> Charles: I oppose pseudo-scientific anything. My political
> positions on race are based on scientific principles. Good
> politics are based on the truth. Any effort to build a politics of
> sexual orientation without knowing what it actually is , is likely
> to run into trouble in practice.
So what do you think sexual orientation is? I don't think there is anything much to be learned about it from mucking about in the genome. I have enough personal experience to convince me it is not wired into the body like hair color or pecker length. __________
Charles: Probably a combination of heredity and environment. I know you don't think pecker length is all one or the other. Poor diet might prevent genetic potential for one length from being fulfilled.
> Charles: So to you, the whole scientific discipline of biological
> anthropology is sociobiology ?
No, and I said no such thing. I said looking for the nature of sexual orientation in genetics was pointless and stupid. And dangerous. ________
Charles: Yes, that is the idea I am getting. You believe that in this case it should just be left unknown. I suppose that is plausible, though as I say, in general it is avoiding scientific investigation that I associate with being dangerous. Why more specifically do you think this particular issue should be left uninvestigated ? And why is investigation of the biology of sexual orientation sociobiology and not biological anthropology ? Before you can say "looking for the nature of sexual orientation in genetics is pointless and stupid" doesn't one first have to investigate it and disprove any hereditary element ? Also, this started with Kelley mentioning that some gay activists wanted to establish a hereditary basis for gayness. I don't think you would say they were being stupid.
Let me return to the analogy. In the case of race and genetics, I think it would have been far more dangerous if anti-racists had responded to racists by saying it is pointless to investigate the genetics of race. By investigating the matter, the racists were rebutted. ___________
> Guess what. Human beings are an
> animal species, not bodiless spirits. The idea that human society
> has nothing to do with biology is philosophical idealism. All of
> historical materialism is rooted in the idea that all humans must
> engage in production , because they must eat, drink, sleep and
> fulfill physiological needs. That is not sociobiology. The idea
> that human beings have no biological instincts, that somehow
> history and society have obliterated them all , doesn't make
> sense. In fact, I think it is probably politically reactionary,
> given the link between philosophical idealism and reaction. The
> politically correct approach is to try to determine the true
> relationship between biology and culture, not to pretend that
> there is only the latter. And if we don't get a lot of left
> wingers involved in biological anthropology, it will be dominated
> by the right wingers.
Well that's all very nice and I, of course, didn't say anything that contradicts the above. What I said is you will not find sexual orientation wired in the genome. _________ Charles: Is that what you said ? I must have missed it. What exactly does "wired in the genome" mean ? My guess is that saying sexual orientation has no connection to the genome is saying that it is all culture and no biology.
I urge you to investigate biological anthropology in your efforts to determine what is wired in by the genome. Do you realize that a main modification of Darwinism by modern biology is to focus on differential fertility/reproductive advantage rather than the struggle for existence ? In other words, fertile sex is not just like any other trait when it comes to how we got "hard wired". In even further words, the ultimate test of the selective advantage or disadvantage of EVERY physical trait is how it impacts having fertile sex. A human being one million years ago could be the absolute best hunter and gatherer with the keenest eye sight, biggest brain, whatever, etc. etc, etc. But if they didn't have fertile sex, they were selected against, i.e. didn't contribute to the future generations' (our)"wiring".
________________
I ask again, what do you think sexual orientation is and how does that influence your politics of sexual orientation?
Charles: I say again, my guess is that it is a combination of heredity and environment. Different people have different combinations resulting in their final orientation.
As far as my politics of sexual orientation, I think "homophobia" is a politically correct conception or critique. I say "heterosexism" is a very poor choice of words. In other words, I reject the political stigmatization of heterosexuality that "heterosexism" connotes. Heterosexual liberation is an important political movement, equal with the homosexual liberation movement. Use of the term "heterosexism" as a negative political label seems to be unaware or ignore or disagree with that. The "Free love" movement of the 60's continues. No one enthusiastic about the Free Love movement would pick the word "heterosexism". As far as I am concerned, opposition to heterosexual liberation is a reactionary position.
Sexual liberation is a submovement of women's liberation. The main obstacle to sexual liberation is male supremacy.
Does that answer your question ?
Charles Brown