Search Box


Tuesday, January 31, 2012

The PC side of the nature/nurture debate

The actress Cynthia Nixon provoked a minor stir last week when she stated that for her, homosexuality is a choice.

She added that for many people it's not, but that those others shouldn't get to define her gayness for her.

This flies in the face of what gay activists claim: that they have no choice but to be what they are, and thus ought not to be criticized or discriminated against for a "lifestyle choice."

I agree with the gay activists. When I run across those who don't agree, I usually ask, "Could you just will yourself into a frame of mind where you wanted to suck dicks?"

They usually concede the argument at that point.

There is no one "gay gene" that has been discovered, but homosexuality does seem to be a matter of brain chemistry and hormones, with maybe a small environmental component thrown in. The vast majority of gay men seem to have just been predisposed that way from the time they were very young.

The separated twin studies seem to bear this out, with identical twins having a much more highly correlated sexuality than fraternal twins, and both having a much higher correlation than adopted siblings. These studies are pretty much irrefutable proof of the role of genes, and perhaps hormonal exposure in the womb.

Women in general do seem to have a somewhat more free-floating sexuality that can adapt to circumstance. There are women whom I can't imagine ever wanting to be with a guy. But I've seen many others who seem to turn lesbian by default, either because they don't attract men or had bad experiences with them.

In any case, the politically correct belief is that homosexuality is preordained, and that you have no choice in the matter. Genes rule.

However, if you entertain the notion that intelligence might also be genetically determined, you're considered evil. To be politically correct on this issue, you must believe that there are no 60 watt bulbs or 100 watt bulbs, merely different outlets. Your genes have nothing at all to do with your brightness. Your environment determines all.

So when it comes to IQ, you must disregard all those separated twin studies.

For those of us who try hard to be PC, it's all quite confusing.


Andrea Ostrov Letania said...

Even a straight woman can find sexual comfort with a lesbian, I suppose. The nature of lesbian sex is less aggressive than real sex or gay male sex. It's women hugging and caring for another. Real sex--male and female--is essentially the man conquering the woman. Some women may have gotten tired of that.
As for gay male sex, I can't imagine how any guy can find comfort in having his butthole ripped by some guy's penis.

John Craig said...

Andrea --
Women do tend to be more emotional and affectionate, so what you say about female-female relationships is mostly true; but I've heard that the dirty little secret of the lesbian community is that there are plenty of them who are into S&M as well. Your portrayal of "real sex" is very clear-eyed.

As far as gay guys, I think they're looking less for comfort than excitement. (I do realize you're partly joking.)

Anonymous said...

I'm so glad I found this post. I agree with gay rights too (and don't think it's a choice), but I also think that IQ and other traits such as athletic talent are largely pre-determined by nature. So I guess that makes me socially acceptable on one issue, but a really awful and racist person on another - all by thinking the same way about both issues?

One needs to practise a great deal of mental gymnastics in order to be fully PC.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
I thought you'd already read the entire blog…And yes, the dichotomy is telling. Once again, we think alike.