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?

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.

Ah yes, that old chestnut. People who face homophobia are just choosing to be upset, and therefore it’s their fault (and not the fault of the homophobe who upset them).

I would love to know what non-upsetting interpretation there is of someone saying that it’s logical to believe that sexual orientation can be scientifically changed. I’m a long-term gymnastics fan, and you’re going to have to have an impressive mental routine to explain yourself on this one.

LouiseMilton
If I truly thought the title was offensive no matter which way you looked at it I wouldn't have said that. Obviously there are phrasings which are undeniably offensive, but then there are those which are only offensive when interpreted in a certain way.

I've already posted my explanation on this thread. But ok, encore. OP is asking if the reasoning applied to one proposition can be extended to one judged secondary to the first therefore enabling consistency of the inference they produce.

OP is saying:
Proposition 1. Some people erroneously claim A is possible
P2. B is somehow a subsidiary of A
P3. Therefore the erroneous proposition that B is also possible is nevertheless logically continuous with claim 1.

My objection to what OP is saying is that B is not a subsidiary of A.
If you want to change something, you must first assign it distinct properties which can be located in a form responsive to efforts to change it. Claiming that sex (A) and sexual orientation (B) share the possibility of being located in such a form is erroneous. Therefore OP is incorrect in assuming P2 which also rules out P3.
Hth.

The question the OP asked was specifically directed at those who do believe that human beings can change sex.....
As Anne Widdecombe apparently does.

It probably is logical to assume that science could eventually find a way to change sexuality. Why you'd want to bother is another question entirely. I'm sure there are some real diseases, conditions and disabilities on which the resources could be usefully spent.

I grew up in a mormon household, so fairly homophobic. I dont agree with any of those beliefs, and it scares me that with the growing belief that people can change sex, its logical that the next step will be to change sexual orientation. I agree that sexual orientation cant be nor needs to be changed. But I worry that parties with big money behind them who dont agree will push this notion and I can see how it would be attractive to some people.

I find this relentless focus on people’s sexuality nowadays very, very weird. Who the fuck cares? It’s private and personal and no one else’s business.

You can’t change sex. You can be surgically enhanced to appear to be the opposite sex and take hormones but that’s the extent of it.

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

You mean people who are in denial.

Anne Widdicombe can fuck off back off to the stone ages. I remember her campaigning against the repeal of section 28.

Maybe it is possible to change sexuality via behaviour therapy, hypnosis or whatever. Behaviour and feelings can be somewhat manipulated and as sexuality is about feeling a certain way it's possible I guess. Totally different to changing sex as sex is biological and physical which cannot be changed. Not trying to offend gay people so apologize if my wording is clumsy. For the record I obviously don't think gay people should change whatsoever but just saying it isn't such a far fetched idea compared to people changing sex.

Except people have being trying for centuries. Name one person who has had their sexual orientation changed through hypnosis. Or any means.

It’s private and personal and no one else’s business.

??? It’s not private. People can and should feel totally free to be open about who their partner is and you can hardly do that if you’re keeping your sexuality private.

velourvoyageur

Nothing you’ve said explains why OP chose a deliberately homophobic statement as her title, purely because she wanted to drive traffic to her thread. In other words, the best possible interpretation is that she didn’t care about hurting LGB people with an upsetting and goady title as long as it got her what she wanted, which was engagement with her issues with trans people.

As Anne Widdecombe apparently does.

Where are people getting this mad idea from? Anne Widdecombe doesn’t believe you can change sex and she isn’t supportive of gay people. She was using the arguments people male in support of trans rights as a way of justifying her belief in gay conversion therapy ‘cures’. She’s saying ‘fine, if you insist that transgender people can change sex, I’m allowed to believe we can cure gay people with science’.

It’s a disingenuous and bigoted point of view. Please don’t mistake her as being someone who is on the side of either LGB people or trans people.

Theoretically I suppose if there was proven to be a genetic reason for sexual preference then in the future science may find a way to alter the applicable gene. But surely that comes under the same moral problems as being able to design a baby so they have a particular eye colour or hair colour.

Theoretically in the future it may also be possible to alter a person's gender.

But the debate should always be had - just because we can does not mean we should. Just as all colours of the rainbow are needed for it to be complete so it is with humanity.

Is this by any chance an anti trans thread that has sneaked over from the feminist board?

@OP just wanted to say I wasn’t offended by your question as I think I get what you were aiming for but these topics are always likely to get people worked up because of the discrimination they have faced IRL as a result of their sexuality.

So I will give my lamens opinion, a person cannot change ‘sex’ even with hormone treatment and surgery, ‘sex’ is in determined by a persons chromosomes at birth, a person can however change their gender to fit their identity as far as I understand it.

I do appreciate what you have added in that, should corporations view this as a viable experimentation, that it may gain traction and become an attractive notion to some, especially those who face extreme discrimination because of their sexuality.

Oddly it puts me in mind of a storyline from X-Men (bear with me here) where a “cure” is found for the mutant gene and Rogue, who can never experience human touch without the risk of killing somebody is told by Storm a weather witch, there’s nothing to “cure”.

Just because they have a shared characteristic in that they are both mutants does not mean their experience of life is the same and it’s understandable why Rogue is tempted.

So, whilst I am bisexual and have faced my share of prejudice, I am lucky in that it has rarely gone further than name calling, hurtful comments and exclusion from some of the LGB community. So I would not be interested in changing.

If I grew up in a family where I was beaten for it, or a country where I risked execution because of my sexuality, I think I’d be tempted to try changing it if the offer was available. Because hiding who you are for the sake of survival is something I can hardly imagine except to say it must be a horrible way to live.

Sexuality is rather intangible. I’ve known people who thought they were 100% gay but could find themselves, on occasion, attracted to the opposite sex.

I thought I was a Lesbian when I was younger. As I had, at that point only been attracted to other girls/women. But as I grew up I have met a few men through the years, who became attractive to me. Then I realised that I am more attracted to a person’s personality than their body parts and was not averse to the idea of a relationship with either sex.

That is only my experience but I would think it rather difficult for science to come up with a way to limit that part of me. But then again, I’m not a scientist!

@agnurse

If you believe that then I really hope you're not actually a nurse.

You haven't understood what I said, Louise.
OP was talking in terms of rationality - what hangs together with other beliefs. She was not claiming the moral virtue of this view. Hence 'logical and reasonable assumption' not 'desirable'.
Exhausting!

She was not claiming the moral virtue of this view

This isn’t the point I’m making. The point I’m making is that - even setting aside the extremely dubious content of her posts - her thread title is a deliberately goady and homophobic statement which she has chosen to make because she wants to stir-up people’s feelings and direct traffic to her thread. Whether or not she herself holds this view is irrelevant, because she’s shown that concern for LGB people is so far down her list of priorities that she’s willing to make a deliberately offensive statement because it will help her get what she wants - engagement with her thread. That is in and of itself homophobic.

Exhausting indeed...

And if you’re trying to defend the OP on the basis that saying you believe the efficacy of gay conversion therapy to be a logical and reasonable thing is somehow less offensive than saying it’s a good thing, then there’s no point even debating with you because if you’re willing to be that deliberately disingenuous and untruthful no sensible discussion can be had.

She’s saying ‘fine, if you insist that transgender people can change sex, I’m allowed to believe we can cure gay people with science’.

If you believe one impossible thing, why not believe another?

If you believe we can apparently do the physically impossible, why not the apparently mentally impossible?

This thread is a homophobic little snakes’ nest. I’m out 🖕🏻

She’s saying ‘fine, if you insist that transgender people can change sex, I’m allowed to believe we can cure gay people with science’.

Currently they do a Frankenstein hachet job of surgery and hormones on people who want to change sex. The time when sex can truly be changed, after someone I'd born at all seems far far away. And the same applies to changing sexual orientation.

But the crux is that trans people want to change sex. Gay people may not want to change orientation - in fact thenonex I've seen comment did not, even if it was due to a genetic 'switch').

Why would anyone want to change the sexual orientation of themselves or anyone else? That is the important question, not whether it is possible or not (which it obviously isn't ).

If you could change sexual orientation then surely by now somebody would have come up with a way of stopping paedophilia? I presume paedophiles dont suddenly decide oh i know i might start being sexually attracted to underage children but are unfortunately born that way inclined.

• after someone is born or at all

@sweeneytoddsrazor

True paedophiles are.but most paedophiles that is child sex abusers are not true paedophiles.

Sorry mate don't see how you could read my posts and think that I said anything like that I 'believe the efficacy of gay conversion therapy to be a logical and reasonable thing' because I said the exact opposite also claiming that the OP not taking into account people's feelings by using this thread title amounts to homophobia is blowing things totally out of proportion - it's only potentially an offensive statement.