Where, precisely, does our sexual orientation stem from?

Certainly not our birth certificate which is a rough ‘rule of thumb’ observation recorded at a time of considerable drama. Yep, looks like a penis, that’s a boy!

Self evidently, if you are stuck with something that looks like a penis and your birth certificate records you as male, yet in your heart you believe otherwise, you do have a problem. One that society is now prepared to countenance a ‘cure’ for. A surgical cure that is painful, time consuming, emotionally devastating, and the subject of ribald jokes by all and sundry.

It is a ‘cure’ that the gay lobby not only supports but sympathetically approves of.

Radical surgery, profoundly altering the body you were born with, not necessarily achieving the result you would truly wish in your heart – you can turn your penis inside out and give every appearance of being female, but you are never going to conceive a child for instance – is so supported that much of the cost may be available on the National Health these days, and there are howls of outrage from the gay lobby if anybody should suggest that this is cosmetic surgery that you should be paying for yourself.

The rationale is that gender orientation is something that cannot be changed, if you think you are a woman, then you are ‘a woman’, and should be surgically and legally helped to achieve the result that is based on this innate belief that surges within you. God given, genetically bequeathed? Who knows?

Logically, there is no reason to dispute any of the above – other than cost. If you believe in your heart, your soul, that you should have been beautiful, society has no objection to you using surgery to achieve the desired result. You will not become beautiful inside, but you can certainly give the impression to the world that you are ‘a beautiful person’ by changing your hair colour, the shape of your legs, or your waist to hip ratio, whatever. You will still know that you started life with a nose like the north face of the Eiger, but you can change the way society relates to you, with your new ‘button’ nose.

What then of the child labelled female by the doctor, who wishes to be a man, believes whole heartedly that she is a man in her heart? There are operations available to achieve the desired cosmetic result – and the LGBT community will be similarly sympathetic to your predicament, as will the law (eventually). You will be transformed into an individual who has the capacity to make love to a woman.

Perhaps you believe, having achieved your manly surgical result, that in fact you wish to make love to other men? The LGBT is hardly likely to condemn you, to do so would be homophobic. The rest of society would not dare.

We – society for the most part, and the ‘gay lobby’ in particular, accept all these transferences of ability to make love in the desired manner with relative equanimity. It is our ‘human right’ to be the person we desire to be, without any pressure from society or the law to be anything other than true to our heart.

Why then, is it that a person who finds themselves unaccountably drawn to making love to someone of the same sex, driven by this unknown factor deep inside them, but who wishes to be a person who makes love to someone of the opposite sex, finds it so hard to access the help required?

Any suggestion that such help might be on offer is greeted with outraged screeching and condemnation from within the very community that harbours those souls who may wish to ‘change tack’ as it were?

A Catholic doctor’s association in Germany is the latest target. They were offering ‘help’ for those who believe themselves unfairly trapped with ‘unwanted homosexual feelings’ consisting of a ‘spoonful of sugar’ believe it or not. It certainly puts a new twist on the old ‘more sugar in your tea, Vicar?’ comedic line.

They were careful to stipulate that they ‘do not believe homosexuality is an illness’ but were caught offering a host of treatments to help those who ‘wished to keep such inclinations at bay’.

Suddenly your human right to live your life sexually ‘as you wish’, rather than ‘as you are forced to’ has flown out of the window, condemned by the very lobby that has spent years convincing us that such a human right exists and not only exists, but we should be paying to ensure that you have it.

Neither anti-abortion group, nor lobby group vehemently anti-transgender surgery could argue as vociferously as the Lesbian and Gay Federation (LSVD) of Germany do, that the very offer of such counselling or help in achieving your chosen result is an ‘insult’, an ‘impertinence’, and should not be available.

Even if you are prepared to believe that an extra spoonful of sugar, in fact a homeopathic prescription of ‘Globuli’, tiny pills that consist mainly of sugar, may help you achieve your chosen result where your love life is concerned, the LSVD believe that you should be prevented from accessing such advice.

“The offerings are dangerous,” said spokeswoman Renate Rampf. “They use the insecurities of homosexual or bisexual young people and their parents.” Such “laughable” therapeutic ministrations are problematic because they can be “destabilizing,” she said.

Yet major surgery is not destabilising? Allowing children to take ‘puberty blocking’ pills so that ‘less surgery will be required’  if they later decide to realign their sexual identity, is not destabilising?

All very reminiscent of the row in the UK, when the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy described Lesley Pilkington, a psychotherapist, as “reckless”, “disrespectful”, “dogmatic” and “unprofessional” and ruled that her agreeing to give psychotherapy to a homosexual man who was deeply unhappy with his gay lifestyle and wanted to change his sexual orientation constituted “professional malpractice”.

The ruling stated that her accreditation to the organisation will be suspended and she will be ordered to complete training. If she fails to comply she will be struck off the register.

‘Complete training’ eh? She will be forced to listen to what they have to say, and agree with it, agree to change her beliefs and practices? That sounds remarkably like therapy to me. If she ‘fails to comply’ – or put it another way, if she fails to change her beliefs and practices as a result of this talking ‘therapy’, she will be prevented from working in her profession.

Can you imagine the outcry if a gay man was forced to listen to talking therapy, and agree to change his beliefs and practices – or lose his job? Do we have a problem with our courts forcing paedophiles to undertake therapy to alter their sexual orientation? They are only doing so as a result of societal pressure that they are wrong to ‘think’ in the way that they do.

Given that surgical gender reassignment and psychiatric ‘alteration’ of sexual preference are only tangentially linked, my main question is broad:

“In what circumstances should a medical professional REFUSE to act on the request of a consenting individual to alter their sexual identity or preference?”

Over to you….

Zaphod June 7, 2011 at 21:57

Apologies for my earlier abrasiveness.
We did get some thoughtful
comments.

I’ve got a fair bit of sympathy for the BLTs, (well spotted, Daz!), cos I
remember how badly they were persecuted in the past. Some of them have become
rather strident as a backlash, but it takes all kinds to make a world.

The transgendered group, I don’t have too much trouble understanding that,
actually. But I’m reluctant to spend huge wodges of our cash making cosmetic
changes to bits that don’t show. I’m not well informed on this, but I tend to
assume that armies of do-gooders would strive to persuade them all that it’s
their right to be extensively modified. I don’t think the hormone treatments
are particularly expensive though. Whatever.

In my ignorance, I wish them all luck, but things are a bit tight lately.
Gender reassignment surgery is one of the things I would cut back on.

But the interesting thing about Anna’s post, is the BLTs’ anger at attempts
to counsel those who don’t want to be gay. I don’t entirely subscribe to the
dogma that sexuality is utterly fixed. I realise that this opinion is
unfashionable, and may be wrong. But it’s fun to see the cat set among the
pigeons.

This comment is a bit garbled, sorry. I’m in a rush.

Livewire June 8, 2011 at 08:12

I doubt if anyone was genuinely miffed, mine was fake indignation. In the
interests of a lively blog, and for good sexual health, keep it coming.

LJH June 7, 2011 at 17:30

It’s a fantasy that gender reassignment surgery makes the hypothetical
transgender you into a member of the desired sex. As an intern on a surgery
ward I had opportunities to see the unconvincing end results. Female to male –
problem of hairy urethra syndrome and hydraulics in a very odd penis
constructed from excess forearm skin. Male to female – blind cul de sac with
absolutely no lubrication or sensation – long term the sexually active
transgendered continued to prefer anal sex and for the celibate a painfully
created and pointless site of chronic lowgrade irritations for the
dermatologist to deal with. Of course the surgeons were universally
enthusiastic as the procedures offer an “outlet” for ingenuity and technical
exuberance.

John B June 7, 2011 at 14:11

Unfortunately we have become too clever and have decided what we should be
instead of simply being, in terms of being, what we are.
If people want to
pretend that positive flows to positive, or simply enjoy the resultant
conflicting buzz, fine, but they may subsequently find it’s not reality. Or
there is more to this than they realised, or had forgotten.
Perhaps it is a
failure to understand what is truly male or female and loving
it.
Whatever.
These collective responsibilities would be better wound
down, not increased.
Individual freedom. Individual responsibility.
It
would be very cheap and lots of stuff to go around.
But then the
power-holics would not have much to do, or even find themselves defined as
parasites instead of nobles, kings and celebrities.
And they wouldn’t like
that.

LJH June 7, 2011 at 12:31

It’s only an issue because people believe the state should be solving their
problems. This is a triumph of optimism over experience. The NHS is crap
enough when dealing with its medical competencies – it’s delusional to think
it should solve existential dilemmas.

Ed P June 7, 2011 at 11:51

Gladiolys & Zaphod make serious points. & here (I hope) is
another:

No-one is really 100% homo or hetero, but somewhere on a line between. This
is why Bisexuals exist – although this sexual variety is despised by “true”
homosexuals as, perhaps, sitting on the fence (Ooh, Matron), it is undeniable
that many people experience attractions to both sexes. Trying to resolve these
conflicts with sugar pills or therapy or religious coercion is
nonsensical.

Eleanor June 7, 2011 at 11:51

I can dive and swim like a fish. I know I can. Unfortunately I have a
tendency to panic and drown the minute I hit water.
Should I become a
Dolphin, do you think?

Gordo June 7, 2011 at 10:35

“The present economic circumstances will probably lead to a massive
reduction in elective treatment of all kinds within the UK anyway, hard times,
hard choices.”

Much like the cuts in foreign aid to regional superpowers.

Dembones June 7, 2011 at 10:10

Let’s not bother with medicine at all, hypnosis will be so much cheaper and
you could be hypnotised to ignore symptoms. Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the
Royal College of GPs seems to think it is a good idea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9505000/9505458.stm

Livewire June 7, 2011 at 09:01

Unimaginative? Be careful what you wish for.
Right, I want a tail to be
able to signal anger or pleasure and as a third hand for intricate
construction/repair.
I want a third eye that sees in the infrared spectrum,
no more burns off black-heat objects, and useful to check that remote controls
still work.
I want to hear ultrasonic sounds so that mosquitos can be
detected before they bite. Emitting them would also be useful for rangefinding
and driving bats out of the loft (if it was legal to do that, blog and
commenter get-out-of-gaol card).
I want anyone saying “shut up” in a blog
comment to get the Hellmouth (as in Buffy) to
open up near them and
creatures to drag them down for an eternal rogering with
demonic
ovipositors.
There are other wants but I’m not revealing
lewdness on here, God is female and advocates chemical castration, I read that
somewhere.

Anna
Raccoon June 7, 2011 at 09:13

“God is female and advocates chemical castration, I read that
somewhere.”

A wise view to hold, hedge your bets gentlemen……

PT June 7, 2011 at 09:25

“God is female and advocates chemical castration, I read that
somewhere.”

Typical. Provides the testes, then changes her mind.

Daz Pearce June 7, 2011 at 06:55

Smoking, LBGT sounds like a sandwich!!

It’s your body to do with what you wish and I’d have only two nuances here
that would stand in the way. Firstly, gender reassignment should appear
nowhere on the list of treatments offered by the NHS. If you feel like a man
trapped in a woman’s body then good luck in your quest for fulfilment but
don’t ask me to pay for it. There should also be a lower age limit to stop
confused teenagers from making a terrible mistake or being exploited by warped
adults as an earlier poster says.
Might be worth qualifying the last line
too – most paedophiles end up in court because they did something with someone
who could not consent surely? No problem with the judiciary working to stop
that from happening again and it over-simplifies to refer to this as ‘societal
pressure’ IMO.
http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/

john malpas June 7, 2011 at 02:16

It seems that these people are thinking of themselves. How sefish.
Now I
propose a proper solution – As I am fairly Adonis like ( when I look in the
mirror) – I should be provided with a lissom blond (female) to ensure that our
progeny are perfect.
Now that is being thoughtful especially about the
children.
Who are our future I am told.

Smoking
Hot June 7, 2011 at 01:20

… or even the LGBT collective

Smoking
Hot June 7, 2011 at 01:18

Ah l see, once assimilated into the LBGT collective … there you stay!

PT Barnum June 7, 2011 at 00:06

The bristling hackles of the gay rights lobby groups are a sign of an
evolutionary stage. They see gay identity still standing in the shadows of
centuries of blatant oppression and hatred and therefore anyone who wishes to
stop being gay is suffering from internalised hatred and any therapist
offering to treat them is conspiring with historical hatreds. And in some,
even many, cases they will be right. But some things have moved beyond their
own understanding, where sexuality is not a fixed, innate lifestyle but an
elected and changeable choice. The lobby groups depend upon the former
position for their validity, but reality may be escaping their grasp, a
process which began when they had to grudgingly admit that bisexuals were not
gay people ‘in denial’ or ‘seeking heterosexual privilege’.

Bucko June 6, 2011
at 21:48

It is difficult to argue the the rights and wrongs of the cost for surgery
while the entire NHS is funded by the taxpayer.

Treating someone with a long term terminal illness such as cancer can be
very costly. Some argue that smokers should not get treatment because it is
their own fault. Some argue that smokers have already paid for thier treatment
through their NI, just like everyone else so are entitled to treatment.

I’m sure gay folk could argue that they pay, nay are forced to pay their NI
contributions so are entitled to treatment they beleive they need.

Personally I would not argue that stance as I beleive the NHS has vastly
outgrown it’s remit.

Maybe a private healthcare system would have some better answers. If
private health is willing to fund sex change ops or fake tits then so be it.
Somehow I dont see that happening.

gladiolys June 6, 2011 at 21:27

Anna: I believe you have been disingenuous (at best) to equate “complete
training” with “talking therapy”. I’d possibly accept an equivalence to
brainwashing, but I’d need more than wordplay to convince me.

As a therapist, Lesley Pilkington should be free to offer whatever her
training qualifies her to do, which may not be the services that the BACP wish
to be associated with. If she wishes to retain their accreditation, she should
therefore accept she needs further training to meet their practices. If their
accreditation is irrelevant to her and her clients, she should tell them to
get stuffed. So the answer to your final question is that a professional
should be able to refuse when she is not representing an organisation (either
directly or by association) and is self-employed. Any client will have
employed her based solely upon her qualifications, experience and
recommendations and not because she is part of a professional cartel.

The only other time I could think that a refusal may be appropriate is when
a request “of a consenting individual to alter their sexual identity or
preference” is proved to be detrimental to the overall health of said
individual, and that can only be established by a disinterested professional,
which considering the services she was offering, Lesley Pilkington clearly was
not.

I have a transgendered female friend and she has been a bit of an
inspiration for me. Believe me when I tell you the NHS does NOT make it easy
for anyone to undergo gender reassignment.

That is my longwinded twopennyworth. Sorry it’s not nearly as funny as
everyone else.

patently June 7,
2011 at 08:40

The snag with that approach is that there are a wide range of counselling
qualifications, from a wide range of providers. The (very few) organisations
offering paid employment for counsellors understandably find this confusing,
so they look to an external validating body such as the BACP.
Non-accreditation with the BACP means, in practice, no prospect of paid
employment.

gladiolys
June 7, 2011 at 09:14

But that’s the choice you make if you don’t want to abide by their
guidelines…. or you could always try to establish an alternative
cartel….

Zaphod June 6, 2011 at 19:22

This is a fascinating post, but the other commentors seem to have missed
the point. The humourous comments are worthwhile, but this isn’t about just
the old sex-change-funding argument, is it? It illustrates a real dilemma.

Nice one, Anna. I hope you get some interesting comments.

Come on, people. Read it again. The unimaginative should shut up, please.
Let’s hear from some of those affected.

Anna
Raccoon June 6, 2011 at 19:51

Thank-you Zaphod – but I also find it interesting to see which aspect of
an article people pick up on – sometime it is the least expected!

Rex June 6, 2011 at 20:23

Zaphod
If you consider that their problem is an illness then I
wouldn’t want to hear about it any more than they would want to hear about
my piles.
However if you consider it to be cosmetic then let them pay
for it.
Take your choice.

Zaphod
June 6, 2011 at 20:38

Rex, read, (and comprehend), before you comment.
Read what’s
actually there, not what you expected to be there.
If you’re not
interested enough, fair enough. But shut up.

The Cowboy
Online June 7, 2011 at
00:21

C’mon Zaphod, just because some people are taking something from
the story other than what you, or even Anna (perhaps), wanted to,
there’s no reason to be so aggressive / insulting.

Some people may read the story, realise its intent, but feel more
inclined to comment on the ‘cost to the NHS’ aspect, especially in
these financially straitened times.

Rob June 7, 2011 at 15:48

It is a great post.

Apologies for the antelope ref.

It is interesting to see how different people take different things from
a post like this. While it was a very good point well made about how the
LGBT community view some forms of sexuality as more equal than others, I
couldn’t help but think about the sanity of someone who believes s/he is
something they are not. Something that is known through observable reality.
More to the point, if I were to go to the doctor and say I am an antelope I
would be sectioned if I say I am a woman then I am encouraged to disfigure
myself .

How do you have a functioning legal system that covers more that one
reality? How many realities can be covered by one legal system? We know that
mothers get better treatment in the family courts, could a fellow take
advantage of this by saying that in his reality he was a mother in a fathers
body?
What about a Peado who could say they are a child in an adults
body?

Just how many realities are valid?

Livewire June 6, 2011 at 19:20

The present economic circumstances will probably lead to a massive
reduction in elective treatment of all kinds within the UK anyway, hard times,
hard choices. I’m not being judgemental about the types of treatment described
in the topic, without a sound economy I suspect there’ll also be refusal of
things like hip replacements for the elderly and IVF in the future.To misquote
Huxley “Oh brave new world, that had G.Brown in it for thirteen
years”.

Hysteria June 6, 2011 at 18:43

What people do with their bodies is entirely up to them – it has nothing to
do with the State – and ergo – nothing to do with the people who fund the
State – the tax payer.

I am sure some people feel very deeply that they can be more
attractive/comfortable.sane with an exotic tatoo. Doesn’t mean the tax payer
funds this.

Fabian the
Fabulous June 6, 2011 at 18:18

In my heart, I believe myself to be an adonis like figure, of great
physical allure, my sex appeal in no way diminished by the fact that I am hung
like a horse.
In my mirror I see, alas, that this is not true.

I am now seeking beauty treatment, wish-fulfillment therapy and
rejuvenation on the NHS.

My humam right, innit

Rex June 6, 2011 at 18:31

You might as well have a sex change as well.

Engineer June 6, 2011 at 18:43

Why do you think beer was invented?

Single Acts of Tyranny June 6, 2011 at 20:33

Beer ~ allowing ugly people to temporarily feel good about themselves
and have sex, since 1872!

Peter Whittlesea
June 6, 2011 at 17:46

Quite simply our NHS system has become all things to all people. The NHS
needs a clear directive of what it will / will not cover. I do believe the
clue is in the ‘H’. Gender realignment is not an immediate life threatening
‘health need’ – if someone is that hell-bent to have the surgery, saving up
and paying for it oneself should proove that they are serious about it. I
don’t feel it is for tax payers to be forking out on this latest fad with the
hardship the country is currently facing. People should learn to be
comfortable in the skin they’ve been given. It’s no more than cosmetic
surgery.

Rex June 6, 2011 at 17:27

Cannot claim to know (or even care) too much about all this but I do get
the impression that before it all came out in the open there was less of
it.
i.e. new fad lets join it!!

Suppose thats ‘c0s I’m getting old and grumpy perhaps?

Gordo June 6, 2011 at 17:24

“Gender reassignment” is being allowed/forced on confused teenagers,
perhaps under the influence of a disturbed adult. That our society allows this
demonstrates how diseased it has become. Reform is no longer possible.

Rob June 6, 2011 at 17:10

I speak (bleat) as an antelope trapped in a man’s body. I will soon be
taking advantage of the very generous, tax payer funded species re-assignment
surgery.

I also have a friend who is an apple in womans body and a very close
antelope friend who has, since our last intimate moment, decided she is a male
lion.

Engineer June 6, 2011 at 16:51

I’m sure that it’s no fun to be in any of the above situations, and don’t
really blame people who are for seeking help. However – at who’s cost? Some of
these therapies, reassignments and surgical treatments must cost more than a
bob or two, and the poor old taxpayer gets lumbered with the bill for more and
more.

I can’t help thinking that the taxpayer is happy to fund the cost of
setting broken legs, replacing worn out hip joints, treating cancers and heart
conditions, but might suck their teeth a bit at some of the gender
reassignment stuff. Maybe that’s an area where individuals and charities might
take a bit of the load off the poor old hard-pressed taxpayer.