Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

[Wraith]

No, such an idea is horrific and should never be exused for 'arguments sake'.

For you, maybe so. But for me, anything can be discussed. As previously stated in the OP, I am sorry you were offended, but I wanted to discuss the topic with others so that is what I'm doing.

 

[krazykidd]

Oh boy.
Homosexualty and transexuality aren't diseases.
Even as a sci-fi scenario, I can't buy it. I think it's horrid.
And no, I wouldn't support it.

No one said it was a disease . I do agree "cure" is not the right word to use . However , it's an interesting thought , since homosexuality is apparently not a choice but people are born attracted to men . I think the question the OP was asking was more of a moral question . Kind of like in how in sci-fi movies you can change a determine a childs characteristics such as eye color and hair color .

OT: I would support it , not because i don't like gay people, but for the parents who wouldn't be able to cope with a homosexual child. Whether or not those parents are terrible people is subjective , but if it doesn't negatively affect the child i don't see why i wouldn't support it . Parents that want to have homosexual children can , those that don't want to won't .

Everyone is happy.

I'm sorry but that is simply not true. Significantly altering a person's personality because it "might make the parents uncomfortable" is simply ludicrous and blaming the victim. If the parents have a problem, they should get over it, that's what moral, decent, intelligent people do. If a person is unable to deal with their child's homosxuality, it's the parent that needs to be "cured", not the child. Bigotry is not a disease, it's a choice based on fear, failed reasoning, unsubstantiated beliefs or all three. Homosexuality is natural and it's only harmful affects, come from the abuse given by bigots. It's the bigots, who need to be "cured".

If you are altering it , before they are born , then there is no harm done . This is a hypothetical situation , no need to get all up and arms over it . People can't handle different things , that just the way people are and that's how life is . We do not live in a perfect world. Some people can handle having disabled children , others can't . Some can handle having homosexual children , some can't . Why would you force ( again in this HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION ) to deal with something they obviously can't .

Cure is the wrong word to use in this situation however , to "cure" homosexuality is to implie homosexuality is a disease , which is false .

 

[K12]

Even though the OP did a not particularly good job of wording what they were asking about, I do think this brings up two interesting ideas and questions.

Ok, let's say that they did have a way that a pregnant woman could get an injection and it would 100% guarantee that her kids would not be gay or trans, should she be ALLOWED to get it (note that I didn't say 'forced' or 'required')? I'm sure some people would say that such a procedure shouldn't be allowed at all, but to me, that begs the question: if we let a woman terminate her fetus on the basis of "it's her body so it's her choice", why would that same concept not apply here? If we let the pregnant woman decide whether the fetus lives or dies, how is that so much better than deciding what its sexuality will be?

2nd question, let's say that, instead of being injected into a pregnant woman, they actually did have an injection/procedure/whatever that would literally turn a gay person straight, or a trans person cis (or whatever the term is). Not "psychological reprogramming" or anything like that, but literally something that alters your genes (obviously this is sci-fi, but humor me), should people have the right to get it done if they choose to do so?

I think these are better thought questions than in the original OP but I'd still say no to both.

With the first question there is a big difference between pro-choice and what you suggested. Parents do not own their children; pro-choice is based on the fact that women own their wombs and can choose to not have a fetus growing in it. They don't have the right to do anything to the fetus which will grow into a child later. The difference is basically that pregnancy is a big ask to a woman and (since the child doesn't exist yet) they have the right to refuse to do it.

There is no difference (for the pregnant woman) between being pregnant with a gay kid or a straight kid so the pro-choice justification doesn't hold. The difference comes when the child is born and grown. The parents are carers of their children, their decisions in this stage are for the benefit of the child not themselves or their own prejudices.

It's a "designer baby" issue which some people are against across the board. I'm not, but screening (or whatever tactic you use) for genetic syndromes and diseases is very different to choosing specific characteristics like blue eyes etc.

The second one probably wouldn't be possible to make illegal but I would definitely argue against it. I'd view it the same way as Michael Jackson's plastic surgery. I couldn't legally stop it but I'd definitely consider it a bad thing. I suppose the time to make it illegal would be at the technological development stage, making it illegal for a group to develop that technology in the first place.

Another thing that's important is that it will almost certainly not be as simple as you have described. I know it was a hypothetical or your part but if we have a borderline maybe-it-would-be-ok for an idealised scenario then complications in reality may push it into not-worth-it territory.

I know it wouldn't be as simple as described, hence why I noted that this is all sci-fi and just to humor me for the purpose of having a discussion.

Here's the thing: I don't think abortion is entirely an issue of "well the woman just doesn't want to be pregnant", I think it has a lot to do with the idea of "I'm not ready to raise a kid". We can argue that someone doesn't have the right to change their child long term while it's in the womb, but let's face it: killing the fetus (which, let's be honest, is what abortion is) is a far greater change to the fetus than deciding its sexuality (alos, I'm pro-choice, before that gets lost in translation).

The 'designer baby' idea is a little different than being able to screen for, say, cystic fibrosis, but it does bring up another good point. To use an example, study after study has shown that taller men have a significant advantage over shorter men: they make more money, are more attractive to women, more likely to get hired and get loans, etc., so if a mother can choose to 'design' her male baby so it will grow up to be 6'4 instead of 5'7, should she be allowed to? To me this is similar to the decision over whether to choose the sexuality while it's in the womb: there is absolutely nothing wrong with being short, but there are clear advantages to being tall. Likewise, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay, but there are clear advantages to being straight.

I can't help but feel we are getting rather off topic here so I'll reign it in back towards "degaying" people or "vaccinating against THE GAY". The advantages to being straight are mostly freedom from societal bigotry, there is also the issue of having children (for those who want them) but adoption and surrogacy aren't that complicated nowadays and plenty of straight couples are using these methods too.

There are potentially plenty of advantages to being gay too (to be honest I don't know) are we allowing people to deliberately make their kids gay as well? The main issues I have are 1)Control and 2)Gay people in wider society.

1) Are we going to let parents control these genetic/neurochemical predispositions in situations where there isn't an overwhelmingly obvious advantage for the kid (i.e. Huntington's, Cerebral palsy etc. etc.)

2) How would we square allowing people to vaccinate against homosexuality with gay people in wider society. The shit that gay people but up with won't get better if we allow this stuff to happen. Fewer gay people will make bigotry get worse rather than better. Surely we want to eradicate homophobia by eradicating the beliefs not the gay people themselves. Wouldn't we prevent an equivalent "Jewishness vaccine" or "black vaccine" etc. Something which removed and/or changed the sequence of your genetic code which set your race.

Have you watched the film "Gattaca" by the way. It deals with the whole designer genetics thing (although only on the level of disease and so forth) it's quite a good film.

 

[Muphin_Mann]

There is GREAT debate between certain groups on whether homosexuality could be the result of a complication during pregnancy, if it is just a natural occurrence or-- the most scrutinized of arguments-- it's a conscious choice. The same arguments have been applied when discussing transexuality and its effects on the person (though, most agree it is a complication during pregnancy).

Now with all this arguing going on, it seems to me no one is really asking a really big question. Let's say both homosexuality and transexuality were proven to be created through certain developments in the womb and let's say both of these could be cured with a needle injection given to the mother within the first few months of pregnancy.

Would you support this cure?

Would you accept a law your government made so that every woman who became pregnant would need to get this vaccination?

No, you sexist creep. I'd very much rather not have been killed in the womb.

-That one transfag.

I dont think sexism is the right word here. Homophobic maybe. Transphobic.

Also he wasnt suggesting murder, as I read it, but rather a way to cause babies to be born more normative.

Can we can homosexuality a disease? I think so, but only because gay people are at a disadvantage in a homophobic society. If society was more accepting we wouldnt have a problem.

Transsexualism isnt a disease in the traditional sense either, although gender dysphoria is. People of course often misinterpret what what should mean to us.

 

[krazykidd]

Oh boy.
Homosexualty and transexuality aren't diseases.
Even as a sci-fi scenario, I can't buy it. I think it's horrid.
And no, I wouldn't support it.

No one said it was a disease . I do agree "cure" is not the right word to use . However , it's an interesting thought , since homosexuality is apparently not a choice but people are born attracted to men . I think the question the OP was asking was more of a moral question . Kind of like in how in sci-fi movies you can change a determine a childs characteristics such as eye color and hair color .

OT: I would support it , not because i don't like gay people, but for the parents who wouldn't be able to cope with a homosexual child. Whether or not those parents are terrible people is subjective , but if it doesn't negatively affect the child i don't see why i wouldn't support it . Parents that want to have homosexual children can , those that don't want to won't .

Everyone is happy.

I'm sorry but that is simply not true. Significantly altering a person's personality because it "might make the parents uncomfortable" is simply ludicrous and blaming the victim. If the parents have a problem, they should get over it, that's what moral, decent, intelligent people do. If a person is unable to deal with their child's homosxuality, it's the parent that needs to be "cured", not the child. Bigotry is not a disease, it's a choice based on fear, failed reasoning, unsubstantiated beliefs or all three. Homosexuality is natural and it's only harmful affects, come from the abuse given by bigots. It's the bigots, who need to be "cured".

If you are altering it , before they are born , then there is no harm done . This is a hypothetical situation , no need to get all up and arms over it . People can't handle different things , that just the way people are and that's how life is . We do not live in a perfect world. Some people can handle having disabled children , others can't . Some can handle having homosexual children , some can't . Why would you force ( again in this HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION ) to deal with something they obviously can't .

"Waaah, I can't handle different things that are uncomfortable to me! I demand changes be made to make ME and ME alone feel good! Fuck my hypothetically "messed up" kid and how they feel! IT'S ME THAT CAN'T HANDLE DIFFERENT THINGSSSS!! D'x D'x D'x"

Fuck them if they can't "handle" being the parent of a homosexual kid. I mean, that's MUCH harder than actually BEING the homosexual kid themselves, right? Who gets shit on for the sole crime of liking someone with the same private parts as them? Oh woe is them, cry me a fucking river...people are different and you're going to have to deal with shit you aren't quite 100% comfortable with all the time, even if it's part of your own gene pool.

THAT'S life. None of this custom-made baby bullshit.

Right . Well nice chatting with you . Very insightful . I knew there was a reason i avoided these threads.

 

[Something Amyss]

As someone who has been doing MtF HRT for over a year, my sexuality has not changed nor have my relationships to other people.

Noted and common.

Did I say "each and every person?" No?

Please don't react to things I didn't say.

It's nice that you weren't affected, but unless you're everybody it doesn't actually matter. You will get warnings from therapists/endochrinologists on the subject, and I've even seen it noted on the ToE group here (before I left it, but that's another story).

Honestly, I'm a bit surprised this is a completely alien concept to you.

It's different because by itself it doesn't have negative effects on you the same way depression does, oh sure, other people can treat you horribly because of it, but that's due to their inability to accept you. You aren't changing yourself to help yourself, you're changing yourself to make everyone else happy because they didn't want to have to deal with something about you, and to me, that intolerance is unacceptable.

Wait...Are you still talking about transsexuals? Because I was. We don't change ourselves because of external pressure, or rather, we shouldn't. It's identified as "gender dysphoria" and "gender identity disorder" for a reason. But, like that other point you can't let go, we've been here before, so I'm assuming you're ignoring this deliberately because it's inconvenient. Or because ponies. For something that doesn't affect people like depression, it can lead to depression in itself. being transsexual causes distress or at the very least "discontent."

I'm curious as to why you think HRT and SRS are undergone if we're fine with the skin we're in. Do you really think it comes down to societal pressure?

Because society's telling us to fucking die. To kill ourselves. To "deal with it" and accept that we're perverts or queers or psychos. The last thing they're telling us to do is alter our physical bodies to mesh with our mental conceptions.

I'd say I was interested in seeing how you responded, but at this point I have a feeling you'll just ignore everything I just said and repeat yourself.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

 

[Something Amyss]

Right . Well nice chatting with you . Very insightful . I knew there was a reason i avoided these threads.

As someone who admits to being made "uncomfortable" by gays, I'd think that the reason was self-evident.

 

[Saelune]

Equality is the cure. If we can come up with the forumla for that, then all the ills will be gone. Unfortunatly bigotry is stronger than cancer it seems.

 

[Lightknight]

Only in a family that produced one kid-- which isn't enough to sustain population size anyway.

Not talking about sustaining population size. Regardless, a genetic lineage could have 15 generations of just one offspring when suddenly the 16th has 20 kids.

Again, homosexuality is maladaptive for the individual's passing on of genes. It sounds like you agree that it would be for the one kid so we're likely in agreement. I'm not sure why you're fighting me on this. I'm not saying it's maladaptive and therefore it should be cured. I was just saying that it is a factor in my own consideration of it. I DO want my genes passed on to future generations. A lot of parents do. I do want biologically related grandchildren. I won't think anything less of my children if they turn out to be gay, but I still would be disappointed in general (not at them) for not having those desires met. There is no certainty that I'd have more kids past the first one or even that they'd all be fertile or even want to reproduce themselves. So this would be a factor in my decision if I was ever given the option to choose the kid's orientation.

I don't think it's a disease that needs to be cured, just that it does have its many downsides and very little to no positives that straight couples don't also enjoy. Quite frankly, I'd rather everyone be able to go either way to broaden their opportunities for happiness the most. Being limited to a pool of less than 3% of the population of compatible mates is already a significant disadvantage there. In a world where parents can stop it from happening, that number would be even lower if not almost non-existent.

A person who is already grown up as a homosexual has that as part of their identity. To lose that would be to lose a part of what makes them, them. But an unborn or infant individual? It might as well be giving them blue eyes instead of brown.

Just cause one son never had kids doesnt mean his family line dies with him-- if his life style causes his sister and grandmother to have more kids (which is does, demographically speaking), then he's increased the amount of offspring produced in his family and thusly helped bolster his genetic line.

Demographically speaking? Do you mean statistically? Look, most families in the US aren't having 4 children. They're having one or two. The average family size is 3.14 which means they're now more likely to have 1 than 2. If you have two kids, this means they are likely to have one kid each. Take one away and you may get the same number from the sister but my entire Y chromosome which is passed from father to son since the beginning of the Y chromosome is wiped away forever if me and my brother fail to produce a male heir.

 

[Wraith]

No, you sexist creep. I'd very much rather not have been killed in the womb.

-That one transfag.

I didn't know asking a hypothetical made me sexist.

 

[DataSnake]

Actually, there is a cure [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_therapy] for transgenderism, and from what I've read (full disclosure: I am not trans, so this is all secondhand), it's quite effective in alleviating the effects of gender dysphoria. There's no cure for homosexuality, though, because it's not a disease. Incidentally, it's interesting to note that helping a person modify their body to match their mind is generally successful, while trying to force their mind to conform to their body generally isn't. It just goes to show, who you are is defined between your ears, not between your legs.

 

[Mr.BadExample]

Seriously, share your "insight" as to why I'm supposed to care more about the parents' feelings more than the person actually going through dealing with their sexuality. They aren't the ones having to be called "abnormals" and "diseases" and "non-normatives" and etc. by people trying to discredit their human right to exist.

Did I read the same thing you did? He said specifically that there's no problem with altering a person's sexuality in the womb, before any bullying happens to the child. How exactly does making your offspring's life easier make you a bad parent? If it were possible to change a pedophile's brain such that they were no longer attracted to little children, would you oppose that too? Why would this be bad, but aborting a baby because you don't want to raise is okay?

 

[Lightknight]

Actually, there is a cure [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_therapy] for transgenderism, and from what I've read (full disclosure: I am not trans, so this is all secondhand), it's quite effective in alleviating the effects of gender dysphoria. There's no cure for homosexuality, though, because it's not a disease. Incidentally, it's interesting to note that helping a person modify their body to match their mind is generally successful, while trying to force their mind to conform to their body generally isn't. It just goes to show, who you are is defined between your ears, not between your legs.

The current "cure" still carries significant side effects (such as infertility). A person shouldn't have to choose between infertility and resolving gender identity conflicts.

 

[Lynx]

Imagine if geekiness was a gene you could erase from your unborn child's personality. That particular personality trait is certainly something many parents also find "hard to cope with."

Is that something you would sanction?

 

[Lightknight]

Imagine if geekiness was a gene you could erase from your unborn child's personality. That particular personality trait is certainly something many parents also find "hard to cope with."

Is that something you would sanction?

A personality trait is not the same as a biological trait. Unless you believe that some people are born geeky. Personality traits are typically nurture based whereas orientation is considered to have biological ties.

 

[Lynx]

Imagine if geekiness was a gene you could erase from your unborn child's personality. That particular personality trait is certainly something many parents also find "hard to cope with."

Is that something you would sanction?

A personality trait is not the same as a biological trait. Unless you believe that some people are born geeky. Personality traits are typically nurture based whereas orientation is considered to have biological ties.

Regardless of semantics, I believe the question is still valid. Some people here seem to assume that such a hypothetical procedure could be motivated by a parent's fear of not being able to cope with a homosexual child. Which is essentially the same as a parent being afraid of not being able to cope with having a child who's a geek. Hypothetically sanctioning the first but not the second would seem rather strange to me, and I wanted people to see the problem from a "close to home" perspective.
But for the sake of conversation, swap "geek" for "ginger haired".

(Sorry for the long text...)