TRTL,

That is a very interesting hypothetical.

However I think that if there was a hypothetical "treatment" the reaction would be the opposite to the suggestion that people would be forced to take it. Indeed I suspect it would be virtually unknown, rejected and invisible irrespective of how effectual the treatment might be.

In this hypothetical situation I suspect that evidence supporting this hypothetical "treatment" no matter how scientifically robust would not be published in academic journals for fear of backlash or sanctions against discrimination. I suspect that medical professionals with expertise in the "treatment" would be rejected by their peers and would move to a different area of practice unless they had some religious motivation to continue. I suspect that medical professionals with expertise in the "treatment" would be howled down by gay activists if they tried to make their peers aware of their "treatment" or findings at a peer conference. I believe that Meredith correctly discerned that it could be construed as bringing shame for being gay and it would be rejected by gay activists. This would make the issue very political.

CONT.

I suspect that safeguards such as proper analysis of each individual case, thorough counseling, discussion, awareness of all the facts, and effectual treatment at all sources purporting to offer the treatment would not occur due to its rejection by mainstream establishment. I suspect that most people seeking to change their orientation would be unlikely to know it existed and, if they became aware, it would normally not be until late in life by which time you would think the prognosis however good would be much worse than it would be earlier. I suspect the lack of mainstreamness resulting in a lack of quality control would make it an uphill struggle for prospective patients. More particularly they might have to try more than one "treatment" outlet before finding one that really gives the effective "treatment".

I suspect that those who have successfully undergone the "treatment" would be ignored by mainstream liberal media thus making the treatment effectively invisible and many successfully treated would choose to avoid public attention for fear of reprisal. I suspect that even if an individual who's orientation after treatment became strongly heterosexual displayed any hint of homosexual orientation the glitch/regression would be heralded as proof positive that the treatment doesn't work at all by gay activists for political reasons.

In summary I believe there would be little to fear in relation to forced "treatment". For people who desperately did want to change orientation due to social burden (who Foxy suspects are a minority) the problem would be in the other direction.

Dear mjpb,

What an excellent response.

As always, so much food for thought.

Thank You.

This thread and the one about marrying oneself …. I wonder where OLO is headed :-)

If such medication existed, would one be allowed to change back if the mood took one or if the experience of “changing” was not to ones liking?

No one should ever be forced to take such treatment.

Personally, I think the issues fit so deeply into the “personal and private” that I would disagree with mjpb suggestion of even a committee of bureaucrats to hold court over allowing possible users.

Each person must follow the path of their choosing, historically we did not have a choice but who knows, I think the danger with selecting an alternate “sexuality” is only one aspect of being male or female and even if the sex ends up “right”, it does not mean the rest of the body, physically, emotionally or intellectually (/ brain wiring) follows.

I remember talking to someone who had been born “between” the sexes but had been brought up, initially as a boy then when he was mature enough changed to a female and was a lot happier and even married a solicitor and became a craft / CAE teacher.

I remember she said her “salvation” had been the Salvation Army who, in those distant days (around 30-40 years ago) had not judged her but encouraged her to go and make the best of the life she had.

Thank you very much for the thumbs up Foxy.

There is one thing that I would like to add for completion. A successful treatment wouldn't necessarily mean that there wasn't a type of collateral damage and that would be another consideration. If the treatment was a medication the side effects would hopefully be uncovered. If the treatment was behavioural the issue of any harmful effect on the person treated would hopefully be considered. There is a psychological test available that can be administered to investigate the latter issue.

My suspicion is that fortunately these things would be sorted out. The controversial nature of the treatment would most likely lead researchers to investigate the issue.

<<However, my second thought was about the misery that many homosexuals endure. Reading through the other thread, it's easy to see how harrowing this experience could be.>>

But the misery stems from social and religious vilification, not the mere fact of sexuality.

It could be said society would benefit equally from a treatment to stop women wanting autonomy and dignity, or from a pill that would prevent avid stamp collectors from the pain of mockery by turning them into mad sports fans.

It is the mark of a civilised society to learn to tolerate diversity, rather than provding new methods of promoting bland conformity.