DC
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
> Michael Pollak wrote:
>
>> Original Skin
>> Blacks, gays, and immutability.
>>
>> By William Saletan
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> From prenatal hormones to genetics to birth order, scientists have
>> been
>> sifting data to nail down homosexuality's biological origins. As they
>> advance, it will become easier and easier to persuade African-Americans
>> that being gay is a lot like being black. The lesson of Proposition 8
>> isn't that blacks have stopped the march of gay rights. The lesson is
>> that when they turn, the fight in blue America will essentially be
>> over.
>>
> Ah yes, the Chomskian "Lecture them about the facts until they get it"
> strategy. At least three problems here.
>
> 1. The scientific data do not support the claim that sexual orientation is
> a "genetic condition". I've mentioned the monozygotic twin research before:
> the concordance rate for homosexuality in MZ twins is about 50%. Thus I can
> have the same genotype as my brother or sister even though one of us is gay
> and the other straight. As with most psychological characteristics, sexual
> identity is the product of a complex interaction of genetic and
> environmental factors.
> 2. Political activism and support for political causes are not predicated
> on biological research. Did we need scientific research in the 1950s
> demonstrating that people are "born black" to garner support for the civil
> rights movement? Blacks don't deserve equal rights because of their genetic
> characteristics; they deserve equal rights because they're people. --And
> just so for gays and lesbians. What's next--the right of political
> expression is only available to those who can document that they were "born"
> with a certain political orientation?
> 3. The notion that race is biological is itself drawn into question by
> population geneticists and anthropologists. There is more genetic variation
> within the group we socially identify as "African" than there is between
> "Africans" and "whites". Moreover, there are dramatic cultural differences
> in the social definition of race (in one society, people with somewhat
> different skin tones will be considered the same race, and in other
> societies they will be considered different races). There is nothing
> natural and necessary about the specific racial categories our society (or
> any society!) uses. Given that race is a social construct rather than a
> biological one, it turns out that the analogy between sexual identity and
> racial identity is apt.
>
> Miles
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>