On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Arash wrote:
> The twin studies do show that environmental triggers come into play,
> something I never denied, but it also shows that the prerequisite genetic
> base, or "roots," has to be there to trigger. The biological factor does
> have primacy in in this sense and hence the compelling case for biological
> roots/predisposition.
No, the twin research does not provide support for this claim. To demonstrate that a genetic base "has to be there", you have to show that people who are gay are genetically distinct from people who are straight. Twin studies don't do this; in fact, these studies show us that many people can have exactly the same genetic "roots" as gays and lesbians and not be gay.
Again, this whole "biological root" language is misleading. It is clear that biology does not have "primacy" in the development of sexual orientation; if it did, identical twins--again, genetic clones!--would have very high concordance rates for sexual orientation. They don't. The evidence clearly supports the claim I've been making ad nauseam: it is just as wrong to claim that the primary influence on behavior is biology as it is to claim that the primary influence on behavior is the environment. The quicker we get past this goofy nature/nurture debate, the better.
Miles
>
> Anyway, this thread has drifted quite a ways from my response to Brian
> Dauth and I don't want to imply that advocacy for homosexual rights has to
> be based on biological evidence. The moral evidence that homosexuality is
> a freedom of expression that harms no one should more than suffice. But I
> do find Brian's suggestion (which I acknowledge he meant partly as a joke)
> of re-organizing society to reduce or eliminate a heterosexual instinct to
> rest on some bad assumptions about the potentials of socialization and I
> think the cruel futility of these conversion therapies for homosexuality,
> which are premised on similar socializations assumptions, is a testament
> to how inaccurate they are. Yes to eliminating harassment by heterosexuals
> and heterosexual privilege, but heterosexuality itself? I've illustrated
> why I think reduction through socialization isn't possible but is it really
> in any way desirable?
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>