Hypothetical Question for People Who Vote Dem: Heterosexual Pill

[Bpelta]

I was just having a conversation with a friend who told me I was nuts for thinking my cohorts who generally support/vote-for the Democratic or Green Parties would answer this question the way I think they will, so I'd appreciate y'all's opinion (others are of course free to answer, but I'd appreciate if you just let me know that you're not a Dem/Green supporter). The (very, I realize) hypothetical scenario is as follows:

Some philanthropist gives money to pro-LGBT organizations and supports marriage equality. But some of his gay friends want to have biological children. They don't have a problem with other gay people, it's just something they want for themselves. They agree that NARTH and similar organizations aren't effective. So he decides to invest his Wads o' Cash in coming up with a scientific method of effecting sexual orientation change.

Would you have a moral problem with that and if so, why?

EDIT: Sry for not including Greens in the Subject line, my bad.

[jayjay]

Your premise is faulty, but I'll ignore that.

No, I would have no problem with that. If someone wants to change, and it's possible to change, then I have no problem, with the understanding that it can go the other way, too.

Most people who have a problem with orientation "changers" and methods thereof is that it doesn't work in any discernible way. It's snake oil.

[Shagnasty]

I don't understand part of the dilemma presented. What is to stop gay people from having kids now if they have that as a strong priority? They can already get IV fertilization, sperm donation, or just bite the bullet and sleep with a person of the opposite sex like many of them already do to solve that problem.

Are you really asking if they would be willing to go all Ward and June Cleaver if they could?

[Bpelta]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

I don't understand part of the dilemma presented. What is to stop gay people from having kids now if they have that as a strong priority? They can already adopt, get IV fertilization, sperm donation, or just bite the bullet and sleep with a person of the opposite sex like many of them already do.

Erm, yeah, I was clearly hasty in writing the OP and it does look ridiculous...how embarrassing...Well, my mistake.

What I meant to ask...For whatever reasons they want to become heterosexual, have biological children with passionate sex, etc.

[Acid Lamp]

Originally Posted by Bpelta

Would you have a moral problem with that and if so, why?

snip.

Not at all. The only person who should be concerned with any given person's sexuality is that same person. If someone wants to change, and change is available then I see no moral issue with it. The problem historically, is that change has not been available and those pushing it have had an agenda that does not concern itself with the personal nature of the patient, but rather upon "correcting" a "problem".

[Lanzy]

Again, they can have passionate (or any other kind) of sex now and have kids the old fashioned way. Its not a pill but sometimes booze works. Is the pill temporary?

Like others I don't care who changes into what but I can't think of a reason other than family or society pressure to make a change like the one described.

[Ibn Warraq]

Most gay men my age(I'm 39) have probably had plenty of sexual encounters with women.

Male-female sex for gay men isn't the equivalent of male-male sex for straight men. Gay men haven't grown up in societies where men and women having sex was a huge taboo and not considered normal so they don't have the psychological blocks that straight guys would have. They're not going to go "Ew, girly parts! Get away from me!"

They just probably won't find it as enjoyable and may have to close their eyes and envision David Beckham or someone similar.

[Really Not All That Bright]

My only conceivable problem with it is nonconsenting use of the pill.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

My only conceivable problem with it is nonconsenting use of the pill.

Which is why I think inventing such a thing would be a bad idea, since if it existed you could expect to see it forced on people on a massive scale; even if doing so is illegal.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Meh. You can say that about almost anything. Should hormonal birth control be banned because some dictator might force members of an ethnic minority to take it?

[j666]

I usually vote for Democrats, primarily because of the Republican position on just about any issue having just about anything to do with sex.

I would say that I have not problems with your hypothetical philanthropist, except ...

I don't believe it; I just don't believe there is no hidden agenda.

Okay, this is hypothetical situation, so I have to accept the basic facts; scientific, effective, no hidden agenda ...

Opposing this would be against every ethic I have.

[Simple Linctus]

I am not american but were I in the US I would probably have to vote democrat on the national and state level (local level not necessarily as it would depend on the candidate) and I see absolutely no reason to have a moral problem with it.

[Bpelta]

Well, something just came up, and I might not be online for a few days, so just thought I'd let y'all know:

So far, everybody took the position I expected. He thought I was delusional and my fellow lefty Dopers would despise anybody making the choice I described. Good to hear he was wrong.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

My only conceivable problem with it is nonconsenting use of the pill.

This. The first thing I thought was "it's a date rape drug".

[Really Not All That Bright]

Wait, what? I assume the pill doesn't make the target ultra-horny or something. It just makes them straight.

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by Bpelta

Well, something just came up, and I might not be online for a few days, so just thought I'd let y'all know:

So far, everybody took the position I expected. He thought I was delusional and my fellow lefty Dopers would despise anybody making the choice I described. Good to hear he was wrong.

Well, let's stop for a moment and think, going beyond just gays and into the notion of the whole LGBT range, if we're cool with the transgendered, why would we not accept the "Transorientational"?(*) Oh, sure, there would be some hardcore identity-politics hardliners out there who'd look upon those who avail themselves of the treatment as Class Traitors, but what cause would most of us have to censure the TO?

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Wait, what? I assume the pill doesn't make the target ultra-horny or something. It just makes them straight.

I think he means in the sense that people could slip someone the pill surreptitiously just for the sake of imposing over their will (dad "fixing" his daughter; girl clique not letting Hunk McDreamypants go to waste even if they themselves don't get him), creating a major violation of the person without laying a hand on them.

But still, this leaves those who willingly wish to use the treatment morally in the clear. And any onus upon the creator/provider is no greater than upon the creator/provider of anything that may be misused. The very existence of the knowledge of the treatment (e.g. the formula) is neutral until someone does something with it.

(*) And things would be even easier if the treatment were NOT a "magic pill" type of therapy but a more complicated, time consuming process that would be hard to just administer unnoticed...

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Meh. You can say that about almost anything. Should hormonal birth control be banned because some dictator might force members of an ethnic minority to take it?

No, because it is overwhelmingly used for the purpose of women willingly controlling their own fertility. A treatment like this on the other hand would be almost exclusively be used as a tool of oppression; I don't see many people willingly rewriting a major portion of their identity. It's like inventing a torture device; maybe someone will figure out how to use it for a good purpose, but it's going to mostly be used to torture people since that's what it's made for.

[Rand Rover]

Der Trihs,

You are doing a nice job in this thread of laying bare the faulty analysis you use all the damn time--you pick what you think people's motivations for something would be and then you are off to the races. So much of what you believe is based on your view of someone else's motivations for wanting to do something, when you have no basis for believing in the existence of those motivations.

It's just nice that you've made it so easy to connect the dots in this thread--often this flaw in your thinking is a little more veiled.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Der Trihs,

You are doing a nice job in this thread of laying bare the faulty analysis you use all the damn time--you pick what you think people's motivations for something would be and then you are off to the races. So much of what you believe is based on your view of someone else's motivations for wanting to do something, when you have no basis for believing in the existence of those motivations.

Except of course for the intense, vicious, and endemic anti-homosexual bigotry that pervades our society. Much less the even worse societies that will inevitably also get hold of this pill.

[Rand Rover]

Of course you won't see your own faulty thinking, you never will. Nice hand-waving away of the example of the pill. You are basing your support of the pill's invention on facts that only exist several decades after the fact. Say the heterosexual pill is invented and only used by gays who want to be heterosexual--will you then say "oh, ok, guess I was wrong about that."

[Bryan Ekers]

Heck, I can see the potential for abuses, too, mostly in the form of parents forcing it onto their children during the window between the onset of puberty and the age of 18, and that's the mildest form. What Saudi Arabia (or Utah, for that matter) would do with it, for example, I can only speculate.

That said, I'm still not opposed to the development of such a pill, because I dislike putting prior restraints on science. In either case, it strikes me as an absurdly inefficient line of research to solve the alleged problem of helping gay people reproduce. As described in other posts, the methods to do so are well-established and (heh) straightforward.

[Chimera]

Only if we research the gay pill at the same time so we can win the space race.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

You are basing your support of the pill's invention on facts that only exist several decades after the fact. Say the heterosexual pill is invented and only used by gays who want to be heterosexual--will you then say "oh, ok, guess I was wrong about that."

That won't happen. There's no chance at all that it won't be used coercively. Almost certainly, it would be used on more unwilling people than it would be on the willing. And I have no idea what you are trying to claim when you talk about "facts that only exist several decades after the fact".

[Trinopus]

The very idea is a little scary. What if there was a "Christian Pill" or an "Atheist Pill?" Or a Liberal or Conservative pill?

I believe -- and fear -- that people would start giving them to children, to guarantee their adherence to their parents' creeds.

How about a "Mind Your Own Business" pill?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

How about a "Mind Your Own Business" pill?

We have that already - it's called "weed".

[Mekhazzio]

Theoretically, there's no problem with this idea. The idea of someone being able to freely choose their orientation is perfectly laudable. If it were possible to make such an easy switch treatment, it'd be just as easy to have one that goes the other way. Want to try out being gay for a day? Knock yourself out.

Heck, I'll even go further. My ideal sci-fi future would have every aspect of one's body fully configurable at a whim. Inhabit whatever avatar you feel like; then and only then will it actually mean much of anything, because it's a conscious decision.

However, given the realities of current day societal pressures, I would be very leery of anyone who promotes such a pill. Odds are very good that they're interested in curtailing personal freedom rather than increasing it, and it's almost certain that the actual result, once the pill has made it around the world, would be to manipulate people's sexuality rather than liberate it.

[Lamia]

I don't have a moral problem with it in the abstract, but in any scenario remotely resembling the real world I think that -- regardless of his intentions -- our philanthropist's decision to invest in "hetero pill" research would end up doing more harm than good. I'm having a hard time imagining how such a pill could even be developed without involving experiments on young children or fetuses.

The best plausible outcome I can see is that the research would go nowhere, which would mean the philanthropist would have wasted a bunch of money that could have been better spent elsewhere.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Bpelta

Well, something just came up, and I might not be online for a few days, so just thought I'd let y'all know:

So far, everybody took the position I expected. He thought I was delusional and my fellow lefty Dopers would despise anybody making the choice I described. Good to hear he was wrong.

It seems your friend's perceptions are miscalibrated. Put it this way. I'm a centrist by European standards. That puts me on the far left fringe of the American political spectrum. And I still would oppose research restrictions on such a pill. That said, I would insist on the usual FDA approval process (same for any other drug), and I would guess that the pill would more often than not be used without the informed consent of the patient. In practice, if not according to law. I could be wrong: this is an odd hypothetical after all.

[Ibn Warraq]

I would certainly have a moral problem with people developing such a pill but I also wouldn't want the government forbidding development of the pill.

Just because something is morally questionable doesn't mean it should be illegal.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Der Trihs,

You are doing a nice job in this thread of laying bare the faulty analysis you use all the damn time--you pick what you think people's motivations for something would be and then you are off to the races. So much of what you believe is based on your view of someone else's motivations for wanting to do something, when you have no basis for believing in the existence of those motivations.

It's just nice that you've made it so easy to connect the dots in this thread--often this flaw in your thinking is a little more veiled.

So, no gay people have ever been pressured into becoming straight? What a wonderful world we live in!

I'd only be comfortable with this pill if there were also a gay pill to let people turn back. Be a lot safer that way.

[Cheesesteak]

I kind of figure two things:

The people who use it will most likely be pressured (or tricked) into doing so by their family or by society's bigotry towards homosexuals.

The people who actually need it will most likely not take it because they're in complete denial of their homosexuality.

[adaher]

It's not a bad question, but I've heard a better one, and it's a lot more plausible:

If there is a gay gene, and it can be detected before birth, you'll be able to add sex orientation selective abortion to sex selective abortion as legitimate options for couples.

That'll throw a mudball into the debate when it becomes possible.

[not what you'd expect]

I think the people most likely to see a gay gene as a defect are the same ones that are the most anti abortion, so I think you're right.

[BobLibDem]

I'm for people being what they want to be. If they're gay and want to take a straight pill or vice versa, it's fine with me.

[Acid Lamp]

Originally Posted by adaher

It's not a bad question, but I've heard a better one, and it's a lot more plausible:

If there is a gay gene, and it can be detected before birth, you'll be able to add sex orientation selective abortion to sex selective abortion as legitimate options for couples.

That'll throw a mudball into the debate when it becomes possible.

Theoretically speaking, If you support a woman's absolute right to choose, then you have to accept that abuses like this will occasionally occur even if you find them ethically reprehensible. In future, should engineering truly reach a point where "designer babies" are available, we might have to place some reasonable limits on such technology, but this scenario is quite different. In the former, the couple is directly engineering the selection of traits. In the latter, our couple is terminating an existing, natural combination of traits for whatever reason.

[Mangetout]

Yeah; if someone's genuinely unhappy about some aspect of theirself, and sincerely wants to change it, and the fairly safe means to do so exists then I think that would be OK - Gender reassignment surgery is no less drastic a thing, IMO (Not saying it's the same - just that it seems more or less equally serious an action).

Coercion and abuse is a really serious risk, but I'm not sure how we would weigh that against the possible wrongs of doing nothing.

And there's a possibly slightly slippery slope (in fact, maybe we're already on it). If someone is unhappy about, say, having arms (and I understand that there are such cases in the real world), why or why not would that be different, and why would we treat it differently (or not)?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

And there's a possibly slightly slippery slope (in fact, maybe we're already on it). If someone is unhappy about, say, having arms (and I understand that there are such cases in the real world), why or why not would that be different, and why would we treat it differently (or not)?

The difference is, not having your arms is objectively inferior to having them, and not wanting them is irrational and self destructive.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

Theoretically speaking, If you support a woman's absolute right to choose, then you have to accept that abuses like this will occasionally occur even if you find them ethically reprehensible. In future, should engineering truly reach a point where "designer babies" are available, we might have to place some reasonable limits on such technology, but this scenario is quite different. In the former, the couple is directly engineering the selection of traits. In the latter, our couple is terminating an existing, natural combination of traits for whatever reason.

In my view, it just doesn't matter. Women have the right to choose and the fetus is not a person. If people who claim to be pro-choice want to put limits on this type of selection, then they are placing group rights over individual rights, which makes no sense.

[Chronos]

The difference is, not having your arms is objectively inferior to having them, and not wanting them is irrational and self destructive.

That depends on what objective standards you use. One might, for example, take an evolutionary standard: Passing on your genes to a greater degree is superior to passing them on to a lesser degree, or not at all. By this standard, any impediment to reproduction would be objectively inferior, and homosexuality is an impediment to reproduction (not an absolute impediment, obviously, but then, neither is a lack of arms). OK, so maybe the evolutionary standard isn't the one we should be using for objective judgments of superiority, but can you think of some other standard that works better here? One by which no sexual orientation is superior to any other, but by which arms are superior to armlessness?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Chronos

That depends on what objective standards you use. One might, for example, take an evolutionary standard

Considering it's found in multiple species and not really all that rare, homosexuality doesn't appear to be a problem in evolutionary terms.

Originally Posted by Chronos

One by which no sexual orientation is superior to any other, but by which arms are superior to armlessness?

Functionality. The human body is built to function using two arms, and is much less capable without them. People function just fine being homosexual; their orientation-related problems are externally imposed by bigots. The only arguably superior orientation would be bisexuality, since it combines the possibilities of both of the others.

[Skammer]

Assuming that they were allowed to take the pill of their own free will, and it was not forced or coerced, why would you think most LGBT supporters would oppose that?

[adaher]

Actually, there is such a pill, and gay activists have condemned it:

http://www.alternet.org/story/147849...on_in_the_womb

A treatment for a birth disorder has been found to reduce the likelihood that girls will become gay. Activist groups have condemned the 'anti-gay' treatment.
August 15, 2010 |





A treatment for a rare birth disorder has been found to have a controversial side-effect: It evidently reduces the likelihood that treated girls will become gay.

Rights groups and medical experts are coming out against the treatment, saying it amounts to "engineering in the womb for sexual orientation."

The rare condition known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia causes girls to develop ambiguous genitals and facial hair, as well as failure to menstruate. Studies have suggested that "biological and psychological factors" result in individuals with the condition being more likely to be gay.

[Really Not All That Bright]

adaher, that pill is completely different, for reasons already addressed.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Considering it's found in multiple species and not really all that rare, homosexuality doesn't appear to be a problem in evolutionary terms.

Well, it stands to reason that the less rare it is the more of a problem it's going to be in evolutionary terms.

Functionality. The human body is built to function using two arms, and is much less capable without them.

How can you discuss evolution in one sentence and then forget it exists in the next? The human body isn't "built to do" anything. It just wound up the way it is.

There was an episode of Star Trek: TNG, Measure of a Man (bear with me), where Data is ordered to submit to disassembly so some comically inept guy from the Daystrom Institute can attempt to replicate him. Picard tries to convince him to do it on a utilitarian basis: "think how much good might be accomplished." Data then asks him why all Starfleet officers are not required to have their eyes replaced with cybernetic visors like Geordi's, since the visor is objectively superior to human eyes.

The point is that bodily autonomy will always override utility.

[adaher]

The pill is different, but since it reduces the likelihood of someone being gay, it has been condemned by gay rights groups. Which makes no sense and also would tend to predict that they'd condemn a "choice" pill as well.

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by Skammer

Assuming that they were allowed to take the pill of their own free will, and it was not forced or coerced, why would you think most LGBT supporters would oppose that?

Er, not you, your friend. Sorry I missed your post in the middle of the thread.

[ElvisL1ves]

Bpelta, can you offer any insight as to why your friend expected a different response?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Well, it stands to reason that the less rare it is the more of a problem it's going to be in evolutionary terms.

You are assuming that it is a problem. It seems more likely to me that the fact that it's as common as it is means that it isn't much of a problem and may well be a benefit.

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

How can you discuss evolution in one sentence and then forget it exists in the next? The human body isn't "built to do" anything. It just wound up the way it is.

That was the best way I could think to phrase it while avoiding the word "designed". The body isn't designed, but it does have function; it's not some random glob.

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The point is that bodily autonomy will always override utility.

Which is an argument against the pill, the primary use of which is to subvert people's bodily autonomy to serve the preferences of others.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by adaher

The pill is different, but since it reduces the likelihood of someone being gay, it has been condemned by gay rights groups. Which makes no sense and also would tend to predict that they'd condemn a "choice" pill as well.

Did you not read the first page of the thread? The whole issue being debated is the distinction between consenting use of the hypothetical pill by an adult and nonconsenting administration.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Which is an argument against the pill, the primary use of which is to subvert people's bodily autonomy to serve the preferences of others.

The OP posited that the primary use is to control one's own orientation. I find it impressive that you can read the minds of people who only exist in a hypothetical.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The OP posited that the primary use is to control one's own orientation. I find it impressive that you can read the minds of people who only exist in a hypothetical.

Don't be silly; I'm simply assuming that the people who exist right now who hate homosexuals will not magically disappear with the introduction of such a pill, and I'm assuming that most people probably won't want to change their sexual orientation. The primary use of such a pill in the real world will be to change people's orientation by force; probably quite often outright at gunpoint.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You mean like how gays are forced into "re-education" programs at gunpoint quite often? You're being silly.

People who would force gay people to take this pill at gunpoint won't have any compunction about just shooting them if the pill isn't available.