On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Kelley wrote:
> >I wrote a paper for my sociology of gender course that made many (if not
> >all) of the same points you make in this post. However, the
> >constructionists are at least as misguided as the essentialists: to discount
> >the possibility that genetic or hormonal differences have anything to do
> >with whether one becomes a homosexual is an act of faith.
>
>
> i'm curious: what social constructionists make this claim? i'm prepared to
> believe that there are a subgroup who do make these sorts of claims, but
> most of the ones i'm familiar with do not discount biological facts.
>
> kelley
>
C'mon, Kel, cut Luke some slack. Whose undergrad papers don't rely on at least one straw man argument?
Miles