Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
+100 indie points if you get the joke without using google.
just to make this joke?
he's got a new solo single coming out.
Gene Kelly? He was gay wasn't he?
on lesbian lizards.
is preeeeetty camp
Just depends on different people, I guess.
leather cap wearing poof & short-haired severe dyke.
For example I think there's an "eczema gene" which results from a non-hereditary point mutation.
The other way is through subtler means. For example, if there was a hereditary gene which made men gay but women more fertile then that would provide a mechanism for the gene frequency of that "gay gene" to increase in a population without requiring the gay man to breed.
(a) means nothing
(b) is down to social-psychological factors (although the pattern is not replicated with stepbrothers)
(c) is down to the mother's body trying to feminise(?) the male foetus in some way
that I couldn't tell you. But it's interesting nevertheless.
this doesn't even make sense.
As the study reported here tested for whether it could be (b):
Julie Bindel manages to completely miss the point in equating being born gay with there being a gay gene. Genetics may play a part, but it's not the only thing that might have a pre-natal effect on sexuality.
makes no sense to compare choosing to be gay with choosing to be a feminist, at all.
It makes it seem like she's made the choice to be a lesbian simply as a reason to be argumentative or sort of wind people up.
Cos of all the lesbians I know, none are man-hating, hardline feminist uber dykes.
With some it could be seen as a ''I dislike men'' in a oppressive patriarchy sense so therefore they chose other women as a sexual preference?
and about what it means that we are so invested in justifying sexuality in terms of not being 'responsible' for it (and how the born-this-way narrative gets universalised and generalised and refuses to accommodate any other version of gay experience as with that cynthia nixon nonsense)... but yeah julie bindel does not really succeed in making any of them. bonus banal points for the completely irrelevant racism comparison
You can't turn on feelings, they have to come from somewhere.
If I wasn't attracted to men I couldn't force myself to be and vice versa.
I think Cynthia Nixon is bi.
you don't generally 'choose' which foods you like and which you don't, but some things are acquired tastes that you might end up acquiring partly because you 'choose' to try to expand your tastes. similarly, you can stop liking certain foods for a range of reasons (see: people who turn veggie and end up despising the taste of meat even though they once loved it). some food preferences are probably a simple, fixed fact of biology, others are more flexible, and these things probably vary from person to person. regardless of all that, if you are someone who experiences particular food likes/dislikes as inherent and unlikely to ever change no matter how much you try, nobody would argue that you have a moral obligation to make an effort to change them, because food tastes are morally neutral (leaving aside the meat issue which just muddies the analogy oh god i am so bad at bad analogies) and it really doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not they are biologically innate
it's less an issue of 'choice' as such than about why we tend to insist on thinking about these things in binary absolutes: either you ARE this way or you AREN'T forever and always no backsies. for some people sexuality is not as straightforward as that. for others it is, and both of those things should be fine regardless of how much choice or lack of choice is involved. if cynthia nixon used to fancy men but doesn't fancy men anymore (regardless of whether *you personally* feel that you could never stop fancying men) why shouldn't she be entitled to call herself gay?
You've picked up on something in my post that wasn't there.
I wasn't saying 'she's not gay, she's bi' I was just saying I think she is bi. Sexuality is fluid. Has she actually said she doesn't fancy men anymore?
What I was trying to say was that I don't think she didn't wake up one day and say I CHOOSE to fancy women from now on, she didn't CHOOSE to fall in love with the woman she is with but she did fall in love with her.
Urgh, I'm rubbish at explaining what I mean and I have to leave to catch my train in a minute.
You can't choose to be gay anymore than you can choose not to be gay.
but the fact that she has chosen to identify as gay rather than bi suggests that attraction to men is no longer something she considers an important or fundamental part of her sexuality, and i don't see a problem with accepting that. most of us are happy to accept that some people who identify as 'straight' may not have experienced their desire as 100% straight and only straight throughout their entire lives, but they're still entitled to call themselves straight if they feel that best describes their sexuality as a whole. most of us accept the reality that most people probably fall somewhere on a spectrum of sexuality rather than into one of three absolute static categories, and that some people's sexuality is more flexible than others, and that the absolute categories do not perfectly describe most of our experiences of desire but should nevertheless be available to those who want them. and i feel like the idea that some people *can* exercise some degree of 'choice' over their sexuality is only threatening if you don't simply reject the absurd morality that says if you CAN choose to be straight you SHOULD. i think that rejecting that morality loudly and unequivocally is more important than relentlessly campaigning on grounds that start to sound like 'we just can't help being this way! it's not our fault!', because even if these things are *true* for most people, it's morally irrelevant. i think there's a power in saying 'well, i could have chosen to be straight, but i chose not to be, because fuck your absurd morality'. and saying that still leaves room for the fact that many, many people - probably most people - don't experience their sexuality as flexible or subject to choice, but as innate and unchangeable. that's a simple fact, and it doesn't need a gene or a brain scan to validate it. if we're willing to accept that at face value as a majority experience, there's no reason to get so utterly defensive against people who make claim to a different one
how i've missed ya
I really, really over simplify when I'm online. Laziness, you see.
which is fairly obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of human genetics.
You got from listening to a brickie down the Nags' Head
You're not going to go all Lolpop and be serious about this are you?
People will still be able to see it as some sort of aberration, albeit a natural aberration not a moral one.