FIVE REASONS THIS IS HORSESHIT:
1. The 'reasons' it offers up AREN'T 'reasons at all, only opinions, and opinions hugely coloured by a single, specific ideology at that.
2. Science. There IS no science. Its entire argument hinges on the idea that the body of scientific evidence that exists is there only because the scientists - ALL of them - found only what their society had somehow tacitly instructed them to look for. But of course no science is offered to back up this contrary position. The one source offered in the WHOLE THREE-THOUSAND WORD ARTICLE is a bit of pop culture fluff 'Brain Storm' - which I dimly recall getting out from the library and reading myself - that the author has ransacked for her 'arguments' here. My recollection of the book is that it does precisely the same thing: because it has no evidence of any kind whatsoever, the entirety of the book is simply spent trying to make you doubt the intentions, honesty and results of the thousands of scientists who actually DID experiments and came up with results that make her tiny brain feel uncomfortable.
The best she can manage is to say 'People like to cite “the overwhelming scientific evidence” that sexual orientation is biological in nature. But show me a study that claims to have proven this, and I will show you a flawed research design.' But of course she has no studies to prove the opposite, and cherry picks a trivial example (the length of women's fingers?) which you've never heard anyone seriously put forward as any kind of final, conclusive proof in the real world.
3. Argument from authority. This is circular thinking: 'Feminists tell us that feminism is correct because feminists tell us that feminist theory is correct'. IF you already believe the radical feminist theory that gender (along with just about everything else) is a social construct (for which, again, there is no empirical evidence) THEN what is being said here MAY make some semblance of coherent sense to you. You'll be able to follow the crazed logic, anyway. If you DON'T already believe what we say.... well then you're simply wrong. AND a bad person.
4. The assumption of a conspiracy to suppress the non-existent evidence to the contrary. Again, no reason to believe this whatsoever. The argument is purely ideological.
Couple random examples of her flawed reasoning:
a)'We may find (as Simon LeVay did) that men who identify as gay share a certain trait—a larger VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus, for instance. But how do we know that this “enlargement” is a symptom or cause of their homosexuality, and not, say, a symptom or cause of their general propensity for bravery, creativity, or rebellion? '
Well, because there are plenty of brave, creative and rebellious men out there who are not gay. That's why. Again, no evidence OF ANY KIND to the contrary is presented. The entire case for the prosecution is worthy of OJ Simson's lawyer: 'all evidence shows us that this is the case, but HOW CAN WE BE SURE? If there is ANY doubt, of ANY kind, about ANY THING, then obviously OUR version of events (for which we have no proof at all) is correct!"
b)'When young college men stick their fingers in each other’s butts while being hazed by their frat brothers, we don’t call this gay — we call this “[b]oys gone wild!” '
Um, no... I think most people would call that pretty damn gay.
5. The argument throughout is that science has found only what it was looking for and ignored or refused to believe any evidence to the contrary. But she shows no awareness of any kind that this precisely is what the entire article she has written is doing. She is, for instance offering up the argument that gender is a social construct, when that itself is an IDEOLOGICAL construct, with (once again) no actual evidence to back it up.
By her own admission, she is a girl who used to like men, went to university, got into feminism, took a women's studies class which taught her she should be repulsed by the men she previously desired and so now FOR EXPLICITLY POLITICAL REASONS is living as a lesbian(!) (go look - I'm not making this shit up).
Now, the number of people who can identify with THIS particular experience of sexuality is statistically very, very, very small, but she is insisting HER (current) experience is not only valid for her but the objective, fundamental reality for everyone else ('Don't you see it's SOCIETY that is telling you don't want to go to bed with me?!!')
The only thing this article demonstrates is how political ideology can fuck your head up and prevent you from acknowledging what is observably happening right in front of your face. It certainly would be fascinating to come back in 20 years and see how this woman is living then.
5 ½. What is most repugnant about all of this is you would think any sane, compassionate person in favour of gay rights would welcome ANY evidence that people are born gay or lesbian: you can't, after all, send your child away for electroshock treatment or off to a Christian camp to be 'made normal' again if it is widely understood that your child simply is born the way they are, the same as if they are autistic, or dyslexic or lactose intolerant or whatever the hell else.
It's perplexed me for some time why anyone would be making these arguments - they seem so backwards, cruel and nonsensical - It makes sense only when you realize this has nothing to do with gay rights at all, that the position is being argued only for political reasons: to concede any biological realities of sex would weaken and run contrary to what I guess Marxist feminists would term 'Social constructionism of gender differences' (though I confess I do not know the ins and outs of their arcane gobbledegook terminologies).
If I were gay I would find it deeply insulting to have someone tell me that I desired people of my own sex only out of personal choice, and that I could CHOOSE to be different if I only tried. Just as much as I find it insulting to be told my desire for women is societally created too.
The whole sorry business is couch-jumping crazy, and in my humblesque opinion it is only because of the aggressively maintained insanity of Marxist-derived PC culture that this kind of thinking hasn't been laughed out of every discussion of sex the past 40 years, the same as talk of succubuses and the aphrodisiacal effects of ground rhino horn.
Ye gods!
Posts
Rejecting that you're born gay is needed for the "gender is a social construct" thing. If you're born gay, then you're also born male or female, and then gender roles become normal and should be embraced - which just kills the whole feminist spirit.
ReplyDeleteHer angle is more or less that she since she is deciding her sexual preferences from the top of her head, with no biology included (I guess she could decide to be sexually attracted to train stations if she wanted), that's empirical proof that everyone else is the same, more than she being an anomaly, and that any science or proof that biology has anything to do with it is just being made up to reinforce the mainstream gender oppression.
See. If this was a discussion about racism and science was saying that blacks are born as thugs, I'd understand, or that some people are just born poor... I'd understand. I'd want to see the light coming through the cracks.
Too bad that she can choose her sexual preferences, but she didnt use her choosing power to pick dialectic over rethorics. She just doesnt make sense. She's an advocate and bad at being one.
Her audience isnt any better.
indeed, people seem to believe that the right wing is a safe alternative to feminism and liberalism. they are very mistaken.
ReplyDeletebreaking free of the paradigm is the only solution. I don't hold out much hope for that happening on a mass scale.