[lbo-talk] dixor

[Kelley]

At 01:41 PM 10/6/03 -0400, Brian Siano wrote:
>Kelley wrote:
>
>>well, my pointing out that my pussy is a biological "fact" as much as 
>>brian's desire to fuck other men is a biological "fact" was playing on 
>>precisely what should trouble you when you read the statement brian 
>>originally made, to wit:
>>
>>"There seems to be no advantage to suppress people's desire.  And unlike 
>>race, gender, ethnicity, etc., sexual desire is not socailly constructed."
>>
>>he wanted to cordon off gayness as a special case. everything else is 
>>socially constructed, according to the assertion, but sexual desire is 
>>not. The problem, it seems to me, is that such an assumption 
>>fundamentally misunderstands--as Katha Pollitt seems to have done on this 
>>list a while back--what people mean when they talk about how things are 
>>"socially constructed." (see the archives. search terms katha, barbara 
>>ehrenreich, time magazine)
>
>I've read this message over and over-- and it's probably no fault of 
>Kelley's that I can't tell what's being argued here.
>
>It might help to define what "socially constructed" means. Does this term 
>apply solely to social conventions (i.e., blue for boys, pink for girls)? 
>Does it apply to social conventions which arose because they seem to work, 
>or fulfill a strong utilitarian basis (the development of paper economies, 
>the training system for physicians, the shapes of chairs)? Is it a 
>catch-all for anything that's not solely derived from the genes or the 
>brain (capacity for language, eye color, bilateral symmetry), even if we 
>have _no idea_ if it's socially "constructed" or not?
>
>Frankly, when people say that _anything_ is "socially constructed," I 
>suspect that people are simply using quasi-technical terms to look 
>sophisticated.

do you have an alternative phrase that would make it more acceptable to you?