a source of material for federal lawsuits;
• elevate multiple-sex-partner relationships (bisexuality) into a federally protected "right."
• require the federal government to declare that all sexual preferences are equally valid and supportable;
• put the federal government in the position of adopting a view of sexuality utterly at odds with that propounded by the major faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam;
• prohibit employers from taking into account sexual conduct in the hiring of education and child care worker positions;
• afford special protections to an already privileged group;
• change national policy by forcing the government to abandon support for marriage — the bedrock of every healthy society;
• lead to further demands by homosexual activists to force others to celebrate abnormal and unhealthy sexual behavior.

Introduction Targeting The Boy Scouts Expanding Federal Power 'Sexual Orientation' Threatening Religious Freedom Defending All Sexual Behavior Conveying Special Rights Outlawing Opposition Summary Endnotes Appendix

TARGETING THE BOY SCOUTS
In June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts of America's constitutional right to freedom of association by rejecting homosexual activist and former assistant Scoutmaster James Dale's claim that the BSA policy of barring homosexuals as leaders should be overturned.²

The following exchange between Good Morning America host Charlie Gibson and then-Vice President Al Gore shows the true intent of ENDA's backers. Gore affirmed the Boy Scouts' right to freedom of association, but then said he would use the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act to bring an end to "discrimination" against homosexuals in public, as well as private groups if elected president.³

GIBSON: Let me ask you another question. … "Does the vice president agree with the Supreme Court decision regarding the right of the Boy Scouts to exclude homosexual leaders?"

GORE: On the grounds that were used for the decision, the right of free association, yes. But I oppose discrimination. And the court did not reach the underlying question that others have raised there. I—I want to see a day, Charlie, where we don't have this—this kind of discrimination by groups public or private. And I think that we're moving into a future where that discrimination can be brought to an end. The principal piece of legislation on that, incidentally, is the Employment Non-discrimination Act, which I support and which Governor Bush does not support. And I think we need to move to a day when we don't have discrimination.

In other words, while paying lip service to the Scouts' freedom of association, the Vice President openly pined for federal legal power to destroy it, citing ENDA as the tool.

Introduction Targeting The Boy Scouts Expanding Federal Power 'Sexual Orientation' Threatening Religious Freedom Defending All Sexual Behavior Conveying Special Rights Outlawing Opposition Summary Endnotes Appendix

EXPANDING FEDERAL POWER OVER THE WORKPLACE
Despite language that seems to bar their use, ENDA would encourage the implementation of a system of quotas and preferences based on "sexual orientation." Title VII language clearly prohibits preferences and quotas, yet the Supreme Court ignored the language and the history of that landmark civil rights law and ruled that some preferences and quotas were okay. The same thing is likely to occur should ENDA be enacted.

ENDA's language prohibiting quotas and preferences isn't nearly as clear as the language used in Title VII. While ENDA says that an employer cannot "adopt or implement a quota on the basis of sexual orientation," it does not prohibit guidelines, timetables, or other such devices based on "sexual orientation."⁴

Evidence of a statistical disparity between the number of homosexual employees and heterosexual employees could be used in lawsuits, because ENDA does not prohibit the gathering of such data. Some employers will be forced to pry into the sex lives of their employees to safeguard against possible lawsuits.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses opposes the imposition of "unfounded mandates on the private sector." By introducing sexual politics into the workplace, ENDA would constitute a de facto unfunded mandate, as businesses scrambled to protect themselves from charges of "discrimination" by hiring sexual "diversity" experts and constructing new employee policies to accommodate a growing list of demands from homosexual employee groups.

Introduction Targeting The Boy Scouts Expanding Federal Power 'Sexual Orientation' Threatening Religious Freedom Defending All Sexual Behavior Conveying Special Rights Outlawing Opposition Summary Endnotes Appendix

"SEXUAL ORIENTATION" — TURNING BEHAVIOR INTO A CLASS
A recent invention, the notion of "sexual orientation" is rarely examined. Yet it is a radical challenge to the Judeo-Christian conception of morality. "Sexual orientation" carries the implied meaning that desires connote "identity," that the desires cannot be resisted, and therefore the behavior that stems from it is justified. This destroys any concept of personal choice in the matter of sexual behavior. While other human activities, such as economic behavior, remain subject to moral judgments, the concept of "sexual orientation" places sex outside morality. No other human behavior with such profound consequences has received such a stamp of neutrality.

The definition of "sexual orientation" in ENDA is misleadingly simple: "homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality, whether it is real or perceived." But psychiatric literature describes a wide range of sexual activities, any of which could fit under the above umbrella categories (see Appendix). For example, transvestitism, the wearing of the opposite sex's clothing, could be protected by the claim that men who put on dresses are "perceived" as being homosexual, whether they are or not. Pedophiles could claim the same thing.

Employers who object to a male employee dressing like a woman would have little recourse under ENDA, particularly if the male employee met the dress standards of women employees. It is already happening on the state level. A software maker who did not promote a temporary employee who turned out to be a transvestite was sued by the employee under California's version of ENDA, and eventually lost more than a million dollars.⁵

ENDA will create a sexual minefield for employers, and a target-rich environment for lawyers.

Introduction Targeting The Boy Scouts Expanding Federal Power 'Sexual Orientation' Threatening Religious Freedom Defending All Sexual Behavior Conveying Special Rights Outlawing Opposition Summary Endnotes Appendix

THREATENING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
ENDA proponents point to the religious exemption in the legislation. But the exemption narrowly applies only to church-related organizations. Anyone else is unprotected. The bill utterly ignores freedom of conscience for individuals. And the question must be asked: If there is a presumption that it would be immoral to impose ENDA on religious bodies, why is it moral to impose it on everyone else?

Despite ENDA's religious exemption, certain religious and charitable organizations could still find their tax-exempt status in danger unless they provide special advantages for homosexuals. Businesses owned by devout Christians, Jews and Muslims would be forced to adopt a view of human sexuality at odds with that taught by their faiths.

Even church-related institutions will be subject to harassment, as overzealous courts trample on religious exemptions in order to promote sexual "equality."

The Supreme Court has already ruled that a non-profit, private institution can lose its tax-exempt status if it violates the spirit of the national policy against racial discrimination.⁶

Likewise, courts will override religious freedom in the name of sexual "equality." For example, a court ordered Georgetown University, a Catholic college in the District of Columbia, to recognize and support a student club promoting homosexuality in violation of Catholic teaching.⁷ The District's law protecting "sexual orientation" was deemed more important than Georgetown's constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

Although there is a world of difference between skin color and sexual behavior, liberal courts are likely to blur the distinction and to regard traditional morality as a form of "bigotry."

Civil rights attorney Joseph E. Broadus, who testified during Senate hearings on ENDA in 1996, summarizes the problem with ENDA's religious provisions:

"The exemption language is at best problematic. An exemption should provide some clear area of protected activity with only marginal uncertainty. With ENDA, the uncertainty is at the heart of the provision.

"ENDA trashes the traditional respect for and accommodation of religious faith and practice found in civil rights laws. It seeks to chill and suppress religious expression and freedom of speech by using the law to transform or extinguish religious practices that are disfavored by the elite, such as the practice of declaring homosexuality a 'sin.' Because of its stealth design, ENDA discourages discussion of such issues."⁸

Introduction Targeting The Boy Scouts Expanding Federal Power 'Sexual Orientation' Threatening Religious Freedom Defending All Sexual Behavior Conveying Special Rights Outlawing Opposition Summary Endnotes Appendix

DEFENDING ALL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, REGARDLESS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT
ENDA callously disregards the fact that some sexual conduct is relevant to employment, such as in the areas of education and child care. Parents' and administrators' rightful concern over the conduct of those who will be teaching or working with their children, for instance, will be illegal under ENDA. While pedophiles are neither expressly included in nor excluded from ENDA's provisions, they will have a conceivable argument for special protection as homosexuals who merely prefer younger partners. Certainly, employers will be open to the charge of discrimination, and the more risk-averse may feel compelled to disregard employees' record on child molestation. Consider this case:

A Loudoun County, Virginia, physical education teacher was discovered to have been leading a double life as a "gay" porn star. School officials acted quickly to start an investigation and remove him from his duties as assistant coach for boys' football, baseball and wrestling teams.⁹ The teacher later resigned, turned in his teaching credentials and began working at a "gay" strip club.¹⁰

Under ENDA, the school would have had no recourse. If the school had decided to fire him, the teacher could have charged the school with "discrimination" and won. What the teacher did on his own time would be judged irrelevant under the blanket prohibition from taking "sexual orientation" into account in any way.

Introduction Targeting The Boy Scouts Expanding Federal Power 'Sexual Orientation' Threatening Religious Freedom Defending All Sexual Behavior Conveying Special Rights Outlawing Opposition Summary Endnotes Appendix

CONVEYING SPECIAL RIGHTS
ENDA affords special protection to a group that is not disadvantaged. The notion that homosexuals as a group constitute a true minority in need of special protection is false.

ENDA proponents point to recent polls showing that more than 80 percent of Americans favor homosexuals being treated equally in the workplace. But they ignore polls such as one conducted by Voter/Consumer Research, which asked this question: "Should gays and lesbians in the workplace be given special protections, like those given to minorities or the disabled or not?" Only 13 percent said "yes," while 83 percent said "no."¹¹

No poll to date has asked whether people want homosexuals to have more protection and job opportunities than the respondent's own father, sister, brother, etc.

Homosexuals do not meet the three criteria that courts traditionally have used to characterize minority groups: Economic Deprivation, Political Powerlessness (and a history of discrimination), and Immutable Characteristics.¹²

Economic Deprivation: As a group, homosexuals are among the most advantaged people in the country. Though different research and marketing firms use different homosexual population numbers, research shows that homosexuals fare at least as well or better than the rest of the country.

• According to Online Partners, the owners of homosexual web portal Gay.com,¹³ homosexuals represent a $450 billion market.¹⁴ Simmons Market Research Bureau's comparison of homosexual consumers to the national index of consumers reports that homosexual consumers are:

1. Over twice as likely as national index to be professionals/managers
2. Twice as likely to have household income over $60,000
3. Twice as likely to have household income over $250,000
4. Twice as likely to have graduated from college
5. Four times as likely to spend over $150 on long distance monthly
6. Twice as likely to spend $250 on cellular service
7. Over 90 percent took a domestic trip this year
8. 60 percent took a foreign trip in the last three years
9. 65 percent identify themselves as having to have the "latest"
10. 68 percent upgrade to a product's latest model
11. 77 percent "believe in indulging in themselves"
12. 57 percent "prefer to buy top of the line"
13. 59 percent buy themselves whatever they want

• According to the Miami Daily Business Review, homosexuals have "extraordinarily high disposable income, and are a very attractive target for advertisers." The Review also noted the following findings from the Simmons report:

1. 21 percent of homosexuals have household incomes exceeding $100,000
2. 31 percent have personal income exceeding $65,000
3. 61 percent have a four-year college degree, compared with the U.S. mean of 18 percent
4. 17 percent hold masters degrees, compared with 4 percent of the U.S. population as a whole.¹⁵
   

Political Powerlessness: Considering the fact that surveys show that they constitute less than 2 percent of the population, homosexuals wield a disproportionate amount of political power.¹⁶ National Gay & Lesbian Task Force spokesman David Elliot echoed this at a National Press Club event in September 2000: "The Gay vote is large, powerful, and able to swing a closely contested election."¹⁷

• According to a Gill Foundation study, the annual budgets of homosexual charities and social service agencies amounted to about $100 million in 1999. (The L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center alone, reportedly "the world's largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender organization," boasts a current budget of $37 million.).¹⁹
• The budget of the top 13 homosexual activist groups across the country was nearly $36 million in 1999.²⁰
• Homosexual political action committees contributed almost $800,000 to federal candidates. Individual Democratic "gay" activists also raised approximately $5 million for the Democratic National Committee during the 2000 election cycle.²¹
• Openly homosexual politicians hold various high public offices in Congress, including Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts), and Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona). According to the Blade, 118 openly "gay" candidates ran for federal, state and local office on in the 2000 elections—43 of them incumbents.²²
• Homosexuals were appointed by the Clinton Administration to key positions in the federal government. President Bush also has appointed several homosexuals to key positions, including AIDS czar Scott Evertz, Ambassador to Romania Michael Guest, and Pentagon adviser Stephen Herbits, who served as a gatekeeper for military civilian personnel despite his well-known homosexual activism.²³
• In addition, homosexuals enjoy support from every major news organization, whose coverage long ago crossed the line into outright advocacy of homosexual causes. More than 600 journalists attended a conference of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association in September 2000. Homosexuals and their allies, such as CNN producer Rose Arce and NBC Nightly News producer Barbara Raab, hold influential media positions.²⁴ Prime-time television has more than two dozen "gay" characters, with uniformly pro-homosexual story lines. Pro-family views are excluded on this issue.

Immutable Characteristics: Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based on sexual behavior. Historic minority groups have immutable, non-behavioral characteristics such as race, ethnicity, disability or national origin. A comprehensive examination of genetic claims for homosexuality in the Archives of General Psychiatry concludes, "There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory."²⁵

• In a critique of studies that claim to prove a "gay gene," homosexual activist and author Edward Stein, Ph.D., said, "Genes in themselves cannot directly specify any behavior or psychological phenomenon. … The terms 'gay gene' and 'homosexual gene' are, therefore, without meaning. … No one has … presented evidence in support of such a simple and direct link between genes and sexual orientation."²⁶

In reality, no scientific studies show an inborn (genetic or biological) cause for homosexuality, despite homosexual activists' continued assertions that homosexual acts are "just the same" as race or gender.

Assertions to the contrary by homosexual activists ignore the largest piece of evidence that homosexuality is not genetic or immutable: the existence of thousands of people who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Robert Spitzer spearheaded the American Psychiatric Association's declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. Recently, he reconsidered his position. His study, entitled "200 Subjects Who Claim To Have Changed Their Sexual Orientation From Homosexual To Heterosexual," shows that most of his subjects had testified to a significant change in their sexual attractions over a five-year period. For example, while 78 percent of the men studied said they once yearned for romantic emotional involvement with a member of the same sex, after five years only 8 percent still did.²⁷ Spitzer concluded that he now believes that some people can change their sexual preference.

Introduction Targeting The Boy Scouts Expanding Federal Power 'Sexual Orientation' Threatening Religious Freedom Defending All Sexual Behavior Conveying Special Rights Outlawing Opposition Summary Endnotes Appendix

OUTLAWING OPPOSITION TO THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA
By affording special protections to homosexuals in the workplace, ENDA would effectively outlaw opposition to homosexual activism and have a chilling effect on the First Amendment right to free speech. In many parts of the country where ENDA-like laws already exist, employees are more at risk for being publicly opposed to homosexuality — or merely even voicing beliefs against homosexuality in the workplace — than they are of being fired because they are homosexual. Consider this case:

Tim Wilkins, a Baptist minister and former homosexual who heads an outreach ministry to those struggling with a homosexual problem, lost his job with the Raleigh News & Observer in 1997 for what the paper officially claims was a "failure to perform job duties at required level." Yet, only a few months previous to that, Tim had received an "exceptional and commendable" rating as an employee.²⁸

Between the time he received that rating and the time he was fired, Tim and his wife were the subject of an article in which Tim recounted his journey out of homosexuality and expressed his personal opinion that homosexual behavior was a sin. Tim believes that the paper bowed to pressure from homosexual employees and fired him for what were essentially his religious beliefs.²⁹

Although the EEOC came to his aid and filed a religious discrimination suit against the paper, it showed how policy was already being skewed in favor of homosexuals — to the detriment of people of faith. Informed that homosexuals may have been involved in his firing, the EEOC told Tim that it would not pursue that line of questioning. The EEOC was, however, perfectly at ease with attorneys for the paper questioning Tim about his past and present sex life.³⁰

Even without ENDA in place, it appears that homosexuals already enjoy a good deal of special protection. Numerous corporations have added "sexual orientation" to their workplace non-discrimination policies, and many have seen an upsurge in homosexual activism within the company as a result, with ever-escalating demands.

Introduction Targeting The Boy Scouts Expanding Federal Power 'Sexual Orientation' Threatening Religious Freedom Defending All Sexual Behavior Conveying Special Rights Outlawing Opposition Summary Endnotes Appendix

SUMMARY
Current national policy is committed to upholding and supporting marriage and family. ENDA would initiate an inevitable assault on marriage as "discriminatory" and further weaken efforts to restore marriage to its societal primacy.

ENDA puts the federal government in an adversary role against the basic sexual morality of the major faiths in America. It is so sweeping that it threatens the freedoms of speech, religion and association. Furthermore, it would balkanize America by granting employers with fewer than 15 employees the freedom of conscience while denying it to employers with 15 or more employees.

Employers with a dozen or so employees might well decline to expand rather than make themselves vulnerable to federally-inspired lawsuits by homosexual activists alleging "homophobia" for cleaving to policies that favor marriage, family and traditional sexual morality.

***

Robert H. Knight is director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America. Kenneth L. Ervin II is CFI's projects coordinator.

ENDNOTES

Introduction Targeting The Boy Scouts Expanding Federal Power 'Sexual Orientation' Threatening Religious Freedom Defending All Sexual Behavior Conveying Special Rights Outlawing Opposition Summary Endnotes Appendix

1. S. 1284 by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), H.R. 2692 by Representative Christopher Shays (R-CT).
2. Boy Scouts of America, et al., v. James Dale, U.S. Sup. Ct., 2000.
3. Charlie Gibson's interview with Vice President Al Gore, ABC's Good Morning America, October 26, 2000.
4. H.R. 2692, Section 8, and S. 1284, Section 8.
5. "Computer Soft-Wear," in Robert H. Knight and Kenneth L.Ervin, II, The Other Side of Tolerance, Family Research Council, 1997, based on telephone interviews with employer.
6. Bob Jones University v. Simon, U.S. S.Ct., 1983.
7. Gay Rights Coalition v. Georgetown University, 536, A.2d 1, 34 (D.C. App. 1987).
8. Joseph E. Broadus, "ENDA: A Religious Liberties Threat," Family Research Council monograph, 1998.
9. "Va. Teacher Quits After Allegations About Sex Movies," The Washington Post, July 27, 1996, p. B3.
10. Annie Groer; Ann Gerhart, "The Reliable Source," The Washington Post, February 14, 1997, p. B3
11. Voter/Consumer Research Poll, 1996, conducted for Family Research Council. A similar poll by Newsweek magazine showed that 83 percent of Americans wanted "equal rights for gays in job opportunities," but 66 percent felt that the U.S. had "done too much" or "done enough" to "protect gay rights."
12. In High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, 909 F.2d 375 (1989), the court stated: "To be a 'suspect' or 'quasi-suspect' class, homosexuals must 1) have suffered a history of discrimination; 2) exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group, and 3) show that they are a minority or politically powerless, or alternatively show that the statutory classification at issue burdens a fundamental right."
13. Online Partners boasts that "According to DoubleClick's @plan research, Gay.com is the #1 site on the Internet in reaching single men with household incomes over $100,000." http://www.onlinepartners.com/pages/market.html.
14. Selig Center for Growth, University of Georgia. As sited at http://www.onlinepartners.com/pages/market.html.
15. Marcia Philbin, "Branching Out," Miami Daily Business Review, October 6, 2000, p. A13.
16. John O.G. Billy, Koray Tanfer, William R. Grady and Daniel H. Klepinger, "The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives, 25 (1993). See also, J. Gordon Muir, "Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy," The Wall Street Journal, March 31, 1993, p. A14.
17. Lisa Keen, "Groups Tout Clout," The Washington Blade, September 22, 2000.
18. Bernard Stamler, "Gay and Lesbian Charities Look to Life Beyond AIDS," The New York Times, November 17, 1999, page H7.
19. "Gay & Lesbian Center Is Still Going Strong," Los Angeles Times, July 15, 2001, p. 3.
20. Stamler, Ibid.
21. Lou Chibarro, "A Hard Line On 'Soft Money,'" Washington Blade, August 3, 2001. Online at http://www.washblade.com/national/010803b.htm.
22. Henry Lantz, "How Candidates Fared," The Rainbow Reader, December 2000, Volume 4, Issue 7. Online at http://www.gayfortwayne.com/rainbowreader/January%202001/NewsNational2.htm.
23. Robert Knight, Peter LaBarbera and Kenneth Ervin, II, "The Bush Administration's Republican Homosexual Agenda: The First 100 Days," May 31, 2001, http://cultureandfamily.org/library/papers/22pb000.shtml.
24. Peter LaBarbera, "Homosexual Reporters/Homosexual Activists," Family Research Council, CultureFacts, September 14, 2000.
25. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised," The Archives of General Psychiatry, 50 (1993): 228–39.
26. Edward Stein, The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 221.
27. Robert H. Knight and Peter LaBarbera, "Spitzer Forced to Cancel Appearance to discuss his 'Ex-gay' study," http://cultureandfamily.org/report/2001-05-18/n_spitzer.shtml, May 18, 2001.
28. Lawrence Morahan, "Former Homosexual Alleges EEOC Bias in Investigation," CNSNews.com, August 29, 2001.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.

Appendix of "Sexual Orientations"

Warning: some of the descriptions may be offensive to readers' sensibilities.

{Page numbers are from "Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582.}

Introduction Targeting The Boy Scouts Expanding Federal Power 'Sexual Orientation' Threatening Religious Freedom Defending All Sexual Behavior Conveying Special Rights Outlawing Opposition Summary Endnotes Appendix

1. Heterosexuality: the universal norm: sexual interaction with the opposite sex.
2. Homosexuality or "Gay": sexual interaction with persons of the same sex.
3. Bisexuality: sexual interaction with both males and females.
4. Transgenderism: an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/kings, and transsexualism.
5. Pedophilia: "sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with Pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account." (p. 571)
6. Transsexuality: the condition in which a person's "gender" identity is different from his or her anatomical sex.
7. Transvestitism: the condition in which a person is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other sex.
8. Transvestic fetishism: for males, "intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing." (p. 575)
9. Autogynephilia: the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman. (p. 574)
10. Voyeurism: "obtaining sexual arousal through the act of observing unsuspecting individuals, usually strangers, who are naked, in the process of disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity." (p. 575)
11. Exhibitionism: "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the exposure of one's genitals to an unsuspecting stranger." (p. 569)
12. Fetishism or Sexual Fetishism: "intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the use of nonliving objects (e.g. female undergarments)." (p. 570)
13. Zoophilia: becoming excited by and/or engaging in sexual activity with animals. (p. 576)
14. Sexual Sadism: "recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving acts (real, not simulated) in which the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim is sexually exciting to the person." (p. 574)
15. Sexual Masochism: "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer." (p. 573)
16. Necrophilia: sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse. (p. 576)
17. Klismaphilia: erotic pleasure derived from enemas. (p. 576)
18. Telephone Scatalogia: the compulsion to utter obscene topics over the phone. (p. 576)
19. Urophilia: sexual arousal associated with urine. (p. 576)
20. Coprophilia: sexual arousal associated with feces. (p. 576)
21. Partialism: "sexual arousal obtained through exclusive focus on part of the body."(p. 576)
22. Gender Identity Disorder: "a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, of the other sex," along with "persistent discomfort about one's assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex." (p. 576)
23. Frotteurism: "touching and rubbing against a nonconsenting person." (p. 570)

Printer Friendly Version