On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
> Women were having sex with women
> long before the word lesbian appeared. What difference does it make when
> something gets named? As the Buddha said: don't confuse the finger pointing
> at the moon with the moon.
To put it bluntly, this is a pretty naive view of language. Language/ discourse make possible and reinforce new identities and new social structures (see Foucault).
> > The desire to ground sexual practices -- especially deviant ones -- in
> > genetics is, imho, is grounded in heteronormativity.
>
> Again it is grounded in fact. Genes exist. That is not a discourse. That
> is reality (unless you believe that all reality is actually a discourse
> LOL).
I'll leave aside the fact that you discounted science as the standard of establishing fact earlier in your post, and then appeal to scientific research about genetics above. Genes exist, yes; but that does not mean that every social activity humans engage in is due to genetics (even Luke, the nascent evolutionary psychologist, doesn't buy that!). What you need is clear research evidence that specific sexual practices are determined by genetic factors and it's simply not there. Your devout wish that it is genetic is not credible evidence in favor of your claim. It doesn't matter how certain you are or how many times you repeat the claim.
Miles