Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?
- Thread starter Wraith
- Start date
Biologically speaking, being homosexual is detrimental in that somebody who's gay can't reproduce outside of using 3rd party methods. That has a whole host of negative implications in evolutionary terms.Bakuryukun said:
It is a disorder.
It's not a bad thing, it doesn't make you a bad person, and there is absolutely no reason to dislike anybody simply for the fact that they're gay, but it's still a disorder.
I don't think its something that can be cured and I don't think its an illness of any kind and if one of my kids(should I ever have any) were to come out to me as gay or tell me that they feel they're having a 'gender crisis' and express a desire to change their sex or to act as the opposite sex I would have have an honest discussion with them about how I feel but still assure them that I would love them no less no matter what they chose to do...I would not however front the money for a gender swap if they were under 18 or were over 18 and needed it.
But if their were a 'cure' that could be given before birth, I would want it for my kids.
But if their were a 'cure' that could be given before birth, I would want it for my kids.
Yeah, I agree with what Trilligan said to you, but to elaborate on it "not being a disorder."Eggsnham said:
Now, barring the philosophical discussion of "disorder," I intend to speak on how it is not a disorder to have a different phenotype.
First you need to understand a bit of genetics. When you mate, you will pass on a portion of your genes to your offspring. Now, statistically you share ~50% of your genes with your sibling because you come from the same parents. Thus, from a genetics perspective, it is okay to take risks to help your siblings/their child as they share a non-trivial portion of your genes. Including, potentially, the ones which favor altruistic behavior.
So, in a nutshell, this is the current leading hypothesis of the evolutionary origin of homosexuality. (Note, it's still a hypothesis. There is a fair enough body of research backing it now, but there's still quite a way to go.) But, based off of studies, families with a gay relative will have more children and their children will rate their needs as better cared for. When you consider that the odds of homosexuality increase in younger siblings, the "gay uncle" hypothesis has some validity.
So. Just because it's a different phenotype, it is not a disorder. In fact, in biology, we tend to not like to think of evolution in terms of goals because it's a natural process.
I find that calling it a disorder is a.... fairly dangerous line of thought and fairly stigmatizing, particularly when that doesn't seem to be the case.
If you have any questions, shoot me a message and hopefully I can explain it better.
I'd rather support a cure for stupidity, gullibility and hatred. coincidentally, such a cure would also cure us of religion...
Well...I have two answers to this. But first, it isn't a disease and thus cannot be cured. This is NOT up for debate any more.
That said, my first real answer is that it should neither be the choice of the mother, nor the choice of the government. If we assume that homosexuality is genetic (not necessarily true, though it does seem to be something people can't help or change) then the only choice the mother should have is whether or not to have the child. Abortion should be a woman's choice. But DNA modification, even to fix a real - or in this case, only perceived - ill, is not okay. If we're going to claim that homosexuality is from birth, but yet somehow NOT from DNA, then we're in the realm of science fiction and I'm not gonna pretend to answer. As far as I'm concerned, everything inherited is from genetics, and if it isn't from genetics, it's a subconscious influence from wherever you grow up pre-speech.
My second answer is that it should be a choice that the person can make themselves upon reaching the Age of Consent. Even if we agree this isn't a disease (and I do) we should still recognize that allowing someone to change it AFTER becoming an adult should be a CHOICE they can choose (or not choose.) I am against DNA modification at birth, but only because it is yet another form of parents imposing what they want on their children, and parents have more than too much influence on their own kids already. (I'm 26, but my mother is/was one of those fucking helicopter parents, so as much as I love her, I am adamant that all kids should have more autonomy than they do. Parents should be guides and advisors, not slave drivers.)
So...aside from the fact that the only plausible way to do any DNA modification right now is pre-fertilization, I still think even if we had such a "cure" we shouldn't allow it on the grounds that this should be the child's choice later in life, not their parents.
After all, if parents had this choice, would there even BE any gay people today? This was always something that younger people were willing to accept whilst older people stuck in the past have been against it. If the decision was in their hands, then we wouldn't be having this debate at all. And that's scary.
That said, my first real answer is that it should neither be the choice of the mother, nor the choice of the government. If we assume that homosexuality is genetic (not necessarily true, though it does seem to be something people can't help or change) then the only choice the mother should have is whether or not to have the child. Abortion should be a woman's choice. But DNA modification, even to fix a real - or in this case, only perceived - ill, is not okay. If we're going to claim that homosexuality is from birth, but yet somehow NOT from DNA, then we're in the realm of science fiction and I'm not gonna pretend to answer. As far as I'm concerned, everything inherited is from genetics, and if it isn't from genetics, it's a subconscious influence from wherever you grow up pre-speech.
My second answer is that it should be a choice that the person can make themselves upon reaching the Age of Consent. Even if we agree this isn't a disease (and I do) we should still recognize that allowing someone to change it AFTER becoming an adult should be a CHOICE they can choose (or not choose.) I am against DNA modification at birth, but only because it is yet another form of parents imposing what they want on their children, and parents have more than too much influence on their own kids already. (I'm 26, but my mother is/was one of those fucking helicopter parents, so as much as I love her, I am adamant that all kids should have more autonomy than they do. Parents should be guides and advisors, not slave drivers.)
So...aside from the fact that the only plausible way to do any DNA modification right now is pre-fertilization, I still think even if we had such a "cure" we shouldn't allow it on the grounds that this should be the child's choice later in life, not their parents.
After all, if parents had this choice, would there even BE any gay people today? This was always something that younger people were willing to accept whilst older people stuck in the past have been against it. If the decision was in their hands, then we wouldn't be having this debate at all. And that's scary.
But shouldn't that choice be up to the individual, not the parent? I imagine you aren't transsexual, so there is absolutely no way you can know which way they would be happier with. And it is not up to the parent to decide that, either. A child is not your property, they are your responsibility. You can't just tailor-make them and arbitrarily change them under the guise that you're doing it for them. Because ultimately, it's not for them, it's for the vision of them that you've decided is the most acceptable. If it were for them, then you'd let them make the decision themself.Saladfork said:
In my experience, the most uncomfortable thing about transsexualism is when the person is fearful to "come out" because they're afraid of being told they're wrong. To say that a "cure" is the best way to handle transsexualism is to say that all of the bullies and bigots were right--transsexualism is wrong, and the only way to be right is to not be transsexual.
Why would I? If some men are born being into the cock and some women like to munch some rug then good for them. Everything you are is because of some development in the womb or infancy, and there is no problem with that. Homosexuality is no different.
A hypothetical "Cure to homosexuality" sounds similar to how some people consider a bullet as a "Cure to life"...
Forced, inconsiderate, and completely unnecessary in the long run.
Forced, inconsiderate, and completely unnecessary in the long run.
Again, there are some non-trivial downsides to being gay. Not to society (the opposite in my opinion), but to the individual. The largest of which in my opinion is a severely limited pool of potential mates. If the 2011 study that showed 1.7% of US adults identify as gay (as opposed to bisexual or having had homosexual thoughts occasionally), then not only is that surface number already amazingly low, but you'd have to divide that number by expressed gender and then divide it further by age compatibility, single status, and other preferences that the individual holds to like eye or hair color.Atmos Duality said:
The odds of there even being a reasonably compatible match? Low. The amount of frustration and lonliness alone that it could cause alone would lead me to significant depression. Throw in societies assish treatment of gays and the inability to have a genetic child with your significant other and the burden is too great. A cure with that in mind is not because homosexuality is wrong, but because the ramifications of it are too significant to ignore if a non-invasive silver bullet existed for it. It is one thing to say that there's nothing wrong with homosexuals, but quite another to say they bear no burdens because of it.
I am lucky in love. My wife couldn't match my personality more perfectly. I would not wish the inability for someone to find that on anyone. The odds of a hetersexual person finding a compatible mate is already low enough without making the odds multiple times more unlikely and throwing other roadblocks in the mix.
Now, I'm no geneticist, but isn't the main research towards the 'nature' side of the argument directed towards epigenetics currently? This is purely based on my casual reading of science articles.
In regards to this 'cure' idea, it's actually interesting because autistics have already begun to talk about this. There's a 'neurodiversity' movement going on where they basically argue that a cure for high-functioning autism should only be given to an individual if they want it, and certainly shouldn't be given to young children or babies (their argument is that you're permanently altering brain chemistry, effectively changing this person's entire personality and way of thinking).
Seems like if a cure for homosexuality emerges they'll make natural allies.
Also of interest is this story from several years ago, where a doctor testing drugs to prevent genital deformities was accused of attempting to prevent homosexuality in the womb. [http://consumer.healthday.com/women-s-health-information-34/abortion-news-2/ethicists-charge-doctor-with-trying-to-prevent-homosexuality-in-the-womb-641046.html]
In regards to this 'cure' idea, it's actually interesting because autistics have already begun to talk about this. There's a 'neurodiversity' movement going on where they basically argue that a cure for high-functioning autism should only be given to an individual if they want it, and certainly shouldn't be given to young children or babies (their argument is that you're permanently altering brain chemistry, effectively changing this person's entire personality and way of thinking).
Seems like if a cure for homosexuality emerges they'll make natural allies.
Also of interest is this story from several years ago, where a doctor testing drugs to prevent genital deformities was accused of attempting to prevent homosexuality in the womb. [http://consumer.healthday.com/women-s-health-information-34/abortion-news-2/ethicists-charge-doctor-with-trying-to-prevent-homosexuality-in-the-womb-641046.html]
Sure, why not? So long as it's up to Mom whether or not she takes the treatment.Wraith said:
No, no law mandating it. Anyone who disagrees with either of these positions had better be a pro-lifer, since "her body, her choice" and all.
Forgive my poor wording, but the main thing I'm concerned for is that the hypothetical "treatment" is consensual and not at the whim of social pressure. My cynical side sees such a cure carrying far too much appeal with the worst people.Lightknight said:
You are awfully close to putting words into my mouth here.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you're speaking rhetorically.
I kept thinking this, all the way through reading this thread. I kinda didn't want to say it because the resulting slew of snarky comments and the compulsion to reply is bad for my mental health.Schadrach said:
I'm sure a lot of these firm "no"'s are coming from people who strongly support abortion. It's not OK to change one aspect of a budding life, but it's OK to erase it entirely, eh?
It's made me laugh a bit how often the "no" camp has insisted that it would be "completely selfish of parents to do this" whilst also giving anecdotal evidence of how shitty being homosexual has been for themselves at times. There's your non-selfish reason, right there.