Some questions about sexual preferance [Archive]

keith123

11-20-2006, 12:09 PM

stu, i really don't think you are a bigot or anything, but before you make some possibly controversial posts (refering to other ones, not this), you should probably have this sort of stuff sorted out in your head.

gender is a much broader than sexual instinct, however sexual instinct is not seperate from gender anymore than sexual organs, testosterone levels, and other natural gravitations/instincts that we might call preferences. the fact that one part of your body develops abnormally, opposite from your gender, does not make you a different gender. when the physical body is of a particular gender, but all brain instincts are that of the opposite gender, then terms like transgendered or gender-identity are used. transgendered people commonly desire to have their body changed to match the gender of their brain, and feel like that will solve their gender issues. homosexuals have no desire to change their bodies, because their brains are of the same gender as their bodies, except for their sexual instinct.

madnak

11-20-2006, 02:42 PM

Gender is fluid; sex is not. As gender is fluid, sexual preference doesn't define it. As sex is biological, sexual preference can't define it. At any rate, a gay man is a man and a gay woman is a woman.

I guess what you're trying to say is that our acceptance of homosexuality undermines "traditional" gender roles? Sure, maybe. Good riddance.

hmkpoker

11-20-2006, 02:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I guess what you're trying to say is that our acceptance of homosexuality undermines "traditional" gender roles? Sure, maybe. Good riddance.

[/ QUOTE ]

keith123

11-20-2006, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Gender is fluid; sex is not. As gender is fluid, sexual preference doesn't define it. As sex is biological, sexual preference can't define it. At any rate, a gay man is a man and a gay woman is a woman.

I guess what you're trying to say is that our acceptance of homosexuality undermines "traditional" gender roles? Sure, maybe. Good riddance.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, gender roles is a little bit of a different subject. the sexual instinct to have sex with a women is no more or less a male "gender role" than is having a penis. gender is the biological cause of the instinct to have sex with a particular gender, as it the cause of having certain body parts. gender roles usually refers to societial roles, not biological ones.

Stu Pidasso

11-20-2006, 04:36 PM

Hi Keith

American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines gender as:

1. The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy.

2. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.

Stu

keith123

11-20-2006, 04:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Keith

American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines gender as:

1. The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy.

2. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture

[/ QUOTE ]

is that supposed to support what i said or refute it?

madnak

11-20-2006, 09:45 PM

Attraction is much less biological than you think, and even to the extent that it is biological it's much less related to biological gender than you think.

Stu Pidasso

11-20-2006, 10:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what you're trying to say is that our acceptance of homosexuality undermines "traditional" gender roles? Sure, maybe. Good riddance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is "good" about the elimination of "traditional" gender roles?

Stu

hmkpoker

11-20-2006, 10:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly is "good" about the elimination of stereotypes?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Should be self-explanatory. I'd love what's so valuable about those stereotypes in the first place.

arahant

11-20-2006, 10:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What exactly is "good" about the elimination of stereotypes?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Should be self-explanatory. I'd love what's so valuable about those stereotypes in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

heh...for some reason i thought you were saying 'good riddance' to stu.

This is the first time i've met stu. I'm looking forward to a stupid debate that isn't about god (yet).

Though of course, stu doesn't want to debate. He just wants to know if sexual 'preferance' is a gender...hehe

Rduke55

11-21-2006, 10:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Attraction is much less biological than you think, and even to the extent that it is biological it's much less related to biological gender than you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd phrase this more along the lines that attraction is more biological than many people think but less related to biological gender than Stu thinks.

Unless I'm mistaking what you are referring to by "biological" in the first instance

PLOlover

11-21-2006, 10:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If not then why do we treat it like a gender? What effect does treating it like a gender have on our society/culture?

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to undermine the moral fabric of the country, in furtherance of global communism.

madnak

11-21-2006, 10:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Attraction is much less biological than you think, and even to the extent that it is biological it's much less related to biological gender than you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd phrase this more along the lines that attraction is more biological than many people think but less related to biological gender than Stu thinks.

Unless I'm mistaking what you are referring to by "biological" in the first instance

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying the attributes people are attracted to have a lot to do with conditioning and environmental factors.

Stu Pidasso

11-21-2006, 11:35 AM

Hi hmkpoker

[ QUOTE ]
Should be self-explanatory. I'd love what's so valuable about those stereotypes in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

We were discussing Gender roles not stereotypes.

I suppose you could be suggesting there should be no gender roles. That fathers of newborns be given hormone shots so they can lactate becuase God forbid there be different roles for men of the human species than women.

Stu

Rduke55

11-21-2006, 12:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Attraction is much less biological than you think, and even to the extent that it is biological it's much less related to biological gender than you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd phrase this more along the lines that attraction is more biological than many people think but less related to biological gender than Stu thinks.

Unless I'm mistaking what you are referring to by "biological" in the first instance

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying the attributes people are attracted to have a lot to do with conditioning and environmental factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, then we disagree on that.
What kind of conditioning and environmental factors are you talking about?

samsonite2100

11-21-2006, 02:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is it a gender?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
If not then why do we treat it like a gender?

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't.

[ QUOTE ]
What effect does treating it like a gender have on our society/culture?

[/ QUOTE ]

None, since we don't.

revots33

11-21-2006, 04:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If not then why do we treat it like a gender?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not understanding what you mean by this.

hmkpoker

11-21-2006, 06:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I suppose you could be suggesting there should be no gender roles.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love for you to demonstrate what value gender roles have.

[ QUOTE ]
That fathers of newborns be given hormone shots so they can lactate becuase God forbid there be different roles for men of the human species than women.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they actually want to have the hormone injections, sure, why not?

madnak

11-21-2006, 07:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Attraction is much less biological than you think, and even to the extent that it is biological it's much less related to biological gender than you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd phrase this more along the lines that attraction is more biological than many people think but less related to biological gender than Stu thinks.

Unless I'm mistaking what you are referring to by "biological" in the first instance

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying the attributes people are attracted to have a lot to do with conditioning and environmental factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, then we disagree on that.
What kind of conditioning and environmental factors are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

To some extent I can only speculate. However, there are some clear trends. Cultural norms very clearly affect perceived desirability - in many cultures "hot" women have been chubby, in ours they're waifish. Did humans just "evolve" to like skinnier women, or was culture a factor? And then life experience can affect mating habits - there are behavioral patterns related to mate selection that can be observed in people who've been traumatized at a young age, for example.

I believe that if I were to raise a child in a certain environment, I could easily manage to get them into some fetish or other, and I could certainly restrict their interest in some specific type of partner.

And sex is extremely complicated biologically, therefore the idea that it's anywhere near as simple as "my genes make me like this kind of partner" seem absurd to me. Look at the sexual experiences sometimes reported by people who meditate, for example - are those merely "short circuits?" And I personally have the ability to see anything in a sexual light - it's an ability I've developed, and while I can't be attracted to anything I want, I can definitely view anything I want - a woman, a man, a sheep, a tree, a rock, a song, a smell, or even an idea - as a sexual object. Humans are able to apply qualities and feelings to different objects - this ranges from the child who takes her "friend" the stuffed animal everywhere with her to the crazy dude talking to his "mother" even though she's already dead. And even if we can't apply our feelings flexibly in general, we can certainly anthropomorphize literally anything.

Finally, the extreme range of fetish and sexual desires indicates that it can't possibly all be genetic. You're suggesting that there are certain proteins that code for a diaper fetish or a stocking fetish? At best such objects of interest must be interpreted symbolically.

Aaaaaaand since we're talking about attraction in general, rather than just sex, it gets even more flexible. Let's say I like computer nerds - now, how did I evolve to like computer nerds when computers didn't even exist until very recently?

I think the data we have constitute extremely compelling evidence that environment plays a large role in attraction.

keith123

11-22-2006, 01:14 AM

the problem with that whole line of reasoning is that homosexuality isn't like a fetish. it isnt as simple as finding one gender more attractive. that might be good reasoning in determining why people might want to have sex with a sheep or something, but not why a man wants to have sex with woman (or another man).

the instinct to have sex with the opposite gender is hard wired into us. some people have their wires crossed. and further (though this isn't something i've read about - so it is purely my opinion but based on biological reasoning), i believe we are hard wired with a repulsion to sex with the same gender (and the opposite would be true for homosexuals).

madnak

11-22-2006, 02:39 AM

We're "hard-wired" based on what proteins are present and in what quantities. Of course that's a bit facetious, but brain structure doesn't seem like the major factor, and it would have to be in order for what you're saying to be true.

As for the "repulsion" part, if you need to use pseudoscientific explanation to justify your homophobia, go right ahead. By the way, most gay guys appreciate the female body even if they don't want to have sex with it, and appreciation of the male body has been universal in many cultures - arguably universal in all cultures where society didn't have twisted sexual norms. The idea of the male body as "gross" is certainly a recent invention that can be clearly tied to puritan influences and Victorianism (among other factors).

Also I know there's research done by measuring blood flow to the penis given various stimuli. These are the studies that show us most guys are into 13-year-olds to some degree, and that the scent of lavender turns men on. I believe such studies fail to support your position, though I'm definitely not going to the work of digging them up (not tonight, anyhow). Rduke, where are ya buddy? You've got to know what I'm talking about.

Oh, one more thing - even if the brain is hardwired into a sexual preference, it's way more complex than "crossed wires." Even if a single gene codes for sexuality, the function of that gene (and the associated polypeptide) would have to be enormously complicated in order to work as a "male/female" switch.

tolbiny

11-22-2006, 06:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess what you're trying to say is that our acceptance of homosexuality undermines "traditional" gender roles? Sure, maybe. Good riddance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is "good" about the elimination of "traditional" gender roles?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Variety is good, not only is it the spice of life, its the basis of evolution, specilization helped build capatilsim and real wealth, and allows for a lot more people to be happy. Emily Dickenson went against the normal role of a woman when she wrote poetry, and went against traditional styles of writing, using puntation in ways few (if any) other poets did. Now many people enjoy reading her work, what exaclty is "good" about traditional gender roles?

Rduke55

11-22-2006, 10:30 AM

I misinterpreted your other post pretty badly then.
I was thinking we were still on the whole male-female attraction thing, which I say is still mostly biological.
On the details past that, I guess we agree a lot.
Sorry for the confusion.

Rduke55

11-22-2006, 10:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
We're "hard-wired" based on what proteins are present and in what quantities. Of course that's a bit facetious, but brain structure doesn't seem like the major factor, and it would have to be in order for what you're saying to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the location of and amount of those proteins are what determines the wiring up of the brain. A lot of the brain wiring is genetically determined (of course a lot of it is not - such as your stocking fetish).

[ QUOTE ]
As for the "repulsion" part, if you need to use pseudoscientific explanation to justify your homophobia, go right ahead. By the way, most gay guys appreciate the female body even if they don't want to have sex with it, and appreciation of the male body has been universal in many cultures - arguably universal in all cultures where society didn't have twisted sexual norms. The idea of the male body as "gross" is certainly a recent invention that can be clearly tied to puritan influences and Victorianism (among other factors).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am turned off by man on man action but am fine with someone who prefers it (maybe some people are opposed to my preferences). And I can appreciate the male form. I think all these are different things.

[ QUOTE ]
Also I know there's research done by measuring blood flow to the penis given various stimuli. These are the studies that show us most guys are into 13-year-olds to some degree, and that the scent of lavender turns men on. I believe such studies fail to support your position, though I'm definitely not going to the work of digging them up (not tonight, anyhow). Rduke, where are ya buddy? You've got to know what I'm talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know of some of those studies (the 13 yo one is new to me, although it's not surprising). I'm not sure what the other point is though so I can't tell if these are against it. (I'm not very on-the-ball the past couple of days)

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, one more thing - even if the brain is hardwired into a sexual preference, it's way more complex than "crossed wires." Even if a single gene codes for sexuality, the function of that gene (and the associated polypeptide) would have to be enormously complicated in order to work as a "male/female" switch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not neccessarily, depending on certain factors. After all, a repeating 454 base addition can radically switch mating strategies in voles and you can make male ferrets, rats, and mice act homosexually by lesioning one structure.

keith123

11-22-2006, 10:53 AM

madnak, you keep talking around the subject. i never said the male body is gross. how would you/do you feel watching two men have sex? it is a big difference, and i acknowledge that humans can overcome most repulsions if they get used to them. i am not homophobic. i am pro-gay marraige, pro-gay relationships. YOU are calling the sexual instinct to mate with the same sex a fetish. i strongly disagree with that.

your points about certain scents turning people are not disputed and have nothing to do with this argument. the idea that "most men" are on some level attracted to 13 year old (girls i assume?) wouldn't be surprising if true (since the youngest fertile women have the best chance to survive long enough to raise and protect their children in nature).

the idea that the male sexual instinct to mate (and in turn to reproduce) is just a matter of becoming horny because of random stimuli and looking for a place to put our penises is a little weak.

and obviously "crossed wires" isn't the most precise language.

madnak

11-22-2006, 11:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're "hard-wired" based on what proteins are present and in what quantities. Of course that's a bit facetious, but brain structure doesn't seem like the major factor, and it would have to be in order for what you're saying to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the location of and amount of those proteins are what determines the wiring up of the brain. A lot of the brain wiring is genetically determined (of course a lot of it is not - such as your stocking fetish).

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I said it's facetious to some degree - but where do you draw the line, and why? Are you saying your knowledge of biology indicates that gender attraction is hardwired? Moreover, even if it is, that attraction in general isn't hard-wired must be relevant to some degree, no? Imagine a man who likes women with big hands. Now imagine a man who likes hairy women. Now imagine a man with an attraction to phalluses... How far does it have to go before it's a valid attraction to the same sex that isn't hard-wired. Even if it's hard-wired most of the time, that doesn't justify categorical statements.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for the "repulsion" part, if you need to use pseudoscientific explanation to justify your homophobia, go right ahead. By the way, most gay guys appreciate the female body even if they don't want to have sex with it, and appreciation of the male body has been universal in many cultures - arguably universal in all cultures where society didn't have twisted sexual norms. The idea of the male body as "gross" is certainly a recent invention that can be clearly tied to puritan influences and Victorianism (among other factors).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am turned off by man on man action but am fine with someone who prefers it (maybe some people are opposed to my preferences). And I can appreciate the male form. I think all these are different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm turned off by man-on-man action as well, but that's a long way from saying I find it repulsive. At least it is to me, I may have misinterpreted (see below).

[ QUOTE ]
I know of some of those studies (the 13 yo one is new to me, although it's not surprising). I'm not sure what the other point is though so I can't tell if these are against it. (I'm not very on-the-ball the past couple of days)

[/ QUOTE ]

If I remember correctly, it was done in Russia. My general point is that sexuality isn't as cut-and-dried as many make it out to be.

[ QUOTE ]
Not neccessarily, depending on certain factors. After all, a repeating 454 base addition can radically switch mating strategies in voles and you can make male ferrets, rats, and mice act homosexually by lesioning one structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

But is that a simple process? I can't imagine so. There must be metabolic pathways or inhibitory feedbacks or some kinds of complex reaction chains involved. I can't see how it could possibly be an on/off "switch" so much as complexes of hormones and enzymes working in varied ways, etc.

If there is a biological justification for viewing gender and preference in black-and-white terms, then I'd love to see it. If gender isn't black-and-white, then environmental factors must play a role.

keith123

11-22-2006, 11:22 AM

even assuming gender isn't black and white (even in its most basic terms like sexual instinct and sexual organs), and enviornmental factors play a major role, then what does that say about your view of homosexuality in general? society causes homosexuality? do you deny that gender plays a role in determining sexual instinct, or is it seperate from gender entirely? if that were the case, we could expect roughly half the population to be homosexual.

madnak

11-22-2006, 11:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
madnak, you keep talking around the subject. i never said the male body is gross. how would you/do you feel watching two men have sex? it is a big difference, and i acknowledge that humans can overcome most repulsions if they get used to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Repulsion" is a strong word. At least it is in my lexicon. Moreover disgust in general is frequently conditioned. It still seems to me like you're trying to rationalize judgments, but you made it clear initially that you were only speculating so I feel no need to press this subject. To me, when a person says sex between men is "repulsive" that's very close to the old saw about how sex between men is an abomination.

[ QUOTE ]
i am not homophobic. i am pro-gay marraige, pro-gay relationships. YOU are calling the sexual instinct to mate with the same sex a fetish. i strongly disagree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never said that at all. I've said that there's a clear environmental component to attraction and that therefore it's reasonable to imagine that environmental component applies to homosexuality. I used fetishes to support my original point. Though your reaction about fetishes is certainly interesting. It's almost as if you don't consider fetishes a valid form of sexual expression - and isn't that at the very core of the issue? Gay people are fine, but keep those bisexuals, transexuals, fetishists, polys, doms and subs away from me?

I know I'm jumping to conclusions, but even if it doesn't apply to you it certainly applies to some people. They don't like the idea that homosexuality might be environmental because they have an inherent view of homosexuality as "wrong," something that needs to be "excused" or something that "isn't their fault," and a biological basis allows them to make such rationalizations. As if they need to be "excused" in the first place, or as if they have anything to be "faulted" for! And of course, such people, being driven more by popular opinion than an actual consideration of the situation, must maintain their hatred of all the other "perverts" who aren't yet accepted by society, so they use this biological basis as a criterion for judgment. I'm getting off on a tangent, but I think the issue is relevant.

[ QUOTE ]
the idea that the male sexual instinct to mate (and in turn to reproduce) is just a matter of becoming horny because of random stimuli and looking for a place to put our penises is a little weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a blatant twisting of what I have to say, but again it's very telling about your position on those who aren't afraid to express themselves sexually. Fetishists are just weirdos who get off arbitrarily - you can keep telling yourself that, but that won't make it true.

madnak

11-22-2006, 11:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
even assuming gender isn't black and white (even in its most basic terms like sexual instinct and sexual organs),

[/ QUOTE ]

And it isn't, even in that most basic physical sense. There are hermaphrodites and people with "extra" sex chromosomes, for example, who are just as deserving of sexual consideration as "normal" people.

[ QUOTE ]
and enviornmental factors play a major role, then what does that say about your view of homosexuality in general? society causes homosexuality? do you deny that gender plays a role in determining sexual instinct, or is it seperate from gender entirely? if that were the case, we could expect roughly half the population to be homosexual.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying there's an environmental component. I certainly don't deny that some people are biologically predisposed toward homosexuality, and others are predisposed toward heterosexuality.

Rduke55

11-22-2006, 11:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying your knowledge of biology indicates that gender attraction is hardwired?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, although I would like to qualify like I said before it by saying "in most cases"
Do I think that there are cases of environmentally-determined homosexuality? Sure. But I think that the overwhelming majority of gay people are born that way.

[ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly, it was done in Russia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dirty russian bastards.

[ QUOTE ]
My general point is that sexuality isn't as cut-and-dried as many make it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think people are arguing this.

[ QUOTE ]

But is that a simple process? I can't imagine so. There must be metabolic pathways or inhibitory feedbacks or some kinds of complex reaction chains involved. I can't see how it could possibly be an on/off "switch" so much as complexes of hormones and enzymes working in varied ways, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thing is, tweak one hormone and you change the entire cascade.
Look at sex (as in m/f) determination. You could say "what with all the complicated differences between males and females you would need a crapload of changes to make one into the other" but just one little change in one little gene at that expresses at the right little point in development and BAM! - you're a lady. (with lady desires - even though you have ye olde Y chromosome).
I can imagine sexual preference in the same way.

[ QUOTE ]
If gender isn't black-and-white, then environmental factors must play a role.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how much of this role is either the expression of your identity or some fine-tuning like you mentioned earlier?

madnak

11-22-2006, 11:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, although I would like to qualify like I said before it by saying "in most cases"
Do I think that there are cases of environmentally-determined homosexuality? Sure. But I think that the overwhelming majority of gay people are born that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's a big jump from "homosexuality is biological" to "homosexuality is mostly biological." I still disagree, and I think the rising population of bisexuals supports my view, but so long as you grant that genuine homosexuality can result from environmental factors I figure our disagreement has become quantitative rather than qualitative.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think people are arguing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible I'm getting all irrational and overblowing things. Ah well, keeps things lively.

[ QUOTE ]
Thing is, tweak one hormone and you change the entire cascade.
Look at sex (as in m/f) determination. You could say "what with all the complicated differences between males and females you would need a crapload of changes to make one into the other" but just one little change in one little gene at that expresses at the right little point in development and BAM! - you're a lady. (with lady desires - even though you have ye olde Y chromosome).
I can imagine sexual preference in the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but for that very reason physical sex isn't an on/off thing either. Many, many people have some characteristic that's unusal for their gender, and some have a lot of them. Because there's more than one hormone in the cascade, and the rest of the chain may also differ slightly (or dramatically in the case of a mutation), resulting in different expressions.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If gender isn't black-and-white, then environmental factors must play a role.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how much of this role is either the expression of your identity or some fine-tuning like you mentioned earlier?

[/ QUOTE ]

That question seems more existential than scientific. It's a good question, but my sexual philosophy is what most people would call "crazy" so I'm not sure I want to go into it. I think that the ability to be sexually aroused by something is an inherent advantage or talent, and in my personal measure I put bisexuals at "the top," while homosexuals and heterosexuals just "aren't that smart." I consider my heterosexuality a limitation akin to my inability to appreciate music. There's all that beauty there that I just can't see, and I would like to see it someday.

keith123

11-22-2006, 12:03 PM

ok, i'll try to respond to some of the points.

1. repulsion might be a strong word. i only mean that there is a negative biological response to homosexual acts themselves. seems to be some reasons why that might exist as well...all basically tied to the survival of the species.

2. i am fine with fetishes. it is just that it is a distinctly other subject. i am not saying they are "weirdos." we ALL have fetishes. fetishes facilitate our sexual instinct to mate. but basic instinct to have sex with a man, lets say, can't really be called a fetish, no matter which gender the person with that instinct is.

3. the hermaphrodytes argument supports what i am saying. a male is biologically "supposed" to have penis and no vagina. some males can be born with both or a deformed/useless penis. that doesn't make them a different gender, but it is clearly biological.

Rduke55

11-22-2006, 12:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that's a big jump from "homosexuality is biological" to "homosexuality is mostly biological."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not backpedalling, I said "mostly" in my earlier post.

[ QUOTE ]

Right, but for that very reason physical sex isn't an on/off thing either. Many, many people have some characteristic that's unusal for their gender, and some have a lot of them. Because there's more than one hormone in the cascade, and the rest of the chain may also differ slightly (or dramatically in the case of a mutation), resulting in different expressions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. There are a ton of ways genetics could affect your preferences.
But I was arguing against your point arguing on how complicated the changes have to be.

madnak

11-22-2006, 12:12 PM

Well, I'm saying that I think the phenotypic expression of sex-related genes may be highly variable, that is, it's not as simple as "if you have this gene you're homosexual, if you don't you're heterosexual."

keith123

11-22-2006, 12:19 PM

oh, and can it be enviornmental? yeah, but that not in the way you are thinking. they key word here is "developmental" not genetic or enviornmental. most of our physical development occurs in the womb (genes inform this development). however physical sexual development occurs within the womb and also until after puberty. there are definitely experiences people can have in formative years that can also "cross wires" on a brain chemistry level. but there isn't any social trend that will make you desire gay sex in the way you currently desire straight sex, and vice versa. there MIGHT be a social trend that makes you decide to become bisexual (i.e. to supplement your sexual instinct to have sex with women with a sexual enjoyment from males), but that would be quite a different thing from replacing that sexual instinct entirely. also it makes sense that bisexuality would increase in society when homosexuality becomes more accepted (as either the natural aversion to homosexuality is worn down by the more liberal society, OR the anti-gay societial imprinting occurs less in a liberal society). but i am not sure how many bi-sexuals feel a strong instinct to have sex with members of both sex. if they do, i would say that was biological as well, not social.

madnak

11-22-2006, 12:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
2. i am fine with fetishes. it is just that it is a distinctly other subject. i am not saying they are "weirdos." we ALL have fetishes. fetishes facilitate our sexual instinct to mate. but basic instinct to have sex with a man, lets say, can't really be called a fetish, no matter which gender the person with that instinct is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it impossible for a heterosexual guy to have a "penis fetish," then? Again, I'm generally in agreement that these are two different kinds of things. This is just to challenge your beliefs. My argument is that if most elements of attraction involve environmental factors, and homosexuality is the element of attraction under consideration, then the hypothesis that homosexuality involves environmental factors is entirely reasonable. Assuming that hypothesis hasn't been falsified, there's no reason to reject it. Arguing that it's the most likely hypothesis is harder, but since so many other elements of attraction are environmental, it's a very intuitive conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
3. the hermaphrodytes argument supports what i am saying. a male is biologically "supposed" to have penis and no vagina. some males can be born with both or a deformed/useless penis. that doesn't make them a different gender, but it is clearly biological.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a male can have a vagina and still be a male? Where do you draw the line here? Do you think you can justify static biological gender based on that? Upon what criteria would you base your evaluations then? Chromosomes? What about an XXY? Genitals? What about someone with both? And it just gets less reliable from there.

Doesn't it make more sense to conclude that gender, even biological gender, is much more aggregate and more fluid than we are accustomed to consider it? That it's a combination of characters each of which can be expressed in a variety of ways, rather than a single attribute? And that even if those expressions tend to occur according to certain patterns, that doesn't indicate that those patterns must necessarily define identity?

madnak

11-22-2006, 12:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
oh, and can it be enviornmental? yeah, but that not in the way you are thinking. they key word here is "developmental" not genetic or enviornmental. most of our physical development occurs in the womb (genes inform this development). however physical sexual development occurs within the womb and also until after puberty. there are definitely experiences people can have in formative years that can also "cross wires" on a brain chemistry level. but there isn't any social trend that will make you desire gay sex in the way you currently desire straight sex, and vice versa. there MIGHT be a social trend that makes you decide to become bisexual (i.e. to supplement your sexual instinct to have sex with women with a sexual enjoyment from males), but that would be quite a different thing from replacing that sexual instinct entirely. also it makes sense that bisexuality would increase in society when homosexuality becomes more accepted (as either the natural aversion to homosexuality is worn down by the more liberal society, OR the anti-gay societial imprinting occurs less in a liberal society). but i am not sure how many bi-sexuals feel a strong instinct to have sex with members of both sex. if they do, i would say that was biological as well, not social.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think fetishes can be developmental? If you do, then are they considered "biological" as well?

Rduke55

11-22-2006, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think you can justify static biological gender based on that? Upon what criteria would you base your evaluations then? Chromosomes? What about an XXY? Genitals? What about someone with both? And it just gets less reliable from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of my old professors always said "The reason there aren't any laws in biology is because there's always an exception." Gender is tough and certainly there are some examples that defy classification. There are XY females, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't it make more sense to conclude that gender, even biological gender, is much more aggregate and more fluid than we are accustomed to consider it? That it's a combination of characters each of which can be expressed in a variety of ways, rather than a single attribute? And that even if those expressions tend to occur according to certain patterns, that doesn't indicate that those patterns must necessarily define identity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I'm not sure we are arguing this. We are discussing biological vs. environmental.

keith123

11-22-2006, 12:46 PM

eh, i think the heterosexual with the penis fetish is the way a lot of people would like to characterize homosexuals. i know that isn't what you are saying though.

as far as males having vaginas and still being males, i would say yes. transgendered people's brains have developed entirely like that of one gender, but their bodies have developed entirely of the opposite gender. society certainly hasn't come to any consensus on this, but i know that i am a male (and i'd know it if i got magically switched into a female body). i believe the same is true for transgendered people. i know where you are going with the argument and i recognize that you have a valid point. how many developmental abnormalities can occur in an individual before we say those were in fact not abnormalities, but rather the traits we considered to have normally developed are in fact the abnormalities?

so in a sense, there could be some sort of fluidity, at least in classifying the sexes. i'd still consider a gay "male" a man though, even though he could be a woman that has a normally developed sexual instinct, but the body screwed everything else up.

madnak

11-22-2006, 12:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One of my old professors always said "The reason there aren't any laws in biology is because there's always an exception." Gender is tough and certainly there are some examples that defy classification. There are XY females, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then isn't gender an abstraction?

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I'm not sure we are arguing this. We are discussing biological vs. environmental.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking to keith with that. I don't know that there's anything more to say to you about the subject, given that you've already allowed for exceptions. I would argue the exceptions are much more common than you're making them out to be, but it seems a bit technical and it would really get tangential.

Rduke55

11-22-2006, 03:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Then isn't gender an abstraction?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how you define gender but I think that referring to biological sex, no. Are there people who can be grouped one way with certain criteria but the other way with others? Sure.
Do some people identify with the opposite sex? Sure.
But calling it an abstraction is silly IMO. Unless you're using abstraction in a way I'm not thinking you mean.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking to keith with that. I don't know that there's anything more to say to you about the subject, given that you've already allowed for exceptions. I would argue the exceptions are much more common than you're making them out to be, but it seems a bit technical and it would really get tangential.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

Are the exceptions you are talking about regarding the nature vs. nurture thing?