NeuroTypical

Queer sister speaks at 2021 BYU Women's Conference

Recommended Posts

I went and corrected the Section number in my previous post.

On 4/30/2021 at 5:56 PM, Vort said:

I confess, I have never understood this verse of scripture. Luke 16:9 introduces the idea of making friends with the mammon of unrighteousness. The context is the parable of the unjust steward, which concludes:

I think part of the misunderstanding is that the phrase means two different things in the two citations.

  • I always took the Luke passage to mean that we should be just as zealous in our pursuit of spiritual "wealth" as the worldly individual is in their pursuit of temporal wealth.
  • I took the D&C passage to mean what Joseph Fielding Smith said:
Quote

“The commandment of the Lord that the saints should make themselves ‘friends with the mammon of unrighteousness,’ seems to be a hard saying when not properly understood. It is not intended that in making friends of the ‘mammon of unrighteousness’ that the brethren were to partake with them in their sins; to receive them to their bosoms, intermarry with them and … come down to their level. They were to so live that peace with their enemies might be assured. They were to treat them kindly, be friendly with them as far as correct and virtuous principles would permit, but never to swear with them or drink and carouse with them. If they could allay prejudice and show a willingness to trade with and show a kindly spirit, it might help to turn them away from their bitterness. Judgment was to be left with the Lord.”

 -- Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:323.)

Remember that part of the reason the Saints were so hated in Missouri at the time was that we didn't just move in as other settlers trying to find their way.  We moved in with the attitude that we owned the place already.  It was like we were entitled.  Our boldness just didn't sit well with the residents who were already there.  The Lord said it was to be our promised land after all.  

But we didn't realize that we'd have to still earn it and purchase land like anyone else.  We'd have to work for it.

Then we went even further and refused to trade with them and engage in commerce with them.  So, here are these strange folks just waltzing in like they own the place and then they don't even want to share their money through free commerce?  Why do we even want them here.

So, the Lord was saying that the way we would earn the promised land was by earning the trust and friendship of those who owned the land already.  Who knows?  We might even make some converts along the way.

But that didn't happen because we were being to arrogant and xenophobic about it all.  

That's what I got out of it.

*******************

So, today, we apply the same principle by taking some of the measures we do about LGBT issues.  We make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness because we need to remember that even if we disagree, we don't need to go out of our way to criticize them or fight with them.  Because if we do fight with them, we will lose.

We need to make sure that we are not guilty of the first offense nor either of the second. And if we are not guilty of the offense, the Lord will not suffer us to be destroyed.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Perhaps part of the answer might be because one - pornography and self abuse - is a sin and the other is not.

I just realized my explanation was incomplete.

The person voiced in the video from the Church website seemed to be saying that he still has the desires and impulses.  But he's been able to control it.  So, as far as is practical, it is exactly the same.

42 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

But I also think there is some merit in the arguement that normalization of SSA is akin to intentionally driving the cart a little closer to the edge.

Yes, that is what I was getting at when I postulated that even if having the trait itself is not exactly a sin, it is still a trait that has a tremendous propensity towards sinful behavior.  So, we need to do everything we can to get rid of it.

42 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

And who knows, I certainly don't, but perhaps someone has made a calculation that in some circumstances, when everything is taken into account and properly weighed up, there are times when driving a little closer to the edge serves a greater purpose than not doing so.

When it comes to sin, the idea is that we would NEVER purposefully get closer to the edge of the cliff.  If we're forced there, or if there is somehow a lesser of two evils situation, I guess I could see it.  But I would never see it as a positive thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

When it comes to sin, the idea is that we would NEVER purposefully get closer to the edge of the cliff.  If we're forced there, or if there is somehow a lesser of two evils situation, I guess I could see it.  But I would never see it as a positive thing.

I heard it explained once (can’t remember where) that you can compare it to a man trying to pull a stubborn donkey up a hill. If the donkey pulls hard enough back, the man may need to step down and adjust his footing to better pull the donkey higher up the hill. This could be what is happening. Saints are pulling back so the church has to adjust their positioning to pull us higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if you occasionally drive closer to the edge, it then becomes easier for those who live closer to the edge to then climb on to the safety of the cart, although when you do drive closer to the edge, those who choose to jump off the cart at that point end up closer to the edge than if the cart had stayed in the middle of the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fether said:

I heard it explained once (can’t remember where) that you can compare it to a man trying to pull a stubborn donkey up a hill. If the donkey pulls hard enough back, the man may need to step down and adjust his footing to better pull the donkey higher up the hill. This could be what is happening. Saints are pulling back so the church has to adjust their positioning to pull us higher.

That analogy certainly fits better than the edge of the cliff analogy.  And it is at least tangentially related to the theory that I postulated earlier to Vort.

All the Church's posturing is about saving the Church.  And the way we save the Church is depending upon the Lord.  And He says that we must make sure that WE are NOT the ones causing offense.  If we do our best to show Christlike love, and they still take it as offense, then that is on them.  And if such misunderstanding means that they will attack us and seek to destroy us, then the Lord will see that we've done our part, and He will protect us.

But if we are guilty of offense, then the Lord will NOT protect us and it will be Missouri all over again.  But it will be nationwide or worldwide.

That is why they're trying to tell us that we need to be more supportive of our LGBT brothers and sisters as they try to live the covenant path.

I had a companion who did not understand the difference and we knocked on the door of a lesbian woman who let us in to talk to her.  I explained to her the Church's position.  My companion continued to explain that she was going to hell.  Now, he may have been right because she flat out stated that she saw nothing wrong with it.  And she was going to live that way by choice.  But the fact was that my companion didn't care.  He was of the opinion that even if she tried to live a celibate life and obey the commandments, she would still be doomed to the Telestial Kingdom just for having SSA (even if she continually strived to overcome it).

When we left her home, he proceeded to continue another hour or so about how it didn't matter if she chose to live celibate.  She simply wouldn't be accepted into the Church.

So, yes.  I know just how intolerant some people can be.  Yes, it happens.  We just want to do what we can to ensure that it isn't systemic.  Because if it is, we will be destroyed as badly as we were in Missouri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Perhaps if you occasionally drive closer to the edge, it then becomes easier for those who live closer to the edge to then climb on to the safety of the cart, although when you do drive closer to the edge, those who choose to jump off the cart at that point end up closer to the edge than if the cart had stayed in the middle of the road.

This would require that you are a precision driver with a precision vehicle and are designated as a rescue vehicle.

Most people are not.  We usually don't have a precision vehicle (spiritually speaking).  And I don't think the average person is designated as a rescue vehicle (per this analogy).

We reach out to try to save them.  But we don't save a druggie by doing drugs with them.  Or what do you think "driving close to the edge" would look like in that situation?

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fether said:

I heard it explained once (can’t remember where) that you can compare it to a man trying to pull a stubborn donkey up a hill. If the donkey pulls hard enough back, the man may need to step down and adjust his footing to better pull the donkey higher up the hill. This could be what is happening. Saints are pulling back so the church has to adjust their positioning to pull us higher.

Maybe here?

https://askgramps.org/church-resistant-change/

Last paragraph:

To answer your question directly: No, the Church is not “one step behind in these issues”. It looks to me like the Church is pulling at the cart rope with all its might to keep the horse from sliding further downhill, with the horse pulling so hard the other direction that the Church has to step further down to regain its footing and keep on pulling uphill. And as for “the public eye”, of course the Church is foolish in the public eye. It always has been and always will be. The mockers will mock, because that’s what they do. That is of no moment, and should be of no concern to any Saint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Vort said:

Maybe here?

https://askgramps.org/church-resistant-change/

Last paragraph:

To answer your question directly: No, the Church is not “one step behind in these issues”. It looks to me like the Church is pulling at the cart rope with all its might to keep the horse from sliding further downhill, with the horse pulling so hard the other direction that the Church has to step further down to regain its footing and keep on pulling uphill. And as for “the public eye”, of course the Church is foolish in the public eye. It always has been and always will be. The mockers will mock, because that’s what they do. That is of no moment, and should be of no concern to any Saint.

Yep! That was exactly it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the public eye, the conventional wisdom says the church must change its stance on marriage and homosexual behavior before any self-respecting gay should consider coming within 10 miles of a church.  The conventional wisdom says gay LDS folk simply can't remain and be true to themselves.  The conventional wisdom says gay folk trying to stay in the church will face nothing besides ostracism enshrined in doctrine, and the cognitive dissonance will only grow until madness and suicide is the only option.

I don't believe any of that is the case, and I don't mind seeing the notion addressed openly at the 2021 BYU women's conference.  The church's take on it is yes, self-respecting gays can be welcome and fulfilled in this church.  You can follow the Gospel without denying who you are, or living in fear of suspicious judgment of it's members.  I guess it's up to us members to show whether we can live up to that notion or not.  If folks are going to remain stuck in the gut-reflex "gay people are sinners, or will soon be as long as they consider themselves gay", that the church has counseled against for at least 60 years, well, we'll fall short.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I guess it's up to us members to show whether we can live up to that notion or not.  If folks are going to remain stuck in the gut-reflex "gay people are sinners, or will soon be as long as they consider themselves gay", that the church has counseled against for at least 60 years, well, we'll fall short.

To be fair, a large minority (or, at this point, maybe even a slight majority) of LDS under 40 wouldn’t care. Offline and face to face, people tend to be much more polite and less blunt/confrontational.


So even if someone did care, they’d either be quiet about it or, much more likely, they’d open their mouth, and be called out for their behavior by other members. LDS are usually extremely polite, Rudeness or any kind wouldn’t be tolerated. 
 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2021 at 7:52 PM, Vort said:

And this is at BYU, folks. Brigham Young University. I am left shaking my head and pretty much speechless.

If this is the same BYU that used to electrocute the gay out of its students (or try to at any rate) then so am I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

If this is the same BYU that used to electrocute the gay out of its students (or try to at any rate) then so am I.

Careful, Jamie.  You're getting into treacherous territory.

This is a very twisted characterization of what actually happened.

1) This was done at MANY institutions all over the country.
2) This was a "study" done by many research facilities (including higher learning facilitites) all over the country. So, if you're going to characterize BYU based on this, then do so to the entire United States (and some other countries as well, including your own).
3) It was done with the common wisdom at the time. And they followed all the nationally sanctioned methods of research.

BACKGROUND:

This was done in the 1970s.  We were just getting comfortable with the idea that this was a "real thing".  The medical wisdom of the time categorized homosexuality as a mental disorder.  And electroshock therapy was emerging as a promising method of "aversion therapy."  Many methods of aversion therapy were studied.  Electic shock was only one such method studied.  AND homosexuality was only ONE trait that was in a long list of test traits for their subjects.

All volunteer subjects were told exactly what they would be getting into and why and the theories behind it.  And they could choose to leave the study at any time.

Also understand that the shock used in these experiments are nowhere near as dramatic as those that are horrifically depicted/maligned on large and small screens.  They were a mild "reminder" basically.

Such research has produced some modern treatments (using MILD electric shock) to change people's behaviors.  Damond John of Shark Tank credits such therapy for his quitting smoking.

So, before you make such a slanderous statement, get all the facts.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Careful, Jamie.  You're getting into treacherous territory.

This is a very twisted characterization of what actually happened.

1) This was done at MANY institutions all over the country.
2) This was a "study" done by many research facilities (including higher learning facilitites) all over the country. So, if you're going to characterize BYU based on this, then do so to the entire United States (and some other countries as well, including your own).
3) It was done with the common wisdom at the time. And they followed all the nationally sanctioned methods of research.

BACKGROUND:

This was done in the 1970s.  We were just getting comfortable with the idea that this was a "real thing".  The medical wisdom of the time categorized homosexuality as a mental disorder.  And electroshock therapy was emerging as a promising method of "aversion therapy."  Many methods of aversion therapy were studied.  Electic shock was only one such method studied.  AND homosexuality was only ONE trait that was in a long list of test traits for their subjects.

All volunteer subjects were told exactly what they would be getting into and why and the theories behind it.  And they could choose to leave the study at any time.

Also understand that the shock used in these experiments are nowhere near as dramatic as those that are horrifically depicted/maligned on large and small screens.  They were a mild "reminder" basically.

Such research has produced some modern treatments (using MILD electric shock) to change people's behaviors.  Damond John of Shark Tank credits such therapy for his quitting smoking.

So, before you make such a slanderous statement, get all the facts.

 

1D86A171-C628-4323-9729-41A48912B723.jpeg

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Explain

It’s fairly obvious. No need. 

I know tribal pride comes before anything, but you can’t spin this one. It’s horrible.

Yes, other universities and research facilities did this. Yes, the students could leave at any time (they couldn’t due to societal pressure, but anyway) and yes, the shock was “mild” but inflicting this on anyone is horrifically disturbing. 

Again, we will spin it and try our best to put lipstick on this pig, but this was a grave and disturbing black mark on any school that did an experiment like this. Tribal loyalty must take a back seat on this one. 
 

No apologies. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

It’s fairly obvious. No need. 

I know tribal pride comes before anything, but you can’t spin this one. It’s horrible.

Yes, other universities and research facilities did this. Yes, the students could leave at any time (they couldn’t due to societal pressure, but anyway) and yes, the shock was “mild” but inflicting this on anyone is horrifically disturbing. 

Again, we will spin it and try our best to put lipstick on this pig, but this was a grave and disturbing black mark on any school that did an experiment like this. Tribal loyalty must take a back seat on this one. 
 

No apologies. 

I understood the intent of the image.  But I was puzzled by how that was the reaction given my intent for my post.

This had nothing to do with tribal pride.  I specifically explained that this was not just a "bunch of Mormons" who did this.  Everyone did this. By everyone, I mean all people in the field of expertise regardless of religious affiliation.  That alone should have been enough express that it was not about an isolated sector of society.  It was the wisdom of the age.

My intent was to point out that if we were in the same position as they were, no one (and I'd include you) would have thought that what they were doing was wrong.  It is very easy to judge others based on 20/20 hindsight and the benefit of 50 years of societal development.  But if you'd been raised then, and you were a researcher, you wouldn't have known any better.

I wasn't trying to lionize them or support them.  But I was trying to defend against undue slander.  I spoke facts.  And the facts will speak.  But if all people care about is characterizations, then that is their choice.

I don't know everything that actually happened.  And neither do you.  I've avoided judging ANY researcher of the time for doing what they thought was accepted practice.  But you seem to be ok with running in guns blaring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I understood the intent of the image.  But I was puzzled by how that was the reaction given my intent for my post.

This had nothing to do with tribal pride.  I specifically explained that this was not just a "bunch of Mormons" who did this.  Everyone did this. By everyone, I mean all people in the field of expertise regardless of religious affiliation.  That alone should have been enough express that it was not about an isolated sector of society.  It was the wisdom of the age.

My intent was to point out that if we were in the same position as they were, no one (and I'd include you) would have thought that what they were doing was wrong.  It is very easy to judge others based on 20/20 hindsight and the benefit of 50 years of societal development.  But if you'd been raised then, and you were a researcher, you wouldn't have known any better.

I wasn't trying to lionize them or support them.  But I was trying to defend against undue slander.  I spoke facts.  And the facts will speak.  But if all people care about is characterizations, then that is their choice.

I don't know everything that actually happened.  And neither do you.  I've avoided judging ANY researcher of the time for doing what they thought was accepted practice.  But you seem to be ok with running in guns blaring.

You are correct that it should not be used as a stick to beat LDS with, and it’s not an attack on the church. At least it shouldn’t be. I did not read it as an attack on either.  To be fair to me, I bend over backwards saying how wonderful LDS people are, and how the church as an entity is over bashed. So there’s that. 
 

You are incorrect as well. Not everyone was doing it, nor was everyone in favor of it. Even back then. That’s like saying everyone was in favor of slavery in 1844.  It’s just flat out wrong. And, it’s quite audacious of you to tell me how I’d feel back then. Apparently you know more about being Gator than Gator himself does. Hint: you don't. 

Yes, I am “perfectly fine” with going in guns blazing if someone tries to defend inflicting pain on another for a reason such as this. No apologies on that account, but I DO apologize if my response was viewed as an attack on the church or it’s members. That was not my intention at all, and I apologize you @Carborendum, and to everyone else if I crossed that line. 
 

On a subjective, personal note: I’m a big fan of Freud and of psychoanalysis in general. However, I sadly accept the reality that he was a big reason why conversion therapy became popular. Even my own heroes are not above criticism. I don’t take it as an attack on Freud, I take it as an attack on....conversion therapy with electric shocks. I’m awesome like that. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I started getting defensive and apologizing for every dumb thing humans did in the past, that sounded like an arguably good idea at the time, I would never be able to take a breath.

People believing things that today seem embarrassing is hardly unique to this church or it members.

Go find your nearest medical practitioner and ask them about leeches or mercury poultices. Or letting out demons with bloodletting.

Don’t even get me started on the history of human government and politics. Divine right of kings anyone? Pharaohs?
 

Nobody should have a problem with the concept.  The reason LDS get defensive about it, is we have a prophet, and it’s easy to fall into the trap of believing that means he is perfect and has all the answers. If some church person believed it in the past, it’s Gods fault for letting him believe it? Really? This is supposed to be a valid criticism?

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LDSGator said:

You are incorrect as well. Not everyone was doing it, nor was everyone in favor of it. Even back then.

I realize you're going to believe what you're going to believe.  But for the record I never said ^^^ this ^^^.

If I wasn't clear, let me clarify.  I was specifically talking about researchers in this field.  And "everyone" was admittedly hyperbole.  But it was RESEARCH.  No one really knew if it would work.  But that's why we do research in the first place.  They want to discover the truth.  And in an effort to find out the truth, they agreed to do the research.

I guess you don't agree with trying to do research to discover truth.  I do.  As long as it is voluntary, we don't have a right to judge their choice to join in their honest pursuit of truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, if you're going to characterize BYU based on this, then do so to the entire United States (and some other countries as well, including your own).

Was I saying we were any better?

We in the UK drove Alan Turing to suicide with the threat of chemical castration!

My point was not "bad bad BYU" but "look at how things have gone from one extreme to the other!"

Edited by Jamie123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Was I saying we were any better?

We in the UK drove Alan Turing to suicide with the threat of chemical castration!

My point was not "bad bad BYU" but "look at how things have gone from one extreme to the other!"

No. I never said you did, directly.  Here's what I said.

On 5/2/2021 at 7:58 AM, Carborendum said:

This is a very twisted characterization of what actually happened.

It was not denotatively stated in your post.  I was pointing to the connotation.  As such, I make allowance for the fact that your intent may have been completely innocent.  I'm pointing out that words mean something.  And your choice of words may or may not have conveyed the message intended.  And when you use words like:

On 5/2/2021 at 3:54 AM, Jamie123 said:

If this is the same BYU that used to electrocute the gay out of its students (or try to at any rate) then so am I.

It is important to understand that the most common take away from such a phrase is:

zombie.png.ac46640a8de1d789d1d0af5c0b37a562.png

Some believe that just because it wasn't this:

Unicorns.png.ae27a44393cd4f438542f20cfd899f28.png

Then it MUST have been horrible.

The facts show that there were SOME extreme cases where it was pretty bad.  My explanation and response was aimed at bringing forth a more realistic image of the most common practices of the day:

man-twists-elastic-band-around-his-finger.jpg.bb3c5ace16f0348f9e6be1b505940894.jpg

Given the context an d brevity of your post, it singled out BYU as THE school that did this.  How could THAT school now change to embrace homosexual students?

I know.  You shouldn't be held responsible for not outlining ALL conditions and ALL exceptions and citing ALL occurrences.  But with such brevity, the common take away was that ONLY BYU did this.  So, understand that my "careful" language was simply to point out what would be the COMMON take away from your post.  I was not trying to accuse you of an attack.

But I do wonder:  Would you say the same thing if you heard that Berkley University welcomed gay students?  No.  Why not?  They did the same kind of research as far as I know.  So, why is it surprising at BYU, but not at Berkley?  Consider the wording of your original statement and see if the same phrasing would apply.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Would you say the same thing if you heard that Berkley University welcomed gay students?

If ANY university did that yes, we’d*  call them out. Simply because it’s not a “university” thing. The problem is with the experiment itself and those trying to downplay or belittle how cruel it was. So no, it’s not personal. Don’t take it as such. 
 

If UNH did it, I’d lead the charge there and demand a public apology. Same with UF. 
 

* I say “we”, but obviously I speak only for myself. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2021 at 6:58 AM, Carborendum said:

Careful, Jamie.  You're getting into treacherous territory.

This is a very twisted characterization of what actually happened.

1) This was done at MANY institutions all over the country.
2) This was a "study" done by many research facilities (including higher learning facilitites) all over the country. So, if you're going to characterize BYU based on this, then do so to the entire United States (and some other countries as well, including your own).
3) It was done with the common wisdom at the time. And they followed all the nationally sanctioned methods of research.

BACKGROUND:

This was done in the 1970s.  We were just getting comfortable with the idea that this was a "real thing".  The medical wisdom of the time categorized homosexuality as a mental disorder.  And electroshock therapy was emerging as a promising method of "aversion therapy."  Many methods of aversion therapy were studied.  Electic shock was only one such method studied.  AND homosexuality was only ONE trait that was in a long list of test traits for their subjects.

All volunteer subjects were told exactly what they would be getting into and why and the theories behind it.  And they could choose to leave the study at any time.

Also understand that the shock used in these experiments are nowhere near as dramatic as those that are horrifically depicted/maligned on large and small screens.  They were a mild "reminder" basically.

Such research has produced some modern treatments (using MILD electric shock) to change people's behaviors.  Damond John of Shark Tank credits such therapy for his quitting smoking.

So, before you make such a slanderous statement, get all the facts.

I gotta say:  *IF* this description of the regimen were accurate—I would have happily gone through it, if I had thought it could provide a “cure” for my attraction to pornography.  I think a lot of us wouldn’t mind going through this sort of process if we thought it really could, in a relatively short timespan, permanently eliminate those unsavory facets of our individual characters that we fear/loathe the most.

By way of another example:  I note here that @Jamie123 decried the use of chemical castration on Alan Turing.  But chemical castration is still used today in treating people with pedophilic tendencies (including, I understand, on a voluntary basis in the UK penal system since at least 2013).

(Assuming that @Carborendum’s characterization of electroshock aversion therapy as used at BYU is accurate):  Are we really so very outraged about the fact that these kinds of treatment methodologies were used at all?  Or does our opposition arise primarily from the fact that the treatments were used in an attempt to “cure” behaviors that we don’t think need to be cured in the first place?

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I gotta say:  *IF* this description of the regimen were accurate—I would have happily gone through it, if I had thought it could provide a “cure” for my attraction to pornography.  I think a lot of us wouldn’t mind going through this sort of process if we thought it really could, in a relatively short timespan, permanently eliminate those unsavory facets of our individual characters that we fear/loathe the most.

By way of another example:  I note here that @Jamie123 decried the use of chemical castration on Alan Turing.  But chemical castration is still used today in treating people with pedophilic tendencies (including, I understand, on a voluntary basis in the UK penal system since at least 2013).

(Assuming that @Carborendum’s characterization of electroshock aversion therapy as used at BYU is accurate):  Are we really so very outraged about the fact that these kinds of treatment methodologies were used at all?  Or does our opposition arise primarily from the fact that the treatments were used in an attempt to “cure” behaviors that we don’t think need to be cured in the first place?

On the subject people going through with some pretty painful stuff to make them feel right.  Take transgenderism... currently it is in vogue and completely acceptable to have a sexual reassignment surgery if a person thinks it might make them feel better or "more true" to themselves and what they want to be.  The science is still very much influx on the results of this.

Any rational assessment has to find sexual reassignment surgery, is just as barbaric as "Zap away the Gay."  The only difference is zapping started first and triggers the outrage of the Left, whereas sex change is the darling of the Left and they try to cancel anything that they disagree with including challenging their darlings.

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now