So about once a year it has to happen. there is a burnning urdge in the pit of my soul which comples me to seek out one, glorious production of understanding
( Read more... )
In the books and articles i have read, there has beeb attention to the SRY gene being imcomplete in males and their is the tendancy of women who have multiple boys to tend to devoelpe defenses against the typical testoserone levels. There has been some sign of higher testosterone levels in some women but with no strong corrolation to sexual preferance... Matt Ridley's Origins of Virtue is a book which discusses it and if you look online you will find countless articles on men but extrealy few on women.
the real issuse is whether lacking scientific evidence for it should change how we think of it in moral terms.
and you not knowing of it is rather my point. its not popular data because its could cause conflict.
"the real issue is whether lacking scientific evidence for it should change how we think of it in moral terms."
It shouldn't. Just because there's no evidence of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For something as important as a morality decision, you should have as much evidence as possible before making a judgement, or simply be passive. The argument you're using is invalid by "argument from ignorance".
I still think it's really odd that there's little to no biological evidence of female homosexuality. It's common enough in nonhuman animals; and although I don't have any second hand evidence of pure homosexual females (as in no sexual attraction to males) it seems foolish to assume they don't exist when their male counterpart exists. If only I knew any homosexuals...
I couldn't find any mention of your SRY gene thing in my minutes of searching. I'll look for more later - actually, my anthropology teacher's doing something on homosexuality, maybe she could point out something.
gah...see here you are accusing me of thought patterns i am being critical of! dont you know me well enough, and realize i have an anthorpology second major going on, to not care about genetic evidence. If i thought genetics was enough to entitle someone to special designation then i'd pull out my family pedigree, show the dyslexics in it and wait for royal treatment!
SRY was mentioned extendisvly in Sex in Today's world. i may have mixxed the letters though, i might be able to bring you my reproductive bio book but its doubtful.
the whole point is that people use amoral data and try to apply it to culture in irrelavent ways! i have said that before.
Comments 6
Reply
the real issuse is whether lacking scientific evidence for it should change how we think of it in moral terms.
and you not knowing of it is rather my point. its not popular data because its could cause conflict.
Reply
It shouldn't. Just because there's no evidence of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For something as important as a morality decision, you should have as much evidence as possible before making a judgement, or simply be passive. The argument you're using is invalid by "argument from ignorance".
I still think it's really odd that there's little to no biological evidence of female homosexuality. It's common enough in nonhuman animals; and although I don't have any second hand evidence of pure homosexual females (as in no sexual attraction to males) it seems foolish to assume they don't exist when their male counterpart exists. If only I knew any homosexuals...
I couldn't find any mention of your SRY gene thing in my minutes of searching. I'll look for more later - actually, my anthropology teacher's doing something on homosexuality, maybe she could point out something.
Reply
SRY was mentioned extendisvly in Sex in Today's world. i may have mixxed the letters though, i might be able to bring you my reproductive bio book but its doubtful.
the whole point is that people use amoral data and try to apply it to culture in irrelavent ways! i have said that before.
Reply
Leave a comment