You talk the lose or the unrealization of certain human things. There is nothing biologically different from a heterosexual and a homosexual in terms of biology. There can be perhaps unrealized or disadvantages like mental disabilities or being confined to a wheelchair but this doesn’t create a whole new man or a whole new world of logic.
Wow…
Perhaps consciousness allows us to comprehend & create concepts such as “sexual identity” (for without consciousness, we would have no concept of sexual or gender identity).
HOWEVER, that is a vastly different thing than saying “sexual identity is a product of consciousness”
1.) Genetics comes before consciousness (or before the brain is fully formed), I’m afraid, the moment sperm & egg get down to business & start creating a child, unless you want to argue some philosophic tangent regarding consciousness becoming before birth (this thread is already enough off-topic, though).
1a.) How do you explain pollutions effects on fish, turning them androgynous and/or changing their hormones?
Last I check, fish were not conscious, so they cannot have a state of mind.
Why do you assume that sexual identity is divorced from genetics, & comes purely from preferential / cognitive origins?
It really seems like you are more or less proposing this.
2.) How do you explain prisoners?
Does everyone who go to prison happen to be genetically pre-disposed to being homosexual?
Or is there a possible difference between sexual acts & gender identity? If you have read accounts of normally heterosexual men/women engaging in homosexual acts (but ultimately deriving no sexual pleasure / response from such acts, & going right back to heterosexual acts in accordance with their gender identity, i.e. experimentation, possible occurrences of same sex rape, etc.), would you even allow the possibility that there might be a difference between “preferences”, acts, & gender identity?
2a.) How do you define preferences that would classify someone as homosexual anyway?
Is someone homosexual for preferring tomboys instead of submissive maidens?
Female bodybuilders over skinny waifs or softer Rubensque types?
For preferring S&M over traditional sexual activity?
Why do you assume?
Saying sexuality and/or gender identity is merely preferences is throwing the debate into a massive subjective black-hole that only really serves either ignorance of genetics or a politically correct agenda, neither of which is really productive, I’m afraid.
I’d have to agree with LS that is on par offensive such as claims that there are no race, or that race doesn’t matter, and that if someone of one color tries hard enough, they can be another color!
I’m sure I could get all the surgery in the world, provided enough money, to become that blonde-haired, blue-eyed female bombshell I’m sure in some parallel universe I might’ve been destined to be, but psychologically I could never become female, nor genetically would I truly be female sans physical & chemical appearances.
I also don’t remember humans being able to change their genes in real-time into different genes, so I think that remains an impossibility, sans perhaps cloning.
Until the Transhumanist Revolution occurs, & we all become cyborgs capable of changing, re-designing, or inventing our own sexes, I’m afraid gender identity wins out over this “preferences” argument.
EDIT: Seeing as how I contributed to this thread, I will consider forking the thread accordingly to get it back on topic while preserving existing tangential discussions.
I’m actually unsure of any solid evidence that says sexuality (as in what gender you are attracted to) is genetic.
There is evidence for it (one of a few links one could find, sans a lazy link to wikipedia: http://www.scq.ubc.ca/genetics-of-sex-and-gender-identity/ ), if the study of biology isn’t evidence itself (which of course is revised continualyl per the scientific method), but it seemed that LM was throwing the idea of it altogether, which is what I oppose.
Both genetic & non-genetic means attribute to gender-identity, since environments can influence genetics (i.e. the environment of the womb to a baby, freashwater to certain fish, etc.), & genetics can influence environment (i.e. diseases, people with certain IQ’s, people with certain disorders only able to live in certain environments, etc.).
I would describe myself as a virtue ethicist, using virtue in the sense of ‘moral excellence’ and ‘efficacy’; while at the same time recalling a framework of ethical norms akin to Aristotle and Confucious; IE ethics as dealing with reality in an effective manner and taking civilization and stability over delusion and sentiment.