My instant action was dismissive: there is no connection between the two.
Helmer is confusing the distinct issues of gender identity and sexual preference.
Furthermore, the reference to "turning" appears to be predicated on an incorrect view of sexual preferences: even a person's "consent" would not seem to make such a treatment appropriate.
However, before one dismisses his question out of hand, it may be worthwhile seeing what the best answer to his question could be.
What do you think?
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Posts
50 comment(s):
If a private individual wishes to change their sexual prefernece and honestly thinks a psychiatrist could do this, and the psychiatrist is happy to have a go, I don't see why there should be a law to prevent it happening. In itself.
But obviously complications arise....
1) Does it work?
I guess there's only one way to find out. And if not -
2) Are they taking up the time of a psychiatrist who has patients who could actually be helped, and are therefore being made to wait?
3) Would other homosexuals, who perhaps due to cultural influence are feeling guilty about their sexual preference, start doing the same thing? - indeed would it turn into a dodgy business?
It's complicated because you can't consider it as a stand-alone case; it would have implications for society as a whole.
That's my tuppence worth. Tell me it's rubbish if you like :-)
The first decision people need to make is whether they are responding to his implied support for LGB 'Reparative Therapy' (of the kind advocated by NARTH) or whether they are responding to his conflation of the separate question about gender reassignment, which his tweet suggests he also disapproves of.
I suspect most commenters would opt for the former because most people are not sufficiently aware of the reasons why gender reassignment is carried out and the research into outcomes.
My thoughts would be that it is a confusion between gender identity and sexual preference too.
In regards to changing a person's sexual preference, does the person consenting believe themselves to be a heterosexual or are they wanting to change because of societal (i.e. family, religion etc) pressures? It would seem consent given under duress yes?
Changing one's gender identity through surgery is different. Societal pressure would be more likely against them making such a change? Thus the consent given for an operation would be more truthful?
That's my initial reaction anyway.
I suppose the simple view is that it's simply down to a contemporary view that it is the sexual identity and sexuality that you are born with that is important rather than social norms. That view supports gender re-assignment and opposes anything which would oppose anything that didn't recognise inate sexual preferences.
Of course there are exceptions. Some sexual preferences are not acceptable. If you preferences involves animals, you could be in trouble. Stick to eating them for now.
1. Transsexualism, untreated, is a medical condition which directly harms the sufferer. Homosexuality does no harm - the only damage occurs due to social stigma, which is reinforced by reparative therapy.
2. The former procedure has one of the highest success rates on the NHS. Despite decades of research, there is no evidence that the latter works at all, though many practitioners make a good deal of money out of it.
3. To be legitimate in a medical/psychiatric context, consent must be informed and given freely. Consent given under duress, in response to social stigma and/or misleading advice about the efficacy of reparative therapy, is highly problematic.
4. Human beings identify and understand one another as thinking individuals, collections of feelings and behaviours. Genital reconfiguration therapy respects this. Reparative therapy seeks to change the essence of who a person is.
That transsexualism and homosexuality are unrelated really should go without saying.
The question of whether gender reassignment is an effective clinical response to 'gender dysphoria' (aka transsexualism) and whether alternative 'talking therapies' were an alternative to insist-upon was explored by the High Court (and again by the Court of Appeal) in the case of A.D.&G vs NW Lancashire Health Authority in 1999.
This was a key case that addressed the refusal by an NHS commissioning body to fund treatment by a gender clinic that would lead to possible gender reassignment surgery.
There were two main findings.
The first was the conclusion, following expert witness testimony, that gender reassignment was the appropriate clinical response to patients' intense discomfort with their natal gender.
The second finding (which predated Rogers v Swindon) was that it was unlawful for an NHS organisation to operate a referral policy which AMOUNTED TO a blanket ban.
To this extent it's interesting to reflect that the courts have had to think about trans medical treatment in a way that they have not (in the UK) had to rule on LGB therapy
If you really think that being "turned" (which is an abhorrent phrase) will make you happy, and you enter into the situation with full knowledge that a) it probably wont work and b) may leave you more upset/depressed etc than before then fine, get "turned".
That being said there are 3 main ethical problems that I have with "turning": as far as I know it doesn't work so I would question whether such a change wouldn't do more damage; if you treat the change as a cosmetic thing, fine but it isn't a cure: there isn't anything to cure; finally this should be for adults only.
Please only mildly mock for poor structure; lack of sleep makes cogent debate difficult
OK to take up the challenge.
In the case of a gender reassignment operation the surgeon is acting on behalf of and carrying out the wishes of the subject. S/he is operating with consent. It is at it's simplest a surgical change which attempts to offer the recipient a chance to lead a life where his/her psyche and physical body is more aligned.
Conversion or reparative therapy purports to offer a chance of realigning sexual orientation. Putting aside any debate about whether this is science or not. It must be the case that because the individual concerned might have competing ambitions it is almost impossible for the therapist to be able to obtain consent. In addition to this it is likely that such therapy may well be taking place due the coercive nature of the subjects circumstances.
Both are simply cases of people disagreeing with what nature gave them and seeking to correct it. I see no reason why there should be any laws or legislation in place to prevent either party from getting the help they desire so long as it is duly paid for. Who is anyone to say what an individual can or cannot have treated?
I know nothing of this MEP but his wording could and probably should have been better but the message is about right.
Is someone trying to "turn" a (consenting) homosexual materially different from someone trying to "cure" a paedophile? Both are essentially changing a minority sexual preference to the majority sexual preference.
Or if we want to avoid emotionally charged subjects, would this be an issue at all if the psychiatrist were trying to change a person's sexual preference from blonde women to brunettes? Would it even be as controversial if it were attempting to change a straight person gay?
What if sexual preference should be considered as something "physical" much like physical gender and distinct from your "identity", "self-image" etc
Of course, sexual preference is possible to change to match with your identity without outside assistance, whereas changing physical gender obviously requires much more.
How often do people change their own sexual preferences? I don't know, probably not often but it must happen. What if they wanted to change sexual preferences, but needed help?
I guess what will cause some people most discomfort is questioning over the reasons someone would have for changing their sexual preferences, which is a somewhat separate issue.
I replied by tweet, saying (Within the limits of 140 characters!) "Homosexuality isn't a problem for the individual, only for some others. Wrong body and endocrine system is individual issue"
Expanding on that: With homosexuality/bisexuality, realising ones identity does not require any physical changes. It is only a problem in so far as some members of society have a problem with it.
Although transsexuality is also largely an identity issue, there is also an endocrine issue (Testosterone causes depression in women, for example) that requires surgery and/or hormone treatment to resolve as well as the more obvious body image issues.
To address the original question however, I'm not sure responding directly to him is going to help, although that doesn't mean it's not worth trying. If he's that far gone, we just need to make sure we keep an eye on anywhere he might be spreading misinformation or on policies he's championing to ensure he doesn't bring others along with him.
Would it be OK to "turn" a heterosexual person gay?
After all, if it works one way then it must surely be possible the other.
Indeed, people who claim there is some kind of 'homosexual agenda' seem to argue that it is really very easy to turn straight children gay.
Just to be clear, I am a male bisexual adult. I abhor psychiatrists trying to turn people straight as all the evidence points to it being intensely harmful. It makes people unhappy and has lead some people to take their own life out of desperation.
I broadly agree with Alice, but point 3 bothers me somewhat.
While I agree that sexuality turning treatment will undermine the most vulnerable homosexuals and bisexuals who's assertion that they have no choice in the matter gives them strength. Allowing psychiatric treatment like this will harm queer society generally.
But is this argument that distinct to the Christian right claiming allowing homosexuality harms their heteronormative culture?
They do not want their vulnerable teenagers turning gay, so want to repress homosexuality and gay culture for the greater good.
We do not want vulnerable gay adults turning straight so repress psychiatric practice such as this for the greater good.
I think any judgement on this should be made at the level of the individual.
Back to the original point, gender reassignment and sexuality changing treatment are different, not because one is gender and the other sexuality, but because they are doign the exact opposite things
The former is trying to change physical appearance to make a person's personality more comfortable.
The latter is trying to change someone's personality so that it fits their physical appearance.
Jennie Kermode has summarised things well.
But I think that the discomfort I feel about the MP's suggestion relates mainly to the reasons why the person wants to undergo this treatment. I can see no reason why a person should wish to change from being homo- to heterosexual, other than societal pressures, stigma, etc. It's like people of African appearance trying to straighten their hair or bleach their skin to look less African.
I am uncomfortable, because I want the social pressures to go away, and fear that trying to change to conform them will only make the social pressures persist for longer, and put more pressure on others in the same, stigmatised position.
My impression of the lack of efficacy and the unpleasantness of some of the treatments that have been tried in the past add to my discomfort, but are not the main reason for it.
Iris Robinson, wife of the first minister of N Ireland, used, through a 'Christian' psychiatrist friend, to offer services to 'correct' homosexuality. Apparently, it 'worked' for some.
The difference is clear.
One is a medical procedure that is an accepted treatment for a variety of recognised disorders. A wealth of research has shown that it can have real benefits to patients.
The other is an attempt to alter healthy behaviour. Mainstream medical opinion has not regarded homosexuality as a disorder for decades. There is no problem to treat and so no justification for risk of harm.
At best an analogy could be made between a necessary surgical procedure and voluntary cosmetic surgery. But if the cosmetic surgery is risky is it ethical?
I have a suspicion that public acceptance of homosexuality is predicated on the belief that homosexuality is innate, rather than on acceptance of it as a lifestyle choice. I am afraid that prominent attempts to 'turn' homosexuals will not only reduce the public's acceptance of homosexuality in general but encourage pressure on individuals to submit to 'treatment'.
The real question that nobody seems to be asking is, why is it any of your business what - or who - is between my legs anyway?
There seems to be a lot of unease with people simply stating that there can be no good reason for this, without backing that up. It seems to me that one of the central issues is whether there *is* a good reason for it and it can't be dismissed out of hand as many seem to have done.
If there is good reason, the question becomes "does it work?" which is one for the psychiatrists to answer, not opinion on a blog.
I think the context in which the question was posed is important.
There are therapists (not medical psychiatrists though, I don't believe) who offer to 'cure' people of homosexuality. They tend to be religious and to see homosexuality as a 'sinful' choice. Going 'against nature'.
The Strudwick case has been part of his campaign to uncover this practice as immoral, and also 'scientifically' unsound, as he says being gay is not a choice, it is natural, as is heterosexuality.
i.e. you are 'born gay'.
I do not necessarily agree with him and I think it is not helpful to emphasise how 'natural' and 'innate' homosexuality is. This alienates people who may see their sexuality as more fluid, changeable, and even sometimes a matter of choice.
The process of gender re-alignment which can and does tend to include therapy and surgery is also often categorised by trans women and trans men as relating to their 'natural' 'innate' gender identity being at odds with their 'sex' as it is ascribed at birth, due to how their bodies are.
I don't know if I see trans identities like this either.
So, I am not sure about the MEP's question. I just know the issue is complex and not easily reducible to the terms of 'right and wrong' 'good and bad' that Patrick Strudwick and gay activists have reduced it to.
Quiet Riot Girl
Elly
Given that the two procedures identified in the specific question, surgical gender reassignment and psychiatric 'alteration' of sexual preference, are only tangentially linked, the general question implied is very broad: "In what circumstances should a medical professional not act on the request of a consenting individual to alter their identity?"
Once expanded, the questions seems less extraordinary, but the route to the answer is also perhaps a little clearer.
I am not an expert in either field, but it strikes me that a convincing answer will rely on the medical efficacy and legality of the proposed medical procedure, and little else.
Any argument that 'mental' states, such as sexual preference, should not be altered as they are somehow more authentic or 'true' than physical states, which can be altered, would appear to be circular.
Equally, while I agree that a consenting choice driven principally by 'social stigma' or 'the expectations of society' is problematic, I am not convinced that is it necessarily invalid. At least, if that were the case, it would be equally invalid in many of the cosmetic surgical procedures which are currently performed in this country.
I would be grateful to a passing expert who might correct any pseudo-medical terminology or false assumptions I might have employed.
Is it OK for a psychiatrist to try to "turn" a consenting Tory bigot?
@AJS - We have a publicly-funded health service whose funding is finite. It seems wrong to suggest, then, that we should not allow an MEP to wade into a debate on what treatments should be allowed.
You could argue that gender reassignment is a form of "giving up and going along with it". Instead of saying "Society needs to learn to accept me as I am", it's saying "I need to alter myself to fit in better with society's expectations".
This is not to belittle anyone who has had the surgery, far from it; it's painful and dangerous, and such people deserve respect for going through with it.
It still seems to me, though, that it would all be a lot less necessary in a society which was less hung up about "Boys are supposed to do these sorts of things, and girls are supposed to do these sorts of things".
"Helmer is confusing the distinct issues of gender identity and sexual preference."
You're absolutely right, but the existence of numerous LGBT groups would seem to indicate he's not alone in at least that respect.
I'm not sure what the correct answer is, but I'm pretty sure name calling (which is probably already happening) won't change anything.
Possibly my answer is contained in something I wrote a while back:
http://blog.philruse.com/2010/06/love-is-all.html
Surely he's conflating not only two different things but two different circumstances of the individual. In the first, the individual wants something done which some disapprove of; in the second, the person is told they have some pathology.
Underying the second is an approach to pathology which seeks to impose the "normal" on everyone, and for which gay people have thankfully been given an exemption (as have left handers). But the approach is still wrong - it assumes that the human being is a designed thing, even if we no longer agree on a name for the Designer. So anyone who differs from the "norm" can be defined as pathological.
Unfortunately there's about 10% of the population who differ from the "norm" in a good number of different things (I for instance and left handed and a bit attention deficient). There's probably more than 10 things by which we can differ (handedness, autistic spectrum, sexual preference, woman who can rad maps, empathetic men etc. etc.). So we are all not normal.
Time to do away with the idea "pathology" altogether. I would like to sometimes get drugs to help with attention, but not at the expense of owning a recognised pathology. Why can't we jut grow up a little, accept that people are able to make their own decisions in life, and give them what they need to implement those decisions without introducing prejudicial or "moral" questions.
Then perhaps life would also become a little bit easier for people in the first group too.
May I just quality @David's comment:
It is a founding principle of the NHS that treatment is provided free, at the point of need, for everyone.
If there's a need and a matching treatment that is clinically effective then it's potentially available.
As noted in my reference to court cases such as A.D.&G vs NW Lancs and Rogers v Swindon, NHS managers can PRIORITISE spending. That is, with finite resources they may decide to fund all of treatment (a) but only exceptional cases of treatment (b).
The decision about such prioritisation MUST be rational, fair and in keeping with equality and human rights legislation as well as contemporary clinical knowledge and evidence.
Therefore it is NOT acceptable to discuss whether the NHS shouldn't fund a particular treatment at all. To do so would be to attack one of the most crucial principles of a service which we ALL fund.
Opening that box also invites the possibility of us exploring the really BIG areas of expenditure .. such as the £25Bn cost of treating alcohol excess, consequences of smoking, etc... After all, if we are to ration spending because of our views about behaviours and needs then those would be the logical places to start.
The NHS budget is around £100,000,000,000pa. The amount spent on gender reassignments is about £1,000,000 (100 surgeries at £10K). Trans people are just about the last place to look for savings, although they are often among the first to be targetted when the money gets tight.
The debate, it seems to me, is very similar to the one surrounding the prescription of homeopathy and other alternative medicines.
Transexuality, and the use of the sex change operation as a treatment, are back up by a wealth of scientific evidence.
Whether it is possible to turn someone from straight to gay is irrelevant - as is whether it comes under the jurisdiction of personal choice.
The important thing in all of this is whether the treatment this medical practitioner is providing actually works.
Clearly, it is a bunch of bible-bashing hokum, with no scientific basis whatsoever. Therefore a medical practitioner should not be allowed to prescribe it, regardless of if a patient requests it or not.
The difference is obvious, Helmer's just trying to conceal it with the idea of "a homosexual who consents to be turned."
If you actually want to have sex with people of the opposite sex for its own sake, you're no longer a homosexual. So the idea of a homosexual who wants to have sex with people of the opposite sex isn't quite a contradiction in terms, but its pretty close. This presents some obvious problems with the idea of consent - without any social pressure, why would someone consent to something that they don't actually want?
You might think that you can make the idea feasible with a sort of "they don't want it, but they want to want it" shell game. Or you might think that what Helmer's really saying is "pressuring homosexuals to turn is fine provided that it's not too overt, and we can still say they're consenting." Either way, it clearly isn't even nearly the same thing as straightforwardly wanting a sex change.
Surely it's fairly straight-forward? Helping a trans-gendered individual along the road to gender-reassignment is to help them be who they really are. "Turning" someone away from their sexuality is preventing them from being fully themselves. The difference is about coercion and the imposition of (or liberation from) society's very hetero norms.
I speak as a straight woman married to a trans man (ie my husband was born female but is male).
May I just quality @David's comment:
It is a founding principle of the NHS that treatment is provided free, at the point of need, for everyone.
If there's a need and a matching treatment that is clinically effective then it's potentially available.
As noted in my reference to court cases such as A.D.&G vs NW Lancs and Rogers v Swindon, NHS managers can PRIORITISE spending. That is, with finite resources they may decide to fund all of treatment (a) but only exceptional cases of treatment (b).
The decision about such prioritisation MUST be rational, fair and in keeping with equality and human rights legislation as well as contemporary clinical knowledge and evidence.
Therefore it is NOT acceptable to discuss whether the NHS shouldn't fund a particular treatment at all. To do so would be to attack one of the most crucial principles of a service which we ALL fund.
Opening that box also invites the possibility of us exploring the really BIG areas of expenditure .. such as the £25Bn cost of treating alcohol excess, consequences of smoking, etc... After all, if we are to ration spending because of our views about behaviours and needs then those would be the logical places to start.
The NHS budget is around £100,000,000,000pa. The amount spent on gender reassignments is about £1,000,000 (100 surgeries at £10K). Trans people are just about the last place to look for savings, although they are often among the first to be targetted when the money gets tight.
I think people may be reading more into the this tweet than is there.
I read it, when I first saw it, as a comparison between cases: "if one medical professional helping a person change something fairly fundamental about themselves (some aspect of their sexual physiology) is OK, why is another medical professional helping someone change another fairly fundamental characteristic (their sexual preference) not OK?" In this sense, it's not a conflation between the two but a comparison between superficially similar situations which seem, to him, to have dissimilar outcomes.
The answer, of course, seems to be one of ethics: medical professionals should rightly be prohibited from undertaking treatments that are not in the interests of the patient, which certainly precludes ineffectual treatments. That he asks the question suggests that the MEP may not be familiar with the subject he's weighing in on but if that was a criterion for participating in public discourse then most of us would say nothing at all. :-)
As far as I know, and please prove me wrong, psychiatry has never effected a cure for anything, so why the fuss?
Uncle Petie:
"If you actually want to have sex with people of the opposite sex for its own sake, you're no longer a homosexual. So the idea of a homosexual who wants to have sex with people of the opposite sex isn't quite a contradiction in terms, but its pretty close."
In that case, Mrs Pilkington wouldn't have any patients. Yet she does. So evidently there are people who "want" to have sexual feelings for those of the opposite sex, but presently find themselves attracted to members of their own sex.
There are obviously different levels of want - and meanings of the term. An example I use is that of adultery. If you are married, you may "want" to have sex with other people, in terms of passing urges; but at the same time "want" to be faithful to your partner. One is a higher level "want", but that doesn't make it any less authentic. If you are religiously committed to heterosexuality, then your homosexual feelings might well be distressing to you. You might then see a solution in being able to get rid of those feelings. Hence you might turn to a therapist like Mrs Pilkington.
Where I think this gets interesting is where the gay person in question genuinely wants "turning", perhaps because they have internalised some sort of anti-homosexual message or pressure. Is it ethical to refuse to allow it to be provided to them, on the basis that it's likely to be very bad for their mental health? We allow people to consume things that are bad for their physical health, after all.
My views on this are twofold - firstly, reparative hearty is "quack medicine", and while I think it would be illiberal to ban the peddaling of quackery, I don't think it should be allowed to masquerade as real medicine. I would also apply this to homeopathy, etc..
Secondly, from the patient's point of view, such services should be delved on the basis of informed consent. The patient should understand that it basically won't genuinely be able to change their sexual desire, but at best give them a set of strategies for repressing it, and perhaps coping with entering into a relationship which they may wish to enter into to fulfil some sort of perceived obligation (e.g. To marry and have children), but which will likely entail little or no sexual attraction.
In other worda, the cards should fully be on the table.
I also think, by the way, that gender services would've much more appropriately delved on an informed consent model than the present "gatekeeper" model, which I think is more or less broken by design.
@ The Heresiarch
There are obviously different levels of want - and meanings of the term. An example I use is that of adultery. If you are married, you may "want" to have sex with other people, in terms of passing urges; but at the same time "want" to be faithful to your partner. One is a higher level "want", but that doesn't make it any less authentic. If you are religiously committed to heterosexuality, then your homosexual feelings might well be distressing to you. You might then see a solution in being able to get rid of those feelings. Hence you might turn to a therapist like Mrs Pilkington.
Fine. But the fact that we necessarily have "different levels of want" going on makes this a much more complicated case than gender reassignment. With regards to your example, we do actually think of adultery as morally wrong, and we do have a social stigma against it. Can you come up with any good examples of "higher levels of want" that aren't socially stigmatised? Because as far as I can see, it's just going to be moral failings, addictions, and other things that other people would much rather you didn't have. So there's always a concern that "my deeply held religious convictions" are, in practice, going to be hard to distinguish from "social pressure from my religious community." I'm not saying that the one can be reduced to the other, or that it's always wrong to favour social pressure from the religious community over what you actually want. But the whole idea of reassigning your desires does make us ask some hard questions about where individual free will stops and where (possibly internalised) social pressure starts.
Again, none of this is a necessary problem with gender reassignment. If you want a sex change, the odds are you really do want one. Helmer's either so stupid that he doesn't get this, or he's choosing to ignore it because he doesn't like the gays. I know which I've got my money on.
The blogs above show just how difficult this area is.
We have to consider:
a. the right of any individual to request and receive any 'medical treatment' that is appropriate, efficacious and safe;
b. the right of an appropriately qualified and registered medical professional to offer such a 'medical treatment';
c. the role of a statutory regulator in determining that the 'offer of a particular medical treatment' is or is not ethical.
In such cases we must assume that all parties act in good faith, although in this case Strudwick, the 'patient,' did not.
However, this is beside the point.
As I understand it, the 'psychiatrist' offered to treat the 'patient' but no 'treatment' was ever commenced. Those with some experience of 'psychiatric therapies' know that success is never guaranteed; for this reason I cannot see why the 'offer' was unethical, although any detailed programme might be subject to review.
I would argue that the 'motives' of the psychiatrist are irrelevant except where they might be shown to make treatment by that psychiatrist less appropriate, less efficacious or less safe.
It is a romantic notion that the medical profession is driven by altruism while Big Pharma is driven by profit.
Appropriateness, efficaciousness and safety are what matter, not motive.
If it is reasonable to ask psychiatrists to help us manage 'behaviour', then why not sexual behaviour and sexual preference.
I would agree that treatments like this are probably no more ethically justifiable than much cosmetic surgery but if the latter is ethical why not the former?
Please excuse the vagaries of my iPad's autocorrect on my previous comment. Corrected version (with a bit more commentary) is here.
Very interesting responses! I cannot comment legally on the implications of either procedure against the other, but I wanted to comment on its societal implications.
It could be argued that our society relies heavily on the construction of the 'individual', both superficially and in the belief that we are all unique, spiritually and intellectually. A set of surgical procedures that goes some way to help someone in discovering their true, individual self (in this case, a sex-change operation) may be valued, or seen as trustworthy, more than the "turning" procedure. The "turning" procedure may be undergone by a consenting adult but we may automatically assume that the procedure has been encouraged by societal pressures (this includes personal religious belief - which is societal as it works on group recognition of certain 'rules' - family or community problems, historic problems, etc) and therefore does not represent the 'true individual' - we may go so far as to say that the individual should instead 'come to terms' with their individual (homosexual) nature instead of opting for psychiatric help that relies on desires (and pressures) of social conformity to exist.
That's just a theoretical stance one could take. Personally, I agree with many other voices in that each individual consenting to any procedures, psychologically or physically, should be considered as an individual. My gut reaction would also be to say that a Tory MEP would most likely be using this tweet to highlight the discrepancies he believes exists in a 'liberal' society/NHS and to vent his spleen against 'those bloody liberals' who allow these sort of things to exist (ok ok, so I don't like Tories - sorry!)
Also, sorry to nitpick, but @Matthew:
Or if we want to avoid emotionally charged subjects, would this be an issue at all if the psychiatrist were trying to change a person's sexual preference from blonde women to brunettes?
It should read 'a man's sexual preference from blonde women to brunettes' OR 'a person's sexual preference from blonde people to brown-haired people'. In a comment on a post about gender and sexual orientation, you need to be specific...
What I'd like to know is this: when people turn into a political and/or ideological (read, 'religious') conservative, across nations, do they have to undergo some kind of lobotomy that gets rid of logic and reasoning, or for that matter, any understanding of humanity?
Helmer has most egregiously conflated the distinct and separate issues of gender identity and homosexuality. He appears not to understand either, but is blabbering on about both - and has the potential to cause great harm to both causes.
As some commenters has rightly pointed out above, a person with gender identity disorder suffers from persistent and profound emotional and psychological trauma. In order to alleviate that - as in case of any other physiological disorder - such as person may often wish to make his or her body congruent with the preferred sex through surgery and hormonal therapy.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is NOT a disorder; it is an innate characteristic of an individual, and the expression of societal homophobia is secondary to ignorance, fear of the unknown, cultural and traditional mores more appropriate to the Dark Ages, and in most cases, absurd religious persuasion. The concept of "turning" a homosexual is, and should be, morally and ethically repugnant, and "consent" in this case must be put under a microscope because of the very real possibility of consent being extracted under societal, cultural, traditional and religious coercion.
I feel that Suirauqa's contribution should not pass without an observation.
Contributors may wish to read the Wikipedia article entitled Outing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_out
I wonder whether some are in danger of adopting the position that those who attempt to exercise their right to choose a particular sexual orientation must be assumed to be denying (maybe even betraying) some aspect of their 'true' nature.
Must it always be thus?
As a philosophy student I can tell you that the issue is very difficult to confront.
Mr Helmer hasn't helped by invoking the emotive 'turning' which suggests that it's against the individual's will.
Putting that aside, we could argue that there's a significant moral differnce between the physical and the mental. If we assume that the mental is more important, in that it's harder to change or reverse back, then we come to the conclusion that the physical sex change is morally permissable, where as the mental sex change isn't.
Of course, even accepting the primacy of mental states, Ian's argument fails surely because freedom of belief including changes in those beliefs implies freedom to change one's 'mental state'.
Assuming that we can justify simplifying the subject in this way, my argument would be that the morality of changing any physical or mental state is determined by the background to the 'choice' - physical or mental changes imposed are morally reprehensible - changes made with proper consent (and assuming that the changes will be brought about by treatments that are appropriate, efficacious and safe) should be morally defensible - whether reassignment of gender or of sexual preference.
Whilst I share the suspicion many others have voiced that the 'turning' business mentioned in this instance is motivated by homophobia, it does raise an interesting question. I recently read a book by a sex and relationships therapist, who at one point wrote about working with a client who, to the client's distress, loved her partner but didn't find herself sexually attracted to him. (I daresay this is not unfamiliar territory to many of us getting older!)
So in this case the therapist helped her client to have sexual feelings for and responses to her chosen partner. So what if a 'gay' person loved a person of the opposite gender and wanted to be able to be sexual with them? (Or indeed what if a 'straight' person wanted to be able to physically express their love for a person of the same sex?) Would it be OK for a therapist to help them?
I think the point is (leaving aside the issue of whether the 'turning' business is effective - let's say for the sake of argument that it is) is the therapist giving their 'gay' client the ability to be sexual with people of the opposite sex in addition to their existing homosexuality or is it trying to eradicate the latter?
More choices & behavioural flexibility = good, less = bad, I think.
This is addressed to people who approve of the availability of gender reassignment surgery to those who want it, but who disapprove of the availability to those who want them, of any sexual orientation-altering psychological therapies that might exists, or be waiting to be discovered.
List your reasons for approving of one, and for disapproving of the other. Call these your "own reason sentences." Change every own reason sentence round, to refer to the opposite treatment, and pretend that these are the "opponent's reason sentences" of an imaginary opponent, who approves of sexual orientation-altering treatment, and disapproves of gender reassignment surgery.
Now try to construct an argument for each pair of sentences to refute your opponent's reason sentence but which doesn't equally refute you own reason sentence.
E.g. refute "men who want to become women should be forced to accept themselves for what they are", in such a way that it does not equally well (or badly) refute "gays who want to become straight should be forced to accept themselves for what they are."
I hope that this exercise will show even the most slow-witted among you what the MEP meant.
John Allman
What a load of guff. If you feel you need to go to a quack you're in need of something other than a guide to sexuality.
To sum up: going to see a psychiatrist to get your sexual preference changed is like going to an autism quack to get your child chelated. It almost certainly doesn't do any good, it may do a lot of harm, and the therapist is probably pushing an ideology of some kind.
So there's not necessarily anything wrong with a homosexual person wanting this sort of treatment, but there is likely something very wrong with a psychiatric professional taking them up on it.
I'm gay and have been for as long as I can remember. It took me until my mid 20s to realise that God (if he exists) didn't care who I slept with, and would probably just want me to be happy.
Prior to this, I wanted to want to have sex with women, but it wasn't what floated my boat. This didn't make me straight, just desperately sad!
Some of your posters have suggested that the gay community (whatever that means) share this MP's confusion of gender identity and sexual preference. The "gay community" in its most visible form - bars, clubs etc. isn't about gender identity or politics at all, it's about mutual support, having fun and also, frankly, meeting other people who a. might want to have sex with you and b. aren't going to beat you up because of who you want to have sex with (which is still a fairly common problem!)
To answer the original question in this context then, being gay is just a sexual preference, but "preference" implies that it's a choice. Having wasted more time than I care to think about trying to control my preference, I don't think it's possible. The best answer to preferences which differ from your own is acceptance, perhaps even indifference. Sexual preference between consenting adults is not something that can be "fixed", nor should it because it's beyond one's control. To suggest otherwise would be, in my view, a breach of the Hippocratic Oath.
To promote a religious agenda or to profit financially from the inherent uncertainty and internal conflict many people could feel in choosing to recognise their preference (as distinct from choosing their preference) is morally repugnant in my eyes. What they offer isn't a solution, it's a kind of mental kettling of emotions which will only lead to longer term issues, and if there is a God, I hope he damns them for it.
The MP uses consent as the shield for his bigotry. Being a man or a woman has never being societally "wrong". Moving between these states is difficult and can expose someone to prejudice and medical risk, but neither state would be "against nature" in the eyes of the right (although no doubt trying to change one's gender would attract their ire).
Being gay or lesbian is a state which attracts approbation from all sorts of people, and yet deviating from these states is generally not an option that's available.
If the individual is there freely, without fear, favour, or duress, and the tax payer does not have to fork out hard earned cash for the individuals hobby, then why should ANY procedure not be acceptable?
(Obvious exceptions, of course. No one should be able to request to be turned into a manic axe murderer, or similar).
Simple. One is trying to help someone be who they feel they really are. The other is trying to stop them.
Post a Comment