So if only a minority of people do something, we should disapprove of that thing? Should companies pull adverts that show people who are left handed because they’re not the majority? They could choose to write with their right hands, after all.

Tyranny by the majority is not a moral compass.

I’m teasing, yes, but only because the metaphor matches both sides of the nature/nuture question - could this be something to do with geographic adaptation, or a magnified result of dispersal away from the centre(s) of accumulated property in a capitalist society?

Being a trend-watcher (but not a dedicated follower of fashion) I’m constantly picking up on stories which hint at how general moods evolve, such as how changes in society affect our tastes.

There seems to be some sense that progress towards gender equality leads to closer levels of cultural repreesntation in pay, politics and family roles simultaneously with divergent attitudes towards what counts as an (un)appealing body image, presentational and communicational style and sexual roles in direct mirror-image. As progress occurs at an uneven rate across the population it is inevitable that the mismatch between the changes and the way we understand and cope with those changes at individual level causes friction when we come into contact with different people.

I read, for example, in a random article that one reason Chinese authorities are more willing to investigate relaxing their official attitude towards homosexuality and whether to provide centrally organised encouragement and support for homosexuals was as a foresighted ‘enlightened’ response to the demographic challenges which face their urbanising society - not only is there a numerical disparity between the genders in different regions, but this may assist their desire for population control, while satisfying the physical needs of couples who spend long periods apart due to working requirements without leading to the ‘dishonour’ of family breakdowns due to exposure of repressed sexuality and infidelity (either hetero or homosexually).

Another raft of Chinese think tanks are apparently consulting on how similar policy reversals can be managed without damaging the existing power structures and with the knock-on effect on social order and stability. What level of social infrastructure should be provided with central support to these ends, and would there be widespread popular support for usage of tax funds, or should private underground networks be allowed to come overground and how should they be regulated?

It made me blink because it was implicit that there was a belief that something as personal as sexuality can be finitely influenced by central policy, which it the opposite of the evidence Lee cites and is gaining sway in the western hemisphere.

Add to this the different attitudes and justifed from Thailand to Nigeria to Iran or Brazil and it’s easy to see there is a full spectrum of examples available in all their diversity. So again one has to ask at this level whether the difference is to do with ‘culture’ or ‘race’, and whether it is healthy for the state of global debate (such as it is) to intervene in managing the balance.

Sometimes its better not to start something you don’t know how to stop (which, I’m guessing was the thought of Mr Heinz before their brand manager thought this scheme up).

To be semi-serious, I see gender as partially biologically determined, and partially a matter of, for want of a better word, choice. I don’t think people’s genitals or sexuality should fit them into boxes. I don’t think “because you are x or look like y or prefer to z, we must treat you in a particular way” is EVER the right way to go, and that’s why I get antsy about studies that say women prefer X, because mostly they involve a HUGE wide bell curve of data for both women and men and I tend to fit better in the male one.

Oh god no, and if I’ve given that impression I’m sorry as that’s not what I intended. I was merely stating that anything that gives the liberal stance ammo against those that claim things like homosexuality are just choices, absolutely and completely freely made, is a good thing.

…didn’t mean to infringe on anyone’s territory - this is a thread about a bit of give and take, right? So, I’m just asking which way Jennie swings on the validity of gender mentality tests and whether culture can override the growing academic orthodoxy (in a light-hearted way).

*apologises to Lynne and promises to behave*

So that is where I think we should be careful.

But then, as I have mentioned in this sort of debate before, every test bar the “what genitals do you have” one pegs me as male, so…

I see some stark and easy dividing lines between natural and artificial states, as well as between public and private arenas.

For example on sexuality, I think it important to allow children to mature into the person they become without being forced to parade themselves against their free will and without being forced to accept a received view of who or what they should be, and just as with the discrimination debate both positive and negative impositions should be avoided.

Didn’t we all enjoy our personal journeys of discovery? Or are we all so hard-bitten and emotionally repressed nowadays that we can no longer find joy in willing experimentation within our imaginative boundaries?

I don’t think it is possible to fail to notice difference, but it is healthier to be secure enough to have no need to draw attention to whatever that is.

I would think the right way to go about this would be to, hopefully with more studies, know once and for all that you are essentially born with little to no choice of your sexuality and to continue using the same arguments liberals have been using for centuries…that it doesn’t matter how different we all are we’re all people. If we start trying to say we should be careful of deterministic studies lest they give ammunition to the bigots in society then we’ve a) missed the point that they’ll be bigots one way or another and b) that the right argument to have with people is about diversity being a positive thing for all.

But enough about that :P

*Squirms involuntarily*

I wasn’t sure how to put it, and while reading Sunny’s fight-picking with Rod Liddle I was tempted to raise race as a similar example where eugenic arguments are made, but thought better of it.

What happens if a brain scan is made on a person who’s never had a homosexual experience, but is shown that they *are* (or vice versa)?

My worry is that there is a politicised element to any research which results in *proving* determinism one way or the other in order to justify the existence of specific groups and their actions (by which I mean to equate the celebratory positive and repressive negative responses to such private issues).