![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldI concluded the last posting in this series by mentioning that there can never be a clean break with the past, and that this is true in the loaded area of sexual attraction and romance. You can't separate culture from a person and produce his (or her) true sexuality, simply because human beings are social creatures who generally define themselves in connection with the culture or cultures in which they live. You can't sandblast culture away, simply because if you do you'll end up with someone whose identity has been completely effaced.
Earlier this weekend, I was reading Bert Archer's The End of Gay again. In it, he refers to the research of one Dr. Dean Hamer, a medical researcher who has been trying to demonstrate a genetic cause for homosexuality. Hamer concluded, on the basis of his research, that there was a simple and stark divuision between heterosexuals and homosexuals, with no We can take it for granted that Dr. Hamer's questionable assertion is false. There are--I can safely attest, and not only from personal experience--plenty of people who legitimately identify themselves as bisexual. It's silly for him to equate sexuality (a very fluid area, influenced by personal experience and wider culture) with such an easily-measurable and delimited phenomenon as electricty. Besides, his methodology is hopelessly flawed anyway--his sample isn't broad enough, his evidence for the dissectees' pre-mortem sexuality is vague, and, well, it's just silly.
Let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that Hamer is right, that people who identify themselves neither as strictly heterosexual nor as strictly homosexual are--to be charitable--confused about their true nature, encoded in their genes. So what? Nature hardly has all that much to recommend it, given as how until the development o modern medical technologies you were lucky if you lived to the age of 50 and didn't die in childbirth or from tetanus caught from a rusty nail. Who cares if you're interested in people of the same gender (or opposite gender) because of your genes or because you think it'd be a cool idea? Some articles (the one and the other) from the British magazine Body Politic go on to make my point better than I can.
Hmm. I guess that this puts an end to this occasional series.
Thoughts?
Earlier this weekend, I was reading Bert Archer's The End of Gay again. In it, he refers to the research of one Dr. Dean Hamer, a medical researcher who has been trying to demonstrate a genetic cause for homosexuality. Hamer concluded, on the basis of his research, that there was a simple and stark divuision between heterosexuals and homosexuals, with no We can take it for granted that Dr. Hamer's questionable assertion is false. There are--I can safely attest, and not only from personal experience--plenty of people who legitimately identify themselves as bisexual. It's silly for him to equate sexuality (a very fluid area, influenced by personal experience and wider culture) with such an easily-measurable and delimited phenomenon as electricty. Besides, his methodology is hopelessly flawed anyway--his sample isn't broad enough, his evidence for the dissectees' pre-mortem sexuality is vague, and, well, it's just silly.
Let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that Hamer is right, that people who identify themselves neither as strictly heterosexual nor as strictly homosexual are--to be charitable--confused about their true nature, encoded in their genes. So what? Nature hardly has all that much to recommend it, given as how until the development o modern medical technologies you were lucky if you lived to the age of 50 and didn't die in childbirth or from tetanus caught from a rusty nail. Who cares if you're interested in people of the same gender (or opposite gender) because of your genes or because you think it'd be a cool idea? Some articles (the one and the other) from the British magazine Body Politic go on to make my point better than I can.
Hmm. I guess that this puts an end to this occasional series.
Thoughts?
