[andyjenn]

Thanks for the notice, will watch that tonight.

Sounds like an example of mediocre journalism picking up on well worn themes: brilliant outcast genius, untimely death and potential riches lost, extrapolated and simplified.

As an aside, and I don't know if this will be covered in the programme, there was an interesting report on Radio 4 some time ago about the treatment Alan Turing went through to "cure" his homosexuality. Whilst I had previously thought this only to be barbaric acts by small minded people, the report suggested some of the medics genuinely thought that this science could actually change him and be a force for good.

Doesn't really change much, but it altered my views...slightly.

[icebraining]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-- C. S. Lewis

[jgrahamc]

This is well covered in the program. The actual docudrama is very well done. Sure there are some TV moments with a few too many shots of Macbook Airs, but here's a very long thoughtful documentary mixed with very well acted drama that covers the life of a man and four very complex ideas: Turing machine, Turing test, morphogenesis and the Enigma break.

[rmc]

the treatment Alan Turing went through to "cure" his homosexuality. Whilst I had previously thought this only to be barbaric acts by small minded people, the report suggested some of the medics genuinely thought that this science could actually change him and be a force for good.

Yes there was attempts to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals, and they failed. There is amble scientific evidence, as a result of these abuses, that sexual orientation can't be changed.

[pbhjpbhj]

Could you please present your "am[p]le scientific evidence [...] that sexual orientation can't be changed".

I'll present an anecdote which, amongst several I've seen/heard, suggests to me that you're wrong in your assertion.

"On Freddie Mercury's Sexuality

'I think it was an undiscussed thing for a long time. The truth of the matter is nobody should care. Why should anyone care what sexual persuasion people have? It's about the music, and Freddie would have been the first to say that. He never hid the fact that he was turned on by men instead of by women, but strange enough, I don't think it was always the case. Because in the early days, we used to share rooms. So in the early days, I know who Freddie slept with, and they weren't men, but I think it gradually changed. And I have no idea how these things work, but it wasn't really anybody's business but his, and we never talked about it as if it were important. Why should it be important? We just made music together.'"

quoted from http://m.npr.org/news/front/128935865?singlePage=true

[rmc]

Could you please present your "am[p]le scientific evidence [...] that sexual orientation can't be changed".

I do not have scientific studies, and do not know off hand if there are scientific studies. But there are loads of people who went through these 'treatments', and it didn't work.

And there are plenty of gay men who would have slept with women when they were younger. Especially in the 1960s/70s UK. Just look at all the married, right wing coversative politicans who are caught with male prostitutes.

[pbhjpbhj]

So in short your claim is anecdotal and there isn't any scientific evidence you know of (nevermind ample)?

Just that I have heard people personally state they have changed their orientation, by choice, both from homo- to heterosexual and vice-versa.

[wladimir]

The barbaric act, in my mind, is that they tried to change his sexual orientation at all, and went to such lengths to try that. Just because it was supposed to be somehow "bad" to be homosexual, not because he was a danger to anyone.

[pbhjpbhj]

I think this is part of the "fetish".

Turing is supposedly openly homosexual according to his friend and biographer and yet his fiancee still agrees to get engaged and appears to be surprised by his admission to her that he was attracted to men - they worked together and spent a lot of time outside of work together, you'd think she'd be the first to know if he was openly homosexual. This incident in his life certainly suggest bisexuality.

Moreover it seems that Turing considered his homosexual activity to be a perversion; his acceptance of the hormone therapy moves in that direction. Turing as an exceptional chemist himself would be more than aware of the possible consequences of continuing the treatment. Surely he'd choose prison otherwise?

I've a pet theory about his apparent ephebophilia and that he fell for a "honey" trap leading to his arrest but that's pushing us OT quite a bit I think.

[cobrausn]

Sorry, but how is this barbaric if the person undergoing the 'treatment' wants to undergo it? There are a lot of men who want to be women, I'd imagine there are some homosexuals who wish they were straight (and vice versa).

If we had the capability to alter sexual orientation, and the person wanted to, what's so wrong with that?

[epo]

A fine example of the banality of being contradictory for the sake of it. Turing was coerced into 'treatment' (the alternative being prison, a grim prospect for a man like Turing), consequently 'barbaric' is spot on as a description; doubly, trebly so, given his contribution to the war effort.

What are you going to try next? How about quibbling with something being called murder because the 'victim' might have wanted to die?

[cobrausn]

I'm not being contradictory for the sake of doing so, I'm being contradictory because your assertion is incorrect - many people might actually wish to alter their sexual orientation, and there is nothing 'barbaric' about it, provided we have the ability to do so humanely. Being forced into it is obviously not what I was referring to.

Your second point is called 'assisted suicide', and people do quibble about the difference.

[wladimir]

I was talking about forcing people to undergo such a treatment, or coercing them into it some other way. That's barbaric.

If someone really wants to change their gender or orientation and is really sure I don't see why it would not be allowed, but that was not my point.

[cobrausn]

Right, I agree. My original reading of the comment had me interpreting it as 'changing or attempting to change sexual orientation ever is barbaric', which I had a slight disagreement with depending upon the context. Apologies.