A "true" homosexual is a Kinsey 1, a person with an exclusive same sex preference
A "true" heterosexual is a Kinsey 6, a person with an exclusive opposite sex preference.
A "true" bisexual is a Kinsey 3.5, a person indifferent between the sexes in his sexual preference.
Kinsey 2s and 3s prefer same sex partners but will opportunistically go for opposite sex ones in appropriate circumtsnaces; Kinsey 4s and 5, the other way around.
If Miles has a problem with the idea that human sexual behavior and the range of preference involves a spectrum, I'm not sure what it is. Maybe he thinks that to adopt this spectrum theory is to assume that sexual preferences go with the stereotypes about sexual bnehavior we now have, the thought that Kinsey 1s are limp wristed sissies and Kinsey sixes are Marlboro men, or something like that. Now, at the risk of opening myself to further misinterpretation, I will say that for whatever reason there is a good deal of empirical evidence that make Kinsey 1s (true same sexers) exhibit from very early on "femized" behevior and preferences even apart from sexual preference. But the whole POINT of the Kinsey spectrum, and Posner's theory, is that sexual preference, while very far from infinitely plastic, is highly contingent on a complesx of social and biological circumstance and involvesa much wider range of alternatives than people often think -- not just gay/straight/bi.
It is is an absurd caricarture of the argument to say that Posner or say that sexual preference reflects some rigidly determined stable biologically determined identity. The argument was set forth EXPRESSLY conditioned sexual preference as a complex interplay between genetic predisposition and environmental circumtance, dependent on complex historical factors like the existrence of companionate marriage.
Veneer? Bullshit. It's just that 3/4 of the left can't hear the word biology mentioned in the same context as behaviort without thinking that that it's some sort of reactionary justification for the worst aspects of the existing order. They just stop thinking and repeat Gould and Lewontin's good arguments against other targets in contexts where they don't belong. I am sorry to see Miles put himself in the "stop thinking" group.
I refrain from attritibuting to Miles the ridiculous view that biology has nothing to dow ith sex, that all genetics gives us is plumbing and that society does the rest. But this absurd notion is widely held among people who think that it is required because it is politically progressive. Pathetic.
--- Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, andie nachgeborenen concluded a
> summary
> of Posner's argument:
>
> > I should mention that Posner is theoretically a
> sexual
> > libertarian himself, who dispises anti-gay
> prejudice
> > of any variety. The long and short of his theory
> is
> > that true bisexuality exists but is likely to be
> very
> > rare.
>
> Posner's argument (at least as summarized by Justin,
> I
> haven't read the book) is an example of the
> "culture-as
> veneer" fallacy: "true sexuality" is a
> biological/genetic
> substrate, determined in the final analysis by
> evolution, and culturally learned
> ideals/values/identities
> linked to sexuality are just a thin facade that
> smooth
> the rough edges of sexual desire.
>
> Bluntly, this is a fundamental misrepresentation of
> sexual identity in human societies. Whatever
> genetic
> or biological predispositions a person may have,
> they
> can only have a sexual identity if people in their
> society construct social groups and social
> identities
> that differentiate, reinforce, celebrate, and
> derogate
> specific sexual types.
>
> For example: the assumption that sexual behavior
> reflects
> a stable, underlying, "true" sexual identity is in
> fact
> a historical and social accomplishment. Many
> societies
> do not have words/concepts that map to our idea of
> stable sexual categories at all (gay/straight/bi).
> Sure,
> people have all kinds of sexual activities, but they
> aren't expected to classify themselves as stable
> sexual
> types ("I'm straight", "I'm gay"), and so they just
> don't
> worry about coming up with what we think of as a
> stable
> sexual identity. (See Herdt, Third Sex, and
> Halpern,
> 100 years of homosexuality, for many examples.)
>
> So when we talk about whether or not "homosexuality
> is
> adaptive", we're taking something that has in fact
> been
> socially created--stable sexual identities--and
> assuming
> that human beings at all times think about sexuality
> the way
> we do. It's presentism and ethnocentrism through
> and
> through!
>
> So who is a "true" bisexual? A "true" lesbian? --A
> person
> who (a) lives in a society that includes those
> sexual
> categories, (b) accepts that sexual identity, and
> (c) is accepted
> by those around them as a member of the sexual
> identity
> group. In that sexual categories, practically
> speaking,
> are socially and historically constructed
> categories, the
> biological characteristics of the members of those
> categories are neither necessary nor sufficient
> conditions
> for inclusion in a specific sexual category group.
>
> To anticipate one response, the above argument is
> not a
> claim that "genetics has no effect on human sexual
> preferences". The twin and adoption research is
> pretty
> clear: sexual preference is influenced by genetics
> (although "homosexuality" is far from Luke's analogy
> of
> genetically inherited diseases: the concordance rate
> for
> homosexuality in identical twins is about 50%, which
> means
> that I can be a genetic clone of a gay person and
> not
> be gay myself!). However, this
> genetic research is irrelevant: regardless of
> whether or
> not people have genetic predispositions to engage in
> sexual activities with certain types of partners,
> they
> can only "truly" be gay or straight if they live in
> a society that requires people to map sexual
> activity
> to stable sexual identities.
>
> Miles
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs