Someone used the tone argument against me when I wasn't even being angry

[Anakin McFly]

I was trying hard as it was to remain civil, given that reparative therapy is a topic that I have a lot of feelings about. (He was arguing that people who wished to stop being gay or trans should be allowed to make that choice, especially given the abuse that LGBT people suffer in society; and that scientists should thus work on a cure that would make those people able to live happy, fulfilling lives as straight cis people.) He also said that he was a logical debater and I was trying to convince him with emotion, which was irrational. So... double blow to my pride there because I like to think of myself as both logical and civil in debates.

And then I apologised anyway and now I feel like crap.

maybe I should just stop arguing on reddit.

Though the debate delved a lot into identity philosophy and what makes someone who they are. I argued that sexual orientation and gender identity are a fundamental part of one's sense of self as an independent conscious being, especially gender, and such a cure would thus be psychological suicide. He said he didn't see what was such a big deal because people change all the time anyway. I'm still deeply creeped out by the concept though. It'll be medically making people stop loving the people they love, and/or to see themselves as the opposite gender, when other people doing so has long been a source of extreme distress. A lot of things will be lost along the way. I'm not sure that anyone who goes for such a 'cure' would be the same person after it.

[Dr_Liszt]

scientists should thus work on a cure that would make those people able to live happy, fulfilling lives as straight cis people

For there to be a cure it has to be a pathology first. Which is not.
Trans/gays/non cis whatever do not have a pathological disorder and most of the psychological problems are due to external cultural factors rather than internal ones.

[Anakin McFly]

Yeah; though arguably it's pathological in the case of some trans people, given how things like body dysphoria are likely neurological in origin and exist independently of cultural influence. But the medical consensus is that the best treatment is hormone therapy and surgery for those who desire it, and it's been overwhelmingly successful.

He mentioned how in places like Russia, being gay can get you killed, and that it was thus cruel to prevent people who wished to become straight (and thus have better chances of survival) from pursuing that choice. Which is hard to argue against from an utilitarian standpoint if your'e talking dead gay person vs living straight person, but it's a very dodgy slippery slope if we're just medicating away anyone whom society deems unacceptable.

[Derived Absurdity]

It shouldn't be really be called a "cure" and people should not have to change because of how society treats them. But I do sort of agree generally that people should be free to be whoever they want to be, and that we should be free to choose our orientation and gender identity and not be imprisoned by biology.

Doesn't reparative therapy not work? What is he arguing for?

[Anakin McFly]

He's arguing that we should try to use science (not religion) to find a way to change sexual orientation and gender identity, so that people who wish to be straight or cis will have that option available in future. To his credit, he agrees it should be a choice. The problem being that these decisions will naturally be heavily influenced by social pressures, and we can't really divorce the two. If someone's family threatens to disown them if they're trans, or if they've been taught all their life that being gay means God hates you, there's not much free will going on there.

vs people like James Franco who say they wish they were gay because he thinks being straight is boring, and if that's what they want, completely voluntarily, there's not much ethical issue there.

[Derived Absurdity]

Ok I guess I agree with both of you.

[Anakin McFly]

I'm more bothered by how his motivation was supposedly to 'save lives'. It's the same logic of arguing that since anti-black racism exists and might always exist, we should work on a way to turn black people white so that they'll have that option, if they're sick of being subject to racism. I like the idea of people having full control over who they are and how they're perceived, but the underlying logic still feels ethically off, and targetting the symptom rather than the root of a problem.

[phe_de]

My opinion: The motivation behind non-straight/non-cis people using therapy to become straight/cis is: Individuals are changing in order to conform to the expectations of the perceived majority of society.
But in a society that values the individual, it should be the other way. The example with making blacks white is a good analogy in my opinion.

As to whether it's ok from a utilitarian standpoint: The question is in what type of society we want to live. A society that allows individuality, or a society of uniform beings. Time will tell.

[Pope Bucky]

It's victim blaming.

Society mistreats you so you should think about changing you.