Innateness

On innateness

Since people who condemn homosexuality people hold that it is not innate, I would like to point out that there is research suggests that conservatism is innate

I want to write on innateness because it is an interesting topic whose discussion requires at least some subtlety and because of its ‘political’ implications. Some moralizers argue that homosexuality is not innate and, therefore, homosexuals can change their behavior—implying, of course, that the behavior should be changed. Others become upset with the non-innateness argument—also for political reasons

In my opinion, the arguments on both sides are beside the point. If you are for human freedom, you are tolerant toward homosexuality even if the thought makes you personally sick. An elaborate argument could follow and I started off by writing a long paragraph but I think, in the end, your position is a product of your feelings—I won’t call them prejudices—and your degree of tolerance

What about homosexuality in the military? Someone argues that discipline would break down. Another person argues that the Greeks and Romans practiced homosexuality and that their military prowess didn’t seem to suffer for it. Another elaborate argument could follow. However, I will say only a few words on the topic. Societies are complex arrangements and even if it is true that ancient homosexuality didn’t affect ancient military prowess, the conclusion does not necessarily transfer to the modern world… The argument regarding discipline is suspect. Military leadership is by nature conservative. An example is that in the late nineteenth century military leadership was fearful that the repeating rifle would give the infantryman a degree of freedom that would lead to breakdown of discipline… Again, I imagine that argument and political stances reduce, significantly, to individual and group—peer—preference

Now that I’ve summarily disposed of the political dimension of the innateness of homosexuality, the issue doesn’t seem quite as charged. That means, I hope, I won’t have to go through intellectual contortions since I won’t feel compelled to prove anything except what I see or uncover as true

What does it mean when something is said to be innate. I imagine that many people will respond that innateness and determination by genetic makeup are identical. However, there are numerous factors—before and after birth—that determine development. Although the causes of transsexualism are debated, it appears to have some biological basis that is extra-genetic, e.g. the uterine environment which may be affected by unknown factors as well as by hormone therapy that the mother may undergo while pregnant. What is interesting is that the outcome appears to be irreversible and based in biology and may therefore be labeled innate

I imagine that homosexuality is developmentally innate for some people—some are apparently gay even before they know what ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘sexual preference’ mean. Here, sexual orientation appears to be similar to innate transsexualism. For other people, no doubt sexual preference involves choice; in some environments it’s considered to be ‘in.’ Then there is situational sexual preference in which one’s behavior is determined by social context, e.g. heterosexual in general social circles but homosexual in same sex environments such as the military and boarding schools—and, perhaps, omnisexual in permissive environments

After enough frustration, one may become zerosexual. I’m not aware of any studies on zerosexuality but I have acquaintances who are zerosexuals. One of them claims to have never had a sexual feeling. I believe that there are many zerosexuals or near-zerosexuals who pretend to sexuality because of the unspoken stigma attached to zerosexuality

Is the development of personality innate? This is a topic that has therapeutic and political dimensions in psychiatry. Some therapists believe that individuals with maladaptive behavior have a choice in their behavior. This is not altogether obvious. If you have worked in psychiatry, you will have encountered the enormously self-destructive behavior of some personality disordered individuals. It seems clear that something other than choosing is going on. One thing that seems to occur may be labeled ‘emotional dysregulation.’ In antisocial behavior there appears to be a deficit of feeling toward others. In self-destructive behavior there is extreme self-directed distress in certain situations. Certainly extreme emotional reactivity does not imply absence of choice in action. The therapy of such persons must involve learning emotional regulation, learning the possibility of choice which may have been a developmental omission, cultivating healthy choice, and the opportunity to develop these functions in actual living situations. Regarding the issue of choice, I invite the skeptic who is suspicious of a lack of choice and who would hypothesize a manipulative but otherwise normal psyche to imagine the following experiment. I address this to the skeptic. Imagine the greatest emotional distress that you have felt. Imagine that every time you entered into the minutest conflict with someone you felt that extreme level of distress, embarrassment, shame and so on, then two times that distress, then three times… Remind youself that research has indicated that emotional range is not the same for all individuals and some possess it in the extreme. Ask yourself whether there would come a point when you would seek disengagement from interaction with others and seek solace in self-destructive behavior—to divert your attention from your extreme pain—recognizing, for purposes of the experiment, that as part of your inadequate development you had not acquired the normal skills to enable you to cope with distress, i.e., that you were developmentally five years old…

I guess that you might imagine that I’m for tolerance—even for some behaviors that result in us all paying a price. The price of the reverse attitude is the loss of personal freedom that is such a high value for many of the intolerant. But I think almost everyone agrees with my position—in some way. In America, there are about 50,000 traffic deaths a year—roughly as many as the number of American casualties in the Vietnam War and many times more than the number of American casualties in Iraq. The—US—National Highway Safety Administration estimates that about 40% of US traffic deaths are drug and alcohol ‘related.’ There are critics who say the figure of 40% is inflated as a result of the interpretation of ‘related’ being extremely liberal; however, since a lower value would strengthen my argument, let’s go along with the figure of 40%. That means that about 30,000 Americans—(100 - 40) % of 50,000—die every year for the freedom of driving and mostly for the freedom of driving at high speeds. That’s a price that we are willing to pay for the freedom of the highway (and of course for the auto-driven economy)

There’s a problem with extreme positions. I’m generally for tolerance—it’s easy because the world has become less tolerant since I was a youth. But there are limits to tolerance—especially when it comes to grossly harmful behavior. You may turn the other cheek but if someone gouged out your left eye would you offer the other eye? Even in setting limits though, there is a choice in the spirit in which it is done—one can be vengeful or one can set limits because it is necessary, even right; and ‘what is right’ is always open to question even if its application is irrevocable in the specific instance