[Reader-list] invitation to talk on lesbian and gay rights

[V NR]

There is no biological argument in the first place; it is a place
holder for all pet hypotheses one want to defend: it is a sign of
intellectual dishonesty. Just a presence of some or another heuristic
is not an explanation either.  What is needed: not say-so
explanations, but an explanation that uses some concrete genetic
mechanism, etc. Otherwise, we can answer in similar fashion the
question why we, not others, are on this list: oh, some genes!

Best,
Reddy, V.



On 2/28/06, Aarti <aarti at sarai.net> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I am unclear on the "biological" aspects of sexual preference and so
> will not comment. Generally I am uncomfortable with biologically
> deterministic arguments because even when they are framed in this way,
> which is to use biology to support a mode of being, they seek to defend
> or counter based some idea of what is "natural". [So to those who say
> one kind of desire is "unnatural" (summed up succintly in 377 as sexual
> acts "against the order of nature", we say its genes.] Framed in this
> way it leaves little room for personal choice, agency, or even a
> consideration of how modes of being are socio-historically produced.
>
> Warmly
> Aarti
>
> Shah Jahan Bhatti wrote:
>
> > Some people are born gay and others are not, it all depends on the
> > genetical code we recieve from our parents. Who is good and who is bad
> > is a personal preference.
> >