Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

[Samus Aran but a man]

Sexuality is too fluid to put it down like that. I like boys and girls, and I'm pretty happy, so nah I wouldn't want to get rid of it. If there are gay/lesbian people who are miserable, it is the result of people's reactions to their sexuality, and not their sexuality.

I would support a cure for bigotry and intolerance XD

 

[joshuaayt]

They say they want to cure us... Well I say, WE are the cure!

Nope. Don't fix what ain't broke, and the world would suck if we were all the same, doubly so if we were actually forced to all be the same. Now, if we could cure bigotry? That I could get behind.

(Answered mostly so I could quote Magneto)

 

[suitepee7]

personally i would refuse to find out, and therefore not act. if the child ended up homosexual, then so be it

 

[JoJo]

If there was a hypothetical cure, then it would prove that homosexuality in itself would be disorder/disease in that theory, which means I would support it then. Sure there would be some backlash, but hey, that's science.

Not necessarily, for example there are laser treatments out there that will change brown eyes into blue eyes by destroying melanin in the patient's eyes, effectively 'curing' the patient of having brown eyes. That doesn't mean for a moment that having brown eyes is a disorder though. Equally, if it was possible to change homosexuals into heterosexuals, that wouldn't automatically make homosexuality a disorder or disease.

 

[NWKaitlyn]

What about HRT? HRT changes the way you react to the world. It's noted and common for your sexuality to be altered after hormones. your relationships change quite often because you're "a different person."

As someone who has been doing MtF HRT for over a year, my sexuality has not changed nor have my relationships to other people. The only way it has changed the way I react to the world is that I feel better about myself as I am now. If you have a source for your claims I'd enjoy reading it. Also regarding the being "a different person," that's likely hyperbole. It doesn't change who you are, it just generally aids with self-expression, self-esteem, and tends to help with being more outgoing if you were previously shy.

 

[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.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

That's like asking "Would you support a treatment against liking spinach?"

What good would it do?

 

[electric_warrior]

In an ideal world, no.

In a world where gay kids are much more likely to be bullied horrendously and commit suicide, then maybe. I guess you'd have to leave it up to the kid to make the decision.

 

[itsthesheppy]

No.

I wouldn't support a "cure" for green eyes, brown hair, or freckles either. I wouldn't support a 'cure' for enjoying heavy metal music, or for dimples, or for connected ear lobes.

 

[Jeffrey Scronce]

Neil Gaiman wrote about a sci-fi world where people could change their physical sex temporarily with a pill. It fostered a society where people would just flop back and forth to suit their needs. I know physical sex, sexuality and gender aren't the same thing but I figure the story confronts many of the underlying social taboos that you're discussing.
Oh, and watch the second X-Men movie for the not-really-hiding-it portrayal and discussion of this in pop media.

 

[Jeffrey Scronce]

True but they are deviations from the biologically optimal norm, much as dwarfism, gigantism, albinism, myopia, etc. Thus while not technically diseases they could be considered defects.

I'mma stop right here. "Optimal" is circumstantial; human genetic and phenotropic diversity exits to deal with specific environments. "Optimal" is a fallacy because there is no Platonic Ideal human being. If mitochondial Eve was so damn great we wouldn't need variation in the first place. Beyond that, this smacks of eugenics.

 

[VodkaKnight]

I wouldn't.
Even if it was possible to stop someone being gay, then it'd have a few problems like the whole free will thing.
And I WOULD NOT support it, because it's not anyone except the person affected, business.

 

[Dustin Cakalic]

How about a "vaccine" to make everyone bisexual?

 

[Dustin Cakalic]

How about a "vaccine" to make everyone bisexual?

 

[l3o2828]

As people have mentioned before, it's not a disease.
And no, i wouldn't support it.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

No, I would definitely not support such a thing. Messing with the genetic make-up of a developing embryo can be kinda risky. It would be taking an unnecessary risk to do so for something that ultimately doesn't really affect quality of life as much as conditions like muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis. While there is still a certain stigma against homosexuals, it doesn't affect people equally. Some get it worse than others and for others it makes no difference. It would be far more effective to deal the associated social issues within society regarding homosexuality.