Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think believing science can change sexual orientation is a logical and reasonable assumption?

266 replies

haggistramp · 02/06/2019 12:30

From Ann Widdicome who believes that as science can change a person's sex then its logical that science could change a person's sexual orientation? To be clear I dont believe this, I dont think science (be it hormones or extreme plastic surgery) can change a person's sex, let alone a person's sexual orientation but for those who do believe humans can change sex, do you agee? If not, why not?

OP posts:
corythatwas · 08/06/2019 22:14

Two men can never equal the same thing as a man and a woman because they are not designed to do so.

Would it not be at least equally logical to say that a gay person can never equal a heterosexual person because they were not designed to do so?

If you are talking about the design of the mind, why not equally give some weight to that part of a person's mind that governs sexuality?

Whatsername7 · 08/06/2019 22:20

agnurse, you are simply homophobic. All this rubbish about men and women being opposites that compliment each other is utter nonsense spouted to justify your homophobia. Not all people will procreate and we are not on this earth to simply sire children. Two people in a loving, committed, consensual and happy relationship can live long, fulfilling lives regardless of their sexual orientation.
In the last two days, I have read about 4 different children being murdered or killed due to the actions of their heterosexual parents. The 'mothers' and 'fathers' of those children followed your hetronormative 'complimentary male/female' theory. They had their children as a result of their 'complimentary' union and then murdered/accidentally killed them whilst drunk. How can those relationships be 'right' yet a same sex relationship be wrong? Stop kidding yourself that your warped version of morality is right.

bluebluezoo · 08/06/2019 22:29

It's a contravention of the design and purpose of marriage

Who “designed” marriage?

Raising young in same sex relationships isn’t unheard of in the animal kingdom either. There are videos of daddy penguins if you google :)

dunban · 08/06/2019 22:36

Would it not be at least equally logical to say that a gay person can never equal a heterosexual person because they were not designed to do so?

I don't think logic comes into agnurse s thinking at any point.

agnurse · 09/06/2019 01:24

In the animal kingdom there is also documented evidence of child abandonment (turtles), murder (spiders and scorpions), incest (bed bugs), and child murder (lions).

Does that make those things acceptable?

dunban · 09/06/2019 05:07

No because those things cause harm. They have victims.

JAPAB · 09/06/2019 07:03

One of the primary purposes of marriage is to provide a stable foundation for the raising of children.

I can understand that to an extent. Does seem a bit pointless to have marriage if its only function is to give people who love eachother a romantic rite of passage for their relationship.

Pringlefan · 09/06/2019 07:25

@HermioneMakepeace asexuality is not bollocks.
"homosexuality is bollocks" - is that acceptable to you? If not, then please don't say this of asexuality.

HermioneMakepeace · 09/06/2019 07:32

@Pringlefan Apologies, I meant ‘asexuality bollocks’ as in ‘Christians pretending they’re asexual in order to hide the fact they’re gay.’

I wasn’t referring to all people who are asexual. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Arct1cTern · 09/06/2019 07:34

Why is the homophobic bilge agnurse is spouting allowed to just sit here. He/she wants a platform and is getting it. I find it deeply upsetting.

LenizarLyublyu · 09/06/2019 09:31

There are a number of endorphins released by causing pain. If two partners sliced one another to ribbons to release endorphins, is that a good thing?

A little blood in the bedroom isn't too bad, if you're into it.

I'm not sure why you care so much about the poor gay people who will never find their True Harmony. Hmm

LenizarLyublyu · 09/06/2019 09:35

Doesn't matter what their traits are. The point is that a butch girl is not a man, nor is a feminine man a woman.

How does that make sense in your world when you say later that men and women are fundamentally different and that women are inherently feminine? If women are inherently feminine, then what went "wrong" with masculine women? I'm assuming you think something must be Very Wrong for a woman not to express their unique femininity.

LenizarLyublyu · 09/06/2019 09:40

This is the paradigm I follow. Do you see "hate" in there?

Fuck your Christian perfection bullshit.

Whatsername7 · 09/06/2019 09:55

I worked in a Catholic school and the chaplin there used to council teenagers confused about their sexuality. He used to tell them and their parents, in no uncertain terms, that God is love. God would love them, no matter who they loved. There are plenty of religious people who use religion to justify homophobia. Twisting words from a bible written by men to pretend they are acting in Gods name. Not all do though, and even in Christian circles, agnurse is a minority. Personally, im not religious and do not believe - there are too many bad things and genuinely bad people in the world to believe in any God. I hate the crap she agnurse is spouting, but im reassured by how many people are telling her s/he is full of shit.

dunban · 10/06/2019 13:38

Sometimes I feel surprises that there are still people like agnurse in the world, or at least the west. Then I remember who the US elected as vice president. And that we just elected Anne Widdicombe.

Peacocking · 10/06/2019 15:19

I'm not in any way shape or form a bigot. People are all equal and their preferences are entirely valid.

I did also wonder when I saw this headline...I'm sure the right combination and dose of chemicals could change my desires and preferences - we're all controlled by our chemical and hormonal make up. So, I think in a way shes probably right technically.

Thewitcher · 10/06/2019 18:35

I don't think that Widdicombe was just suggesting that sexuality could theoretically be changed if the brain was physically altered. She was suggesting it should.

Gth1234 · 11/06/2019 16:34

the pope has just announced his decision, so you are all OK now.

ddl1 · 11/06/2019 18:00

I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to think that it is possible; what is unreasonable is to think that it's desirable. I doubt that Ann Widdecombe is interested in the subject out of pure intellectual curiosity. She defended conversion therapy for gays in 2012; and she voted against same-sex marriage (against her own party leadership) and earlier was active in opposing the repeal of Section 28.

Gooigi · 11/06/2019 18:34

So agnurse is more hardline than the Pope.

@agnurse does this change your mind? Or will you continue to stick your fingers in your ears?

ddl1 · 11/06/2019 18:53

'No, if a person is infertile, their body does not work the way it should.

In a gay relationship, the bodies were never supposed to be able to procreate together. It's not possible.'

So do you also think that marriages cease to be valid after a woman reaches menopause?

ddl1 · 11/06/2019 19:00

'Actually, no, you don't have a "right" to have sex. As I mentioned before, if you have a "right", someone has a duty to ensure that you receive that right. This would mean someone has an obligation to become your sexual partner - their consent would be meaningless.'

Nobody here, I hope, is justifying nonconsensual sex, i.e. rape. No one here thinks that anyone has an 'obligation' to provide sex for another person - though we may note that until the 1990s, the legal assumption was that a wife had such an obligation, and there was no concept of rape within marriage. But people should have the right to conduct their own personal lives, including their sex lives, without needing to conform to the rules of any particular religion.

Dottierichardson · 11/06/2019 19:41

Agnurse you really are the complete right-wing, bigoted package, first I meet you on a thread peddling falsehoods about abortion to suggest people shouldn’t have them and their access to them be restricted – using arguments that come straight out of the current right-wing Christian playbook; then again on a thread about WW2 spreading the current right-wing myth that Hitler was in fact left-wing – in common with many extreme nationalists and supremacist groups trying to rebrand themselves and distance their brand from fascism; now you’re here promoting gay conversion therapy and insulting the memory, not just of the survivors of the American nightclub massacre, but by implication the many LGBTQ individuals who have been oppressed and injured by right-wing bigots of your ilk.

As for the assertion that people are queer because of sexual abuse - in other words your less-than-subtle attempt to sell the idea that it’s not natural to be queer because it’s a result of trauma, there is no definitive study that backs up your claim. Although by your logic since far, far more people who are victims of abuse grow up to be straight, sounds as if that's the more unnatural choice! And with the studies that do assert findings that accord with your prejudice, one wonders who funded them? After all, on previous threads much of your information turned out to be from right-wing or extreme Christian sites – no axes to grind there! And linking being queer to cannibalism that’s pretty out there even for you…at some point please let us in on which extreme right-wing sect you belong to, so that those of us who deal in arguments based on reality not fantasy can happily steer well clear of it.

One of the hypotheses regularly tested is that of whether sexual abuse itself can be the cause of homosexuality in adult life. The results of this research is inconclusive since some research finds a direct correlation between child abuse and homosexuality (Macmillan, 1997; Tomeo et al, 2001; Holmes et al, 1998; Doll et al, 1992; Soukup, 1995; Shrier et al, 1988; Dickson; Finkelhor, 1984), whereas other research expressly denies any correlational link (Ridley, 2003; Balsam et al 2005; Bell et al, 1981; Hammersmith, 1982; Peters & Cantrall, 1991; Slap, 1998).

The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) 1.51% of the population of the US identify as GLBT, whereas other studies put this figure as high as 8% (Fay et al, 1989). However, statistics for people abused in childhood are significantly higher that this, with reliable estimates given for child sexual abuse to be 16% for males and 27% for females in the USA (NRCCSA, 1994).
Therefore, if there is a causal link between childhood sexual abuse and identifying as GLBT later in life, then why aren’t the figures for the number of GLBT people in the population reflected by the abuse statistics? There are significantly more cases of sexual abuse than there are people that identify as GLBT (Macmillan, 1997), and furthermore, the vast majority of persons sexually abused as children are heterosexual (Keith, 1991).
In addition to this, virtually all statistics agree that females are more likely to be sexually abused in childhood than males are – and yet, and yet there are proportionally more men that identify as being gay than there are women who identify as lesbian (Hite, 1991; Janus, 1993, Jefferson, 2001).
www.pflagatl.org/the-problem-with-the-belief-that-child-sexual-abuse-causes-homosexuality-bisexuality/

Buddytheelf85 · 11/06/2019 20:58

But, but Anne Widdecombe is literally insane. She’s basically a Simpsons character.

Gooigi · 11/06/2019 21:31

You don't have to be insane to be a shitty person.

Simpson's characters are made to be funny charictures. She's an elected official.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Posting is temporarily suspended on this thread.