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

[haggistramp]

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?

I'm sure it will be possible one day, with sufficiently advanced gene therapy, and a full understanding of what humans are in biochemical terms...

....but that is all centuries/millenia away yet. So no, science cannot change these things at the moment.

I see what you're getting at, OP. I don't find it offensive, as a gender critical bisexual. It's snowflakey to get all pissy about being "used as an example" or having one's "identity" picked over. Tough shit. People discuss things.

For what it's worth, I don't think science can change a human's sex, nor do I think science can change a human's sexuality.

Regardless of what point you’re trying to make (and it’s bloody unclear from your very confusing posts) it IS homophobic to post a goady thread inviting people to share their views on whether someone like me could be ‘converted’ by science as if I’m a lab rat instead of real person whose identity isn’t there for you to use as bait in an attack on trans people.

@Factsarenotmean, i also agree with your viewpoint and find that changing sex/gender means changing sexual orientation mindboggling and very homophobic, and in itself, gay conversion therapy by the back door. By all means, people can dress and present how they feel, but if a straight man identifies as a woman, that does not make him a lesbian. It makes him a straight man who identifies as woman. I'll accept that people can choose their own gender (or not in my case as i dont believe in it per se) but that doesnt change their sexual orientation.

 OP is arguing in bad faith.

*It's snowflakey to get all pissy about being "used as an example" or having one's "identity" picked over.

Sorry you feel that way but I am in fact entirely within my rights to object to being used in this way and I think it’s a crying same that so many LGB people will swallow this kind of homophobia because at least it chimes with their own transphobia.

OP could have had a perfectly valid debate about transgenderism without ever having to disingenuously ask whether we should all be getting on board with conversion therapy, but she didn’t. That is homophobic, and I (naively) would have expected better from this site.

Science has tried to “cure” homosexuality before. Aversion “therapy” is still practiced to this day and it’s horrific.

For those who are transgender they can take hormones and have operations to alter their body to match who they are on the inside. But as I am not transgender I can’t say that with authority, nor is it my place to do so.

Homosexuality is a part of that ‘inside’, it’s a part of a persons identity, it’s not a disease to cure or a choice to be unmade. It is what it is. So as a proud Bisexual woman I would say no, science cannot (and more to the point SHOULD not) attempt to alter a persons sexuality and I doubt they could succeed.

If Anne Widdicome can discuss the matter on live TV, then I think it should be free for anyone to discuss the matter on MN.

someone like me could be ‘converted’ by science as if I’m a lab rat but somehow ok for women to have their sex class reduced into nothing more than feelings to be converted and manipulated by hormones and plastic surgery as if we are nothing more than a social experiment? That said, I dont agree with it but I wouldnt stop discussion about it.

Technically yes.

We have Marc that for 40 years was a heterosexual male. Now he is Mary,attracted to females and a lesbian (if you accept that sex change is possible). She is a woman and attracted to women.

Or John who is attracted to males(openly or not). Now he is Joanne and heterosexual.(if you accept changing sex is possible). She is a woman,attracted to men.

That said, I dont agree with it but I wouldnt stop discussion about it.

You could have chosen to have this discussion in a way which wasn’t homophobic, but you didn’t. Why is that?

If Ann widdecome believes that science can “solve” homosexuality then there’s the intrinsic belief that it is something to be fixed.
Which is bullshit. Incidentally I do have more of an issue with the ease with which people can change gender.

Just for starters, you could explain why you went for a thread title which could only be upsetting to LGB people and is in itself straightforwardly a homophobic statement. What was the thought process behind that?

We can move onto the content of your posts once I understand why you decided it would be acceptable to catch everyone’s attention with an explicitly homophobic thread title.

The reason for the thread title is Anne Widdecombe and what she's been saying. Have a pop at her, not the OP.

I also thought that the point that Ann Widdecomb was trying to make was in favour of so-called gay conversion therapy, with zero understanding of science or psychology, by saying that if changing sex is possible why shouldn't changing sexuality also be possible.
A totally weird non sequitur.
But AW's standpoint as a committed right-wing Christian who converted to Catholicism from CofE over the question of women bishops means I take this from whence it came.

You can’t change sex. It’s impossible. Cannot be done - obviously. Gender, if you like, but not sex.

She's crazy. Hormones and plastic surgery can change your body but your mind you are born with hence the fact that sexual orientation is innate and those who have gender dysphoria are also "born in the wrong body)

If your belief is you can change sex, then it is inherent that you can change sexual orientation.

See Iran and other countries where homosexuality is illegal. Change sex, and hey presto! No longer gay.

Personally i don’t believe you can change sex. Mainly because i don’t believe in “born in the wrong body” or lady brain. I believe it’s socialisation and gender stereotype/body dysphoria.

I also believe that is someone is gay there’s absolutely no reason to try and change their sexual orientation. If someone is gay, so what?

There ARE people who are ex-gay. They exist.

Have a pop at her, not the OP.

Anne Widdecombe didn’t write the title, did she? I know AW is a foul bigot and I’ve sounded off about her many times in my life, but OP made the choice all by herself to disingenuously post a goady and homophobic title that she must have known would be upsetting to LGB people, because she wanted to drive traffic to her thread and make some convoluted point about transgenderism.

I am gay and think discussions about gay conversion are appropriate it's uncomfortable, but not oppressively so. The title could be read in several ways, so I'm not sure why you chose the upsetting option if being upset is intolerable to you.
I grew up with a parent who would say both that people are born gay ('very sadly') and also tell an anecdote about someone in their uni halls who'd 'turned lesbian' after getting rejected too many times by men on account of her being overweight. That's the kind of thing I grew up listening to so yeah, I definitely want to talk about this stuff. Because for the OP to even entertain that the meanings of sex and sexual orientation could be comparable in this way (I refer you to my other posts on this thread) is alarming to say the least.

@agnurse Yeah I’ve met quite a few on nights out, doing things that aren’t particularly straight but insist they aren’t gay or aren’t gay anymore.

I do not believe people can change sex or their sexuality

I misread the title of the thread, which is probably a sign of my bias to the above opinion

Think a couple of posters on this thread are also mixing up 'can I change which label - lesbian or gay - I can use' and 'can I change my attraction from e.g. men to women'. Sexual orientation isn't just about the wording being used, it's a physical attraction. That's why the wider effect of 'inconsequential' acts of recognition like respecting preferred pronoun use and allowing self-ID into M/F categories can't be contained - you have to carry on conceding self-identified access to words like 'lesbian' and 'mother' if you first concede access to 'woman'. Which then changes the meanings of those words too. It's a domino effect.