Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 1

message: As a philosopher, the following is very interesting to me:
:the notion that sexual identities such as 'homosexuality', 'heterosexuality' or 'bisexuality' have any objective existence, as opposed to being a social construction. 
This is supposed to be, I imagine, a radical thing to say.  But I'm not sure what it even means.  It seems to me that social constructions always, unless they are totally arbitrary (which they almost never are), grounded in some facts.  For example, the notion of homosexuality might very well be a social construction, in the simple, humble, uncontroversial (!) sense that we wouldn't have the concept of homosexuality if we hadn't invented it.  It's not an innate concept.  But it hardly follows from that that there is no objective basis on which to apply the concept.  For instance, it seems we can have a perfectly objective basis on which to notice that people are sexually attracted to members of the same sex.  (E.g., we might use hidden webcams in their bedrooms...er, scratch that thought.)  On the other hand, if Foucault's point is that homosexuality is a "social construct" in the sense that the behavior is chosen (one thinks of the radical freedom of the existentialists) and not something to which some people have a genetic, perhaps in some cases irresistible disposition, he'll be disagreeing with many scientists, or so the authors of our homosexuality say.  If neither of those are what Foucault means by saying that homosexuality (etc.) is "merely" a social concept and not "objective," then I can't figure out what he means.
Now, I don't intend to get into an argument about all this.  I just think I'm saying some pretty obvious stuff, so that I can say the following: has anyone replied to Foucault and the others who make such points as I have above?  If yes, for pity's sake, please add a reply into the article  If not, too bad.  Perhaps we could add: "Most trained philosophers in English-speaking countries pretty much ignore Foucault, however."  That would be both accurate and relevant, I imagine... --LMS
Without having read Foucault (even though I think I should) I would interpret the "social construction" as follows: society wants to neatly divide people into (bad) homosexuals and (good) heterosexuals, forcing everybody to pick their side, while in reality it's a spectrum with everybody being a little bit of both (mostly based on the people they meet and like), some more on one side than on the other. Akin to the criticism of the "race" concept I would imagine, which society wants to define but biologists can't find an objective basis for. --AxelBoldt
:I imagine (and I'm not expert) that when Foucault says that homosexuality is a social construct you should bear in mind that:
* he is not talking about same-sex attraction which, as LMS pointed out, has some evidence that may be pre-determined by a variety of factors. He is more talking about the exclusively same-sex homosexuals.
* despite being a social construct it does not necesarily follow that it is a chosen one - one may presume that you can adopt a social construct unconciously perhaps through an already existing attraction.
* he is not explicitly talking about just homosexual orientation - for Foucault exclusive heterosexuality is also a social construct.
--Axon
To elaborate on Axon's assertions, which I agree with: There seems, to me, to be a large logical disparity between homosexuality as a social construct and the way in which it actually affects our lives.  I normally wouldn't cite personal anecdotes, but this is a fairly philosophical discussion so I figured I would make an exception.  
I've had numerous discussions with (male) gay friends that were very similar to the one you are having here.  I have proposed to them that the popular definition of the word homosexual, if accurate, would constitute both an unnatural and unhealthy condition.  This popular notion is that a male homosexual is a man who is solely attracted other men, is completely unaroused by women, and thus is unable to make love to a woman.  Because procreation with a woman is an essential biological function of a man, a condition which rendered a man unable to fulfill that function would properly be considered a negative condition.
My earlier-mentioned gay friends tell me that I would be right, except that the idea that gay men are completely unaroused by women is a myth.  Most men who describe themselves as gay have had female partners at some time in their lives, and would do so again in the right circumstances, and thus the above definition is flawed. Therefore, Foucault can logically contend that homosexuality as a rigid orientation is merely social construct, and I would agree with him.   
It seems to me that the term homosexual, and its definition, which originated in clinical context, is used inappropriately in describing the people it is often used to describe.  In a way, it sometimes seems to me that the gay community and gay identity are a biproduct of convenience rather than of an actual orientation, so to speak.  In other words, it seems to me that many people who describe themselves as gay do so only because there is no alternative way to describe their sexuality, which is undoubtedly far more nuanced than the terms gay/bi/straight. 
As Axon did, I would also emphasize that even if homosexuality is a social construct, it does not logically follow that same-sex attraction is choice-based or that it is in any way detrimental. Also, I consider heterosexuality to be just as much of a construct as homosexuality, for the same reasons.--Crucio 05:49, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Initially the word homosexual had nothing to do with the sexual act, nor anything to do with other people of the same gender - a homosexual was defined as a person whose "general mental state was that of the opposite sex", which is to say, basically, a transgendered person. Otherwise, right on.  Well, maybe not the manatee part...  -Seth Mahoney 17:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Deconstruction of Homosexuality

message: What does the section title "Homosexuality in Population" convey? To me, it suggests "Homosexuality as it appears in different populations", but that is just my mind struggling to make sense out of words that are extremely murky to me. Is it possible that other people will have the same reaction and that this section title should be changed?
Patrick0Moran 04:10, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: An unanswered question