Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> 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.
Indeed. And the falsity of a "biolgoical root" (or any other single "root") is so obvious that it seems to me the more interesting question is to give a social/historical analysis of the _reasons_ so many intelligent people cannot see the goofiness.
This inability is ultimately itself rooted in the abstract individualism basic to capitalist culture, but is it possible to give a more concrete (and less tautological) account?
Carrol