The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Changing Your Sexuality
Bethryn
Unhappiness is MandatoryRegistered User regular
Unhappiness is MandatoryRegistered User regular
Disclaimer:
So if you read the BBC page today you'll see this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17693947
A bus advertisement for curing gayness was banned, along the lines that it isn't "tolerant". It seems reasonable; the only people who would want to change someone's sexuality are probably the gay-haters, right? But let's assume for the purposes of debate that perhaps, someone isn't happy with their sexuality. The question is simple: is it okay for them to look for a way to change it?
There's a fair few factors to consider. Firstly, let's consider who's currently offering ways to change sexuality: gay-hating Christians. Google "recovering homosexuals" or some variation thereof, and you will get a lot of results for Christian 'therapy' for homosexuals. For example. Several things should be apparent from a cursory glance; in particular that the people offering this treatment are strongly anti-homosexuality; also, that the 'therapy' offered is more or less Biblical (or not-so-Biblical if you wish to contend that the Bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality, a fair point) preaching rather.
Secondly, is it okay to change your sexuality? We're steadily growing to accept people who want to change their sex; should sexuality be any different, assuming it is possible? If people were allowed to change their sexuality, what sort of effects would this have on the population of various sexualities? Remember that to say that you should keep your born sexuality because it is 'natural' would be to commit the same sort of naturalistic fallacy as those who say that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't provide babies, the natural 'purpose' of sex. What effect would it have on - often persecuted - minorities such as gays if they had the option of changing; likewise, what effects on those of the prevalent sexuality if they chose to have a less common sexuality?
I guess there are quite a few more directions this can be taken in, but the two above are simple enough for now.
I'm going to stick a few ground rules in here to prevent the debate diverging in rather tired directions. For the purposes of this discourse, it is a given that:
The sexuality you're born with is not a matter of choice, but is influenced by natural factors.
Transexuals are morally Okay, and the process of becoming a transexual is morally Okay.
Changing your sexuality is not a "cure".
Do not under any circumstances attempt to make arguments that provide that the above statements are not true.
The sexuality you're born with is not a matter of choice, but is influenced by natural factors.
Transexuals are morally Okay, and the process of becoming a transexual is morally Okay.
Changing your sexuality is not a "cure".
Do not under any circumstances attempt to make arguments that provide that the above statements are not true.
So if you read the BBC page today you'll see this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17693947
A bus advertisement for curing gayness was banned, along the lines that it isn't "tolerant". It seems reasonable; the only people who would want to change someone's sexuality are probably the gay-haters, right? But let's assume for the purposes of debate that perhaps, someone isn't happy with their sexuality. The question is simple: is it okay for them to look for a way to change it?
There's a fair few factors to consider. Firstly, let's consider who's currently offering ways to change sexuality: gay-hating Christians. Google "recovering homosexuals" or some variation thereof, and you will get a lot of results for Christian 'therapy' for homosexuals. For example. Several things should be apparent from a cursory glance; in particular that the people offering this treatment are strongly anti-homosexuality; also, that the 'therapy' offered is more or less Biblical (or not-so-Biblical if you wish to contend that the Bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality, a fair point) preaching rather.
Secondly, is it okay to change your sexuality? We're steadily growing to accept people who want to change their sex; should sexuality be any different, assuming it is possible? If people were allowed to change their sexuality, what sort of effects would this have on the population of various sexualities? Remember that to say that you should keep your born sexuality because it is 'natural' would be to commit the same sort of naturalistic fallacy as those who say that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't provide babies, the natural 'purpose' of sex. What effect would it have on - often persecuted - minorities such as gays if they had the option of changing; likewise, what effects on those of the prevalent sexuality if they chose to have a less common sexuality?
I guess there are quite a few more directions this can be taken in, but the two above are simple enough for now.
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
Bethryn on
0
Posts
Also, I don't have any idea what you mean by "allow" or "look for ways to change it". It is what it is.
It's a bit confusing because you seem to say one thing in the "Spoiler" and then do an about face in the body of the text.
Additionally, I don't think they are particularly helpful rules, and I am not quite sure I am happy with conflating transsexuality and sexual preference.
In short, those adverts are offensive because they imply that being gay is something that you should want to change, namely because it is bad and you are bad for being gay.
If you want to "change" your sexuality, that should be fine, but the jury is out on whether it is possible or not. Right now there is too much negative social context wrapped up in that idea to really talk about it without danger.
I think we have a much too rigid view on sexuality, and I think a discussion on those lines could have more nuance and be more fruitful.
So to the issue at hand. I think you have to look at these "cures" and the people who volunteer for them .
An adult attempting to change their sexuality via one of these groups is laughable. Most of these programs are essentially torture or brainwashing. You'll get the desired results at the cost of your mental stability. The most benign ones basically tell you to force your self into a heterosexual relationship. Which basically is endorsing denial and I'm sure thet'll end well.
Really most people attempting to change their sexuality would be better off going to a therapist and figuring out why it's a problem for them.
The second rule isn't intended to conflate transexuals and sexuality; it's to allow the analogy that if it's okay to changes one's sex, it should be okay to change one's sexuality; because this hinges on it being okay to allow one to change one's sex, that needs to be a rule. If someone disputes that then a) they break the analogy - an important one for this topic - and b) the topic will quickly spiral into "why do you hate transexuals?"
The third rule should have pretty obvious reasons behind it.
Not really sure where I'm doing an about face.
So that the therapist could set them more at ease with their natural sexuality, or for another purpose?
The former is, well, problematic.
Let me explain- I was pretty "straight" for most of my life. Over time I did a lot of soul-searching and realized the only thing really "holding me back" from saying to myself "hey, I like dick as well" were the vast amounts of cultural pressure and stigma living in the American south put on being gay.
I present this as a non-hypothetical: a straight man "choosing" to "become" bisexual.
Of course, the nuance comes in when you consider the interplay between genetics, development, and environment. Was I 'born' bisexual? Personally, I doubt it. I also doubt I was "born" considering an exposed female breast to be extremely sexy. That isn't to say I don't think I was born lacking innate sexual desires....but that is to say that those desires have been molded throughout my lifetime through effects far too numerous to mention...and admitting that this was so, and that I continue to be molded is tantamount to me "changing" my sexuality over time.
I think, though, that your question is a bit differently aimed...and in that sense I think it is useless because it pounds sexuality into far too rigid of a shape. I don''t think it is helpful to be stuck with three or so sexual boxes one can occupy. We as a society attach baggage not only to the boxes, but also to anyone who wants to explore other boxes, or change boxes later in life.
You are, I think, oversimplifying a complex issue to ask a meaningless question.
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Are Christian get-rid-of-the-gay therapy organizations backed up with scientific evidence? No.
And, finally, was that poster advert a homophobic piece of garbage? Yes.
Okay, I think I see where you were coming from earlier.
I tend to agree with you. Is it, right now in our culture, healthy for someone to try and make themselves straight? Or gay?
Probably not; there is too much baggage there, and I don't know if anyone could approach it with the right mindset.
Ideally, should it be something that people can do? Yes, absolutely.
Are both these points meaningless because I think the better question is "do we have any right to tell someone what to do with their body or sexuality, provided they aren't causing significant harm to other individuals?"
To which, the answer is of course a resounding "No".
If you are fervently christian and think that you were born with a sinfully wrong sexuality, and you bottle it up and force it away to lead a less "sinful" life? Whatever dude, as long as your wife or husband is cool with it, it is your life.
As long as you then don't turn around and tell others that what you did is the correct, and only way to be.
There is a not-shitty idea in the banner that was taken down- namely that it is okay to change your sexuality and be alright.
The problem is, of course, that it was sponsored by a Christian organization in response to a banner that preached tolerance of gay people.
Too much baggage for the message to be heard, and I also think ascribing the message I laid out is giving the organization a colossal benefit of the doubt.
Well, as evidenced by my posts, I definitely agree with that statement, although perhaps I frame it in different terms.
This leads into a bigger can of worms though-
Feral and I a while back both advanced arguments that the "Being gay isn't a choice!" line being touted by gay rights activists is perhaps pragmatic, even if it is flawed*.
That is, it is a very easy way to win legal battles, and there is enough scientific support for it to stand up in a court of law and to win hearts and minds....but the science isn't completely conclusive, and it makes sexual preference into a rigid di- or tri-chotomy. That is, you either are gay, or you aren't, and that is it no matter what...also you had nothing to do with it** etc etc.
While in the short term I think it is a useful line, I (and I don't want to speak for Feral here as well) think that eventually it can lead to a new form of bigotry.
I think the better argument is "don't treat people like shit, regardless of who they are attracted to", but that doesn't win court cases.
*it must be noted that we are both firmly on the side of gay rights, and retain the ability to use this argument, as it is the best argument we currently have.
**there is a lot of evidence, especially in places with a lot of religious culture, that removing the "decision" to be gay from a struggling gay child's hand can lead to them being more accepting of themselves, but I think this is more due to other factors rather than it being an especially good line.
There, this is my "unpopular" (in terms of amount of support) position on gay rights.
Um. Are you sure you don't mean accept your own gender identity? Speaking as a transwoman that seeks to transition and get a sex reassignment operation.
First is that it plays neatly into the hands of those who would consider it a disease. If you see interviews with people in gay conversion churches a lot of them are fairly accepting of the idea that being attracted to the same sex wasn't something they "chose" rather it was something they were burdened with and had t fight to overcome, like alcoholism or hereditary disease or simlilar.
Secondly is that it doesent really account for bisexuals, who are pretty unfairly stigmatised accross the board.
I've noticed that even among people who purport to be pretty ok with homosexuality theres still an iffyness about the idea that someone might CHOOSE to be with the same sex.
Because, you know, if you're a man living in a third world country where homosexuality is punishable by stoning... obviously you chose to find other men attractive... because what sane person wouldn't, given the choice between something that isn't massively stigmatised in their country, and something that is, pick the safe option??!
While I don't think I have any trouble accepting that the act of changing your sexuality is alright, I'm having trouble coming up with healthy reasons to do it.
I'm not really understanding the transsexual parallel. How can someone can feel like they are sexually oriented other than what they are? If you feel like you're attracted to men (for example) then aren't you attracted to men? With transsexuals my (perhaps incorrect) understanding is that there is usually a fundamental disconnect between how a person feels and what their body is. How can there be a fundamental disconnect between how you feel and how you feel?
I was raised in a religious household, so when I started to feel attracted to other guys in my early teens I did NOT want to be gay, or bisexual. That's how I felt, and I did not want to feel that way because of the world I'd been brought up in meant that I was a bad person for it. I tried to change it and yeah, that did not end well and caused me many years of self loathing and pain.
He claimed that he did this because he suffered severe depression while female, and a pastor at a local church convinced him that reverting back to his original state would cure him of his depression. The church was apparently very big in the "cure sexuality issues with Jesus" scene, and hundreds of members there were "former" members of the LGBT community.
Here's a link to that part of the documentary.
Personally, I don't really understand why anyone thinks that brainwashing, cult subscription, hypnotherapy, or any other bullshit hokum works. If you're really, really, really don't want to be LGBT, you can simply abstain from sex altogether and hope to convince yourself. But these Christian fakeries don't do anything except treat homosexuality as some kind of psychological illness that even they don't try to "cure," instead they try to treat it with aversion therapy, with things like telling members, "Being gay is unnatural, so when you think a gay thought, just stop doing that."
That's like treating schizophrenia by telling the patient, "When you start getting paranoid and the voices tell you that people are trying to kill you, just pretend everything is okay!"
And of course it accounts for bisexuals. They're wired so that they're attracted to both sexes, but pair bonding is pretty much a universal societal norm and so if they find that special someone and settle down, then a shallow observation would make it appear that they 'chose' one gender or the other.
Arguably, one's sexuality is a choice only when it comes to the act of sex. A homosexual CAN have sex with anyone of any gender, which is why I personally believe people against homosexuality put up such a big fight. What the argument is really about is personal happiness, in my opinion. If a person identifies as homosexual, their personal happiness is defined as being in a relationship with someone of the same gender, their sexual health and happiness are fulfilled in that way, and so on. The sad thing about trying to change someone else's sexuality is that you're trying to place your own views on happiness on to someone else.
The catch as I see it is that due to religious (and some cultural) intolerance of homosexuality, personal happiness ends up becoming an either/or situation. Either you can fulfill your own personal happiness and express your homosexuality through your relationship, culture, interests, and so on, or you can stifle your personal happiness by trying to improve the happiness of your family. If your family is greatly saddened by your sexuality, in some cases to the point of being disowned, how much happiness does an individual gain through their familial relationships?
I believe that's the real struggle for people who are homosexual, transexual, or otherwise see themselves outside of "normal": how much is their own personal happiness defined by their relationship with their family? For example, my girlfriend has extremely strong familial ties -- she feels that she must live near them, interact with them, and maintain a very close relationship. If there was an element of her life that pushed them away or prevented them from interacting with her, she would likely try to cover it up in order to preserve the familial relationship, due to how much happiness she derives from the relationship remaining strong. That type of struggle is also present in current homosexual relationships where one partner in the couple is not "out" to their parents, because they believe they will devastate their parents and ruin their existing bond -- which they value highly.
I don't think there's a right answer to that, since there's such a breadth of personalities and cultures in the world. While I would love for everyone to be accepting of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgendered individuals, and so on, the fact that there is intolerance and misunderstanding means that these discussions relate directly to an individual's personal happiness. I think that's precisely why we see ads for "curing homosexuality," as these groups don't believe they're doing a disservice -- they believe that the individual is unhappy and that by living a hetero-normative life, they will retain their familial and cultural relationships and "learn" to gain happiness through their relationship/sexual interactions with people they didn't like before.
But I believe that these "curing" groups take the same approach as cultural or religious advocacy groups, in the sense of "if you become more Turkish/Jewish/Orthodox/Born Again/Chinese, you will find more personal happiness in your relationships and family." There's tons of movies and books that advocate "Come home to your cultural roots to find personal happiness." That's seen as largely a good thing -- fight the metropolitan lifestyle and weakening moral values of modern life and look inward to see what truly matters to you." That's advocating a focus on cultural identity and family, and if that culture and family is opposed to homosexuality, then by being gay you're rejecting your culture and family. That's a really tough thing for some people to experience, and in looking for an option they're exposed to these "curing" groups that drag them through the dirt. In a lot of ways, these groups feel like punishing the victims -- these people didn't choose to be outside their culture and family, but they have to atone for that difference in order to be accepted. However, it's much easier to try to "treat" the individuals than it is to try to update and modernize an intolerant culture, which is why I think these groups are still around.
Christian groups are famous for trying to legislate anti-gay policies in schools because without it it exposes their supposedly 100% straight children to homosexuality, which . . . . I guess they think is catching, like tuberculosis?
It makes a broken kind of sense, I suppose.
But that's not wanting to change yourself to better conform to who you are -- that's wanting to change yourself to conform to an outside idea that isn't you.
Yes, but back then I saw it more as a I don't want this to be me, "I'm not like this". Kids raised the same way I was at the time they start to deal with it, can't put themselves outside the bubble they were raised in and look back inside and tell themselves this is an outside idea that isn't you. So I think it can exist artificially on a small level.
Wait...
--LeVar Burton
I think I need someone to come up with a legitimate reason a gay person might want to be straight (or vice versa) before I can really square this question in my head. Add into this that we don't even know if it's possible, and the only people trying are religious crazies and the whole question becomes moot.
Bisexuality is a different thing. Personally I think enviromental factors, natural factors, personality and even conscious choice can come in to it. I think if you're the kind of person the op is talking about who might for some reason think "my sexuality is boring imma mix it up and play for the other team for a while" then bisexuality has you covered.
EDIT: man it is hard to write posts on phones.
I understand your point. I just thought the original parallel was going a different direction with it.
And the answer is an equally simple and resounding yes, and I don't think this even needs asking.
But I don't think it is that simple. Like Esh said, sexual preference is who you are. I don't think you can change that consciously. Your taste or preference might (and probably will) change over time and figuring in outside factors.
But I simply don't see how someone can go "well, from tomorrow onwards, I will be <insert choice of sexuality here>".
I thought this at first, but none of the quoted people are reading closely enough. OP is a bit ambiguous as well, but he is differentiating between sex (gender) and sexuality (sexual orientation). His ground rules place sex change as OK, and sex (gender) as something you're born with, and wonders: if changing your sex is OK, why not your sexual orientation?
I think criticisms of the OP along the lines others have said, suggesting that sex changes happen because the physical body doesn't express the gender the person actually is, not because a dude decides he wants to be a chick. The chick has always been one, just in a dude's body.
And interesting analog for what the OP suggests about acceptance of changing sexuality would be the very odd "deaf community" and the hatred / ostracism of people who get cochlear implants and teach kids to hear, rather than learn ASL and become immersed in "deaf culture". Being deaf is who you are, they argue, it's not a defect. Trying to change that is unnatural, bad, and leads to even more discrimination against deaf people who refuse implants.
Right, the problem with the transsexual parallel is that it's in some respects backwards:
Changing your sexuality would be like changing your gender identity, not like changing your physical appearance/external genitals to match your gender identity. One change has to deal with your own immutable internal identity, the other change has to deal with how your external appearance/lifestyle fits with your internal identity.
Though, perhaps there's something to be said of people who have conflicting internal identities? We assume that people will have some ideal lifestyle in which their already held identity will match their situation (ie, if you identify as a woman, changing your lifestyle into that of a woman will make you happy), but what if there isn't? What if someone has a personal identity that necessarily conflicts with itself? Trying to come up with a rough example off the top of my head; some hypothetical person may be extremely attracted to one person in every aspect except sexually. Maybe they're the kind of person who really desires a long-term, monogamous, sexual relationship. They have a problem, because they want to be in a monogamous relationship with this specific member of said sex, but they have no sexual desire for them.
Now, if you want me to open an entirely new can of worms: without going into any details or nearly the sort of nuance the topic deserves, there may actually be evidential support for something as simple as a structure in the brain that you can snip out to make someone less attracted to women. There is a big, obvious, glowing disclaimer to apply: it is absurdly more complicated than that (and I can go into more detail if it's requested). And yes, I mean women specifically. We know of no similar structure for attraction to men (it is possible that the variance in size of this structure is actually a spectrum).
I think you summed up my position pretty well.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
No, this analogy doesn't work.
It's ignoring the empirical reasons behind the mainstream scientific positions on gender dysphoria and sexual orientation cures.
Simply put, in each case, people have tried various forms of therapy and, through experimentation (and, frankly, a lot of ruined lives), found what works best for the vast majority of people.
Trying to teach a transsexual person to live as their assigned biological sex doesn't work as well as helping them live as their psychological gender.
Trying to reverse a person's sexual orientation doesn't work as well as letting them accept it.
I have these conversations on occasion, where people will try to make analogies to gender dysphoria, but part of the reason gender dysphoria is such a hot subject (scientifically and socially) is because it doesn't mesh well with traditional notions of sex and gender. So if you come at it with pre-existing assumptions about sex and gender (and everybody does; it's impossible not to), it is easy to come to conclusions that seem logical in the abstract but aren't really compatible with the real experiences of actual human beings dealing with these issues.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Hmmm. This makes a bit more sense than what I was trying to say, I think.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.