Sebastian Zearing

how to be progressive without being a stupid liberal

Tag Archives: hijras

Sexuality, androphilia, gynephilia, and gay genes

Edit 28 July 2015: This post argues that strong social pressures are the primary reason homosexuality occurs with such high frequency (vs. ~0%). Though I do not rescind the claim of social pressure affecting rates of homosexuality, I do now believe that the intrinsic noisiness involved in differentiating the androphilic brain from the gynephilic brain in the developing human is probably the greater causal factor in the high rates of homosexuality. A better treatment can be found here.

I hang out at Lion/halfsigma’s blog occasionally, and something he posted yesterday caught my eye. You can read it yourself, but the post was about Obama’s recent call to end conversion therapies for LBGT youth. I won’t comment on that topic itself, other than to note I don’t see anything wrong with governments banning unproven/disproven/known deleterious medical interventions, particularly in youth where consent is squishy. Instead, I want to comment on the responses to his post, in particular JayMan’s comment and hyperlinked post about the topic of the causes of homosexuality. I wrote a reply there, but I want to make a post for my own blog on the topic.

The first thing I want to very forcefully clarify on this topic is that sexuality is patently and obviously genetic. Whether or not you have a Y-chromosome predicts with around 93~98% accuracy whether you find women or men sexually attractive. Almost all the people that have the specifically genetic entity known as the Y-chromosome are sexually attracted to women, and almost all the people that do not have that genetic entity are sexually attracted to men.

Read more of this post

Social Constructs and Social Wrappers

Gender is a social construct, they say. And race/ethnicity. And lots of other things that most people can stare at and say, “but but… these distinctions obviously exist and are real!” And they would be right, except that they’ve failed to understand what a construct is (though that may be the fault of either intentional or unintentional obfuscation on the part of the “social construct” advocates). I think the term “social construct” leads to these kinds of misunderstandings for two reasons. One, the word “construct” itself connotes “not real” even though it definitely doesn’t denote that (here’s where the obfuscation comes from). Two, the term doesn’t imply any kind of connection to something objectively real, even though there often may be an actual connection. The term as it’s most often used should be replaced with “social wrapper.” But what is being wrapped? Well here’s a list:

Read more of this post