Let's say a genetic test is made to determine/prove if you have the markers for same-sex attraction and/or transexualism, would you take the test or just follow what you already know to be true? I actually thought of this while reading an article BradTheCat posted about the DMV . I unfortunately went to the comments section (of the article) :lol:. Many people posted things of the effect that you are either born male or female based on genitalia and other sort of stuff and someone brought about how not everyone is XY and XX. Then, I remembered how that same argument was used here on some occasion and made me wonder if trans folks would be curious to know if they were actually XX/XY instead of XXY, XYY, etc. and maybe show that there was an "error" at the 23rd-chromosome level. (Of course, that doesn't prove one is trans*). However, the problem with having such a test done is that if one were to be trans, but show that the chromosomes are "normal" for a person of the opposite gender, it could prove a bit of a blow to the self-esteem. Anyway, this set up the landscape for the actual question I'm asking: if there was a definitive genetic test(s) to determine/prove if you have the markers for being LGB and/or T (I separate them because there is a difference between same-sex attraction and gender identity), would you be curious to take the test? What would be some ethical, social, and legal problems that could arise from such testing? In your opinion, would testing ever be ethical for certain benefits, like the seeking of asylum?
I don't need to test what I already know! I'm sure there are some cases where it would be ethical such as a parent who insists it's a choice or in an asylum case. Such asylum cases in the UK have increased by something like 300% in the last 5 years but how do you sort out the genuine claims from those who are making it up just to get in?
Well, one thing for sure, it is not going to lessen any stigma if the people still think the same way like now. I mean, heck, they think cancer is divine punishment. Then being LGBT is the same, even if it is tested and verify in some way. I prefer people just change and realize it is not that big of a deal in the first place and move on to other things, like curing cancer. But yes, I would take it.
I'd take it, just out of curiosity. As for ethical issues, well, it depends. Will places of employment demand this information be known? Could one be turned down for not taking the test? Who will be storing this information, and could it be handed over for, say, a background check? In many jobs in the United States, you can be fired and not told why. You can't be discriminated against when being hired, but this is easy to get around. I suspect you'd see people with bigoted attitudes, in higher positions, maybe using this as a reason to let somebody go.
@Kaiser, it would probably fall under or be protected in the US by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.
I would definitely want to take it. Sometimes I fear that my sexuality is something I made up in my head. Also I have never been 100% sure about my gender. However I would fear the applications of such a test: Imagine if some extreme homophobic/transphobic couple suspected that their kid was LGBT. They would get the kid tested and, depending on the results of the test, the kid could be in danger. What about countries that jail and kill people for being LBGT? What about countries that force gay men into sex reassignment surgery to "fix" them? I fear that the existence of such a test would put many people in danger. While not desirable, the closet saves lives.
I would take it just to see if it gives reliable results, but I already know what I like, so I don't have to prove it to myself. As for proving to others, why bother?
First, to answer your question, yes I would get the test. Wouldn't tell me anything I don't know, but would be nice to have some proof. Onward to the later part of your question. Issues with this test: - If it can be done pre-birth than I have a feeling it'd influence a good bit of abortions on this planet ;_; - The kinds of Christians who hate LGBT people are the same ones who preach about the evils of science using their smartphones soooo...it won't ever change their minds. - In the future we may use this test in order to 'correct' people who are LGBT via gene therapy ( since it will be a future possiblity ) Good things: - Society ( as a whole ) would have to accept that fact that it is something you're born with because science. - Parents would be able to get an early jump on dealing with the issues their LGBT son or daughter would have to face in the future. - It might push members of LGBT community into a 'protected status' like Women and minorities are. At least in the United States.
I wouldn't take the test. The saying 'the journey is worth more than the destination' comes to mind because part of the reason why I'm so happy being who I am now is knowing that I'm the one who got myself to this point of realisation/understanding. Plus, it's a matter of pride too. I don't need a test to tell me what I identify as. Ethical issues that should be considered is that the genetic test, as OP has described it, wouldn't and isn't inclusive of all identities. The fact that so many people consider sex = certain set of genitalia or XY/XX chromosomes completely erases the identity and presence of intersexed individuals. And being intersexed is a whole other ball game concerning genitalia (which may or may not be visible) and their experiences are invalidated by ignoring them. Societal considerations would be dependant on privacy issues regarding how the test is taken/given back. I say this because, let's say this test is laid out like the HSC (an aussie test in HS) and usually when you take a test as momentous as this, a lot of people are eager to know your score. If the present societal norms that are present now still apply to your hypothetical test then it's best if the test itself is confidential as hell (locations for test?) and results are given back to the test taker as discrete as possible - which can't always be possible especially if that person hasn't come out yet. This in turn, could create backlash against the test taker which could then lead to serious or even deadly consequences.
Question: Is this statement saying that because not everyone can have this magic test that no one should be allowed to have it? That's how it sounds, and I am very non-supportive of that idea.
If it were free, I might consider it out of sheer curiousity. Even if the test came back negative, it wouldn't make me like guys any less... http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J04bRx2MGi4 - here's a great look at what "makes" people gay.
I thought he'd meant like a 'genetic test' not a classroom test. Maybe I misread something =/ Also I may have misread your post. I have no idea what the HSC is.
It's just something to consider ethically. By not including all identities in this magic test then it makes it rather inaccurate and redundant especially if the focus is to prove someone is a certain sexuality or identity. ---------- Post added 23rd May 2015 at 11:17 PM ---------- No, you're right in that point. I was thinking more along the lines of a written test. I still think that my point applies though. If someone isn't out then how are they going to explain that they need to take this test? Especially if their underage. I'm pretty sure you need a parent's consent.
I agree with a lot of people on here saying no... Who knows what would happen if that information went public and the outcry from homophobes would be crazy... What if it weren't 100 percent accurate, as most things arent? Some kid gets forced to take it and is told they are straight when they've been struggling with their identity and is now told they what they "are"... I don't like the moral implications and such... Actually, a few years ago I took a free AIDS test on my campus and it came back with a false positive... my life was in limbo for 3 days waiting for the rushed blood test results before I found out that the tests are often inaccurate (on both false positives and false negatives)... Thankfully it was cleared up by a blood test, but if there were only one test and it wasn't 100 percent... think of the implications...
Well I look at it this way. If there was a magic device that could cure all cancer in the world, but in only worked on women ( for w/e weird magic reason ) than yeah it sucks for men, but I don't think anyone would want the women to just die because the procedure wasn't inclusive to all genders. As to your 'inaccurate' statement...it would be accurate for those who are Trans Gay or Bi, however, you'd have to keep in mind that a 'negative' response doesn't exclude to possibility of the aforementioned identities since the test doesn't account for those. Well maybe no everyone could take it, but it could hold benefits for those who can. Life isn't exactly fair and probably never will be, but dragging everyone down to try and create a level playing field is not and never will be the answer. We should be striving to lift people up not the other way around.
I do not need a test to tell me what I already know. So no, I would not take a test to waste my time telling me who I am and how I already know it. Though I wouldn't mind some hot doctor checking me over....
I see what you mean but one magical situation can only apply to itself. The magical device you mentioned applies to its own situation but in regard to this test, no dice. :icon_wink To your second point, I get it but..damn. That's just sad. Here I was thinking that some things in life should be fair for all but reality itself is unfortunately, less so.
Yeah I can't say I'm the biggest fan of life being unfair either, but reality is what it is. I'd love to change the world to make it more fair for everyone, but taking the people who are getting the better deal and forcing them downward just brings the human race as a whole down. I'd rather take the people who aren't doing as well and pull them up to where everyone else is so that the human race as a whole is experiencing the best of life. oh and before we steal this whole thread ( which I've done accidently before ) we should probably get back on point X3