Should Homosexuality Be Defined?
Interestingly, I only read one study that even attempted to clearly define homosexuality in their research. Rice, Friberg and Gavrilets used Kinsey's spectrum of sexuality to define homosexuality: "By homosexuality we mean any same-sex partner preference, spanning all Kinsey scores >0 (e.g., including bisexuality).Our model of homosexuality may also apply to transsexualism, but we do not develop this application here" (Rice et al. 345). I see this as significant because of all the studies I read, even previous studies from these same authors, this was the only attempt at defining what exactly is the phenotype they are looking for.
Perhaps many of the scientists view the definition of homosexuality as a given,
or obvious group within a population, but as the definition above points out,
gray areas such as bisexuality and transsexualism pose real concerns for a
given, unstated definition. I see grounds for a rhetorical explanation to omit a
definition of homosexuality. By omitting a definition, it leaves out the
questioning of the complexities of social constructions of sexual identities.
"Homosexuality" is a neat term in a dichotomized world. Hetero--Homo. However,
in practice the term is much more complex. Not everyone who is homosexual is
strictly homosexual, or even homosexual throughout their entire lives; the same
goes for heterosexuals. By not considering the instability of the term
"homosexual" scientists can use language (and consequentially--rhetoric) that
presents homosexuality as much more concrete than it actually is. This definition omission also keeps out the political question of social influence (often pejoratively described as choice) that scientists would understandably not want to get mixed up in. However, I believe this may be part of the reason why the science of homosexuality is largely all over the map and inconclusive.
or obvious group within a population, but as the definition above points out,
gray areas such as bisexuality and transsexualism pose real concerns for a
given, unstated definition. I see grounds for a rhetorical explanation to omit a
definition of homosexuality. By omitting a definition, it leaves out the
questioning of the complexities of social constructions of sexual identities.
"Homosexuality" is a neat term in a dichotomized world. Hetero--Homo. However,
in practice the term is much more complex. Not everyone who is homosexual is
strictly homosexual, or even homosexual throughout their entire lives; the same
goes for heterosexuals. By not considering the instability of the term
"homosexual" scientists can use language (and consequentially--rhetoric) that
presents homosexuality as much more concrete than it actually is. This definition omission also keeps out the political question of social influence (often pejoratively described as choice) that scientists would understandably not want to get mixed up in. However, I believe this may be part of the reason why the science of homosexuality is largely all over the map and inconclusive.
A Lack of Sex and Gender Distinction
Another inconsistency that appears to haunt the science of homosexuality is the gap in male homosexuality and female homosexuality, let alone individuals who are intersex. The body of homosexual studies is heavily male centered, with female homosexuality residing mostly in theoretical sidenotes as opposed to comprehensive empirical studies that male homosexuality is rife with.
Conclusion
The picture I have above seems to accurately reflect the tenor of the scientific conversation regarding homosexuality. There are gaping holes in every biological theory I have put forth here, and the strange, unexplainable findings surely, at the very least explain those holes. I am also somewhat surprised that I haven't read one theory that attempts to incorporate a biopsychosocial approach that psychology utilizes quite freely to more adequately describe Nature V Nurture topics. Perhaps the paradigm of genetics won't allow that level of social play in the discussion of something so deemed genetic. I get the feeling that the biological explanation of homosexuality is on very thin ice and the epigenetic innovation in the theory is nothing short of a lifeboat.