[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.