[lbo-talk] dixor

Miike Quenling Ellis flagrant_sake at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 7 09:25:52 PDT 2003


--- andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike, there cannot be "more evidence" for one rather
> than another nonsensical proposition. The whole
> distinction is bogus. That is my point. Even if there
> isa "gay gene," a single gene such that all and only
> gays have it, it still doesn't show that
> "essentialism" or biological determinism is treue and
> social constructionism is false. Both views are false
> insofar as they make sense at all.
>
> Any gay or other genes manifest themselves only in
> environmental contexts.

isn't manifesting and existing two totally different things? can't genes exist and not manifest themselves in any environment? it's not nonsensical to say observe 2 organisms with no biological difference (on the genetic level) exhibiting totally different behaviors and conclude the variation is not due to biological difference and if there's no biological difference then it can't influence behavior. just like black holes can't exert gravitation influence on objects if they don't exist. if it is nonsensical you haven't explained it properly...... physics would be dead if physicist just concluded since all objects have mass you can't make any conclusions about why some objects with mass behave differently because it's dependant on having mass.


> It may be (though we do not
> know) that some people are predisposed by their
> genetics to be homosexual or to erngage on homosexual
> behavior in some circumstances, or in most
> circu,stances, or in most attainable circumstances.
> But if it is true, that is all there to be said. The
> conclusionm would nor refute social constructionism,
> insofar as anything could, because reference to the
> the social environment is ineliminable as long as you
> are talking about sexual behavior involving more than
> one person at all.

well you could isolate a person and see if say that person has a preference for say male goats or female goats. or raise a kid in total social isolation and see if it starts assigning gender roles to inanimate object and starts to pursue those objects sexually based on the gender it assigned to them. of course i'm being very silly but one could conclude from that exactly what behavior was biological or not..... obviously the kid will still exhibit some capacity for language but will it exhibit any capacity for sexual preference apart from say rubbing up against things in general? (i am ashamed of what i am saying).


> And if sexual behavior is very susceptible to change
> depending of the environment, that would not mean that
> the biological contribution is immaterial. For one
> thing we are talking about sexual behavior, which is
> biological whatever it is. It is literally incoherent
> to say that sex could be 100% socially constructed. We
> are talking about what biological organisms do with
> biological organs.

no one is saying 'sex' but 'sexual preference'....of course sexual desire is got to be innate but desire to have sex with what or whom and how is a totally different matter.


> I do get tired of having to say this again and and
> again. It's not so hard, or shouldn;t be. But it is.
> And yet this is really elementary biology.

i'm sorry but gene and behavioral variation is not elementary biology. the intracacies of evolution (especial social) isn't elementary biology either.

~M.E.

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list