Archive | November, 2017

Current Controversy. Homosexual Culture vs Nature Part 1

1 Nov

I thought that a discussion about this was timely due to the current debate that is raging at the moment in Australia about same sex marriage. Due to there being a postal plebiscite on wether there should be Same Sex Marriage in Australia. I’m divided on the Issue.
I have been interested in theories about why people are homosexual for a long time. I have never told many people about this before but for along time I felt like I was a female spirit trapped in a male body.  As a teen I wasn’t really attracted to either sex. Later I was attracted to females. It was in my 20’s that I accepted who I am.  I found out later that this is called gender dysphoria. Another factor was my low testosterone levels making me more effeminate than my male peers it was many years later that i found this out if I’d known about it during my teenage years it probably would have made them more pleasant rather than the hell that I went through as a teenager due to being different to everyone else.
This personal connection has led me to look into this subject. As with all things that I look into I like to steer away from extremism. There is extremism on both sides of this debate. Anyone from within the community who questions the established narrative is treated horribly basically to pull them back into line so there are those in the community who go along just to keep the peace.
To be honest upfront the conclusion that I have reached after many years of study and based on my own personal experience with people in the LGBTIQ community.  is that there is a small percentage probably 2-3% of the population that are most likely born with a disposition to be attracted to the other sex. The rest are doing it for cultural and other reasons.
Micheal Foucault was the first historian to look into the development of sexuality. His book the History of a standard text in LGBTIQ studies.
He thought that even though Homosexuality might be a social construct that doesn’t mean that it isn’t real to the people who are experiencing it. He preferred to trace the history of how society has gotten to the stage that today,  His focus was on how western society’s views have shifted over the centuries.

What’s relatively new, is 1) the idea that our desires reveal some fundamental truth about who we are, and 2) the conviction that we have an obligation to seek out that truth and express it.

Within this framework, sex isn’t just something you do. Instead, the kind of sex you have (or want to have) becomes a symptom of something else: your sexuality. Though Foucault traces the origins of this shift back to the 16th century, our modern conceptions of sexuality really take root during the Victorian era

In the Victorian era it became an either or proposition as they sought to classify everything in society into discreet categories. Foucault argues that this way of thinking is a trap.  how do we know when to stop. how do we know that anything is in the right category. Sometimes knowledge can be a enlightening at other times it can be a trap.

A better use of our collective energy than fighting the biology vs. culture war.Is realising that changing our ideas is possible: that’s what Foucault helps us see, by showing us that our categories are not set in stone., we arrived here, and that means we can still go elsewhere—but in order to do that, we have to follow Foucault’s lead and start asking the right questions.
Social construction has moved on since the days that Foucault was writing about it.

Today the definition is a  social construct or construction concerns the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by the inhabitants of that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event. In that respect, a social construct as an idea would be widely accepted as natural by the society, but may or may not represent a reality shared by those outside the society, and would be an “invention or artifice of that society”.

A major focus of social constructionism is to uncover the ways in which individuals and groups participate in the construction of their perceived social reality. It involves looking at the ways social phenomena are developed, institutionalized, known, and made into tradition by humans.

In social constructionist terms, “taken-for-granted realities” are cultivated from “interactions between and among social agents;” furthermore, reality is not some objective truth, Rather, there can be “multiple realities that compete for truth and legitimacy.Social constructionism understands the “fundamental role of language and communication”
while this theory was being worked out . Their were other people who thought that social construction could be applied to homosexuality.
This post is already getting long so if readers want to find out more there are plenty of sources out there.

Just to finish this part. There are many aspects of  a constructed reality . it involves emotional, environmental,nutritional , physical and several other aspects. it a complex issue that unless you are willing to spend considerable time researching is hard to comprehend.

The other side of the story is that Homosexuality rather than being a constructed reality is based on biology. To me this is the easier option for those who feel this way. It require little self examination. it can be yep I was born this way and that’s it. This is a byproduct of the Victorian eras classification system that is still in effect today. Society need us to fit into a discreet box. Its easier to accept the category than to fight against it.


%d bloggers like this: