State sponsored genocide of gays in Uganda

[Dan74]

By using this term, it appears to me that they are in fact playing into the (quite deluded) idea that homosexuality is a phenotype somehow encoded within a person's genotype.

May all be free from suffering!

"Encoded" is certainly too strong a word, but it is a phenotype which is very likely influenced by genetic and environmental factors according to current science (or what I know of it). This is likely true for heterosexual orientation and many other distinct traits, such as extroversion/introversion, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Etiology

Do you have a different view, Pannasikkhara?

_/|\_

[zavk]

By using this term, it appears to me that they are in fact playing into the (quite deluded) idea that homosexuality is a phenotype somehow encoded within a person's genotype.

May all be free from suffering!

"Encoded" is certainly too strong a word, but it is a phenotype which is very likely influenced by genetic and environmental factors according to current science (or what I know of it). This is likely true for heterosexual orientation and many other distinct traits, such as extroversion/introversion, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Etiology

Do you have a different view, Pannasikkhara?

_/|\_

Interesting point. I shan't speak on Ven's behalf but this is how I view the issue:


I too am inclined to question any essential links between one's sexuality and genetic makeup. I'm not familiar with the specifics of current scientific research. But I won't be surprise if there are indeed correlations between sexual orientation and certain genetic characteristics. So to this extent, it is not unreasonable to speculate on the possible influence of genetic makeup on sexual orientation--but as you say, Dan, 'encode' is probably too strong a word.

It is also important to consider the influence of the other factor that you pointed out: the environmental factor or what I would call more generally, 'the context', which would include such things as cultural assumptions and social formations. Such 'aggregates' together with the aggregate of genetic makeup perhaps shape one's sexual orientation.

But for me, what I find lacking in general debates about sexual orientation is the lack of reflexivity about the influence of 'environmental factors' on the scientific explanations themselves. Genetic research may uncover certain correlations between sexual orientation and genetic makeup. However, genetic research (and science more generally) does not exist in a vacuum. It takes place within 'the environment'--which is to say, the interpretation of scientific findings cannot step outside the context within which it is conducted.

And within this context are pre-existing, deeply ingrained cultural assumptions about sexuality. The interpretation of the scientific findings cannot easily claim to be free from such assumptions which have worked their way into our everyday use of language such that it is easy to overlook them. Within this context are also existing social formations that are skewed in favour of certain gender, sexuality, or whatever. Science exists within these social formations and to this extent, the interpretation of genetic findings about sexuality will invariably be influenced by them, whether one cares to admit it or not.

I should stress that I'm not discrediting science. I just wish to point out that even the most 'objective' discoveries of science cannot be interpreted outside the contexts in which they are conducted. The law of conditionality does not stop.

I'm assuming that this has been acknowledged in some scientific disciplines themselves. But the reason I point this out here is because at the the level of general public debates, this is not acknowledged enough. Hence, people sometimes appeal to scientific evidence as 'objective proof' of someone's 'abnormality'. So they might say something like, 'Oh, it is their genetic makeup that made them like that'. But this to me simply hides the deep set prejudices that have to be addressed in tandem with scientific explanations, and with skillful means other than science.

[Paññāsikhara]

By using this term, it appears to me that they are in fact playing into the (quite deluded) idea that homosexuality is a phenotype somehow encoded within a person's genotype.

May all be free from suffering!

"Encoded" is certainly too strong a word, but it is a phenotype which is very likely influenced by genetic and environmental factors according to current science (or what I know of it). This is likely true for heterosexual orientation and many other distinct traits, such as extroversion/introversion, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Etiology

Do you have a different view, Pannasikkhara?

_/|\_

Like anything, there are a huge number of factors involved in anything.

My problem with naming it "genocide" is that it strengthens the connection between "gen-" and homosexuality, as though this was the main or only cause. When ignorant people (such as those instigating such laws in Uganda) start along that line, it is not a very far step to then claim things like "the homosexual gene", and then a simple step to genetic testing in all people, young and old, and making steps to kill those people. (Or then claims to linking these "genes" to certain other, more easily identifiable traits, such as physical features, and killing all those with such physical features.) This is somewhat akin to the Nazi use of eugenics, an attempt at genetic (= ethnic) purification. It's really, really nasty and evil stuff.

May all beings be happy and free from suffering!

[zavk]

What I've written above has been informed by wider discourses in the field of gender studies. Here's a prize-winning essay from MIT that expresses more eloquently what I've suggested.

The author demonstrates how scientist who have discovered new findings about the human sperm and ovum seem to habitually project existing cultural assumptions about male/female stereotypes into their interpretation. In doing so, the male/female stereotypes are given a 'natural' and 'innate' biological explanation, when they could (to use Buddhist lingo) perhaps be dependently originated: shaped by the interplay of various social, cultural, and political 'aggregates'.

Here's an excerpt from the essay:

It seems that the concept of opposing forces in biology, particularly as they pertain to sex, persists in science today. As the female reproductive physiology is recognized as equally active and important as the male physiology in conception, there is a shift in language, metaphor, and interpretation. Language and metaphor have shifted from descriptions of a passive, uncompetitive, dependent, and needy ovum to an aggressive, competitive, and sneaky egg. Accordingly, because researchers can no longer comfortably assume that the sperm is in control of conception and, therefore, that conception is an act of cooperation, scientists such as Birkhead now see conception as a competition. This reaction appears to be an attempt to prevent science from granting the female control at the expense of the male. The solution is to claim that there is competition as Birkhead concludes, "the battle between the sexes is an evolutionary seesaw - subtle, sophisticated and inevitable" (Birkhead, 81). The point is subtle. Why can't the new evidence about female choice indicate that the cooperation is simply more complex than was once imagined? Why do we need this misguided notion of competition between the sexes at a biological level? Again, this is a projection of social expectations and assumptions onto the cellular level.

While Birkhead has made progress on some fronts of scientific writing and the work does reflect a more conscious focus on the capabilities of the female, it contains other assumptions and beliefs that are just as dangerous. That any kind of personification at all is being attributed to these gametes indicates a lack of objectivity in science. Martin warns, "that these stereotypes are now being written in at the level of the cell constitutes a powerful move to make them seem so natural as to be beyond alteration" (Martin, 500). Science and society are historically intertwined. Keller writes, "modern science evolved in, and helped to shape, a particular social and political context" (Keller, 76). However, from a modern perspective, in a time of tremendous scientific achievement, science claims to exist independently of language and society. Ironically, the more successful science is, the more the public trusts its infallibility. The successes of modern science are interpreted as the unimpeachability of the objectivity upon which it rests. The result is that "scientists are probably less reflective of the tacit assumptions that guide their reasoning than any other intellectuals of the modern age" (Keller, 82). Yet, it is only by recognizing and questioning the forces that influence science that we can discover the truth about the world.

Beyond improving the tool of science for the sake of science, raising awareness and enacting change will result in enormous social and political transformation. Only by modifying the way in which people uncover the "facts" about gender, race, and class can humanity hope to achieve equality in these areas. Therefore, it is critical that inquiring scholars and scientists question the motivations of science and its relationship with society.

EDIT: here's the url: http://web.mit.edu/wgs/prize/as03.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dan74]

Indeed a very dangerous line of reasoning which may well re-emerge in the future.

John Glad's book while pretty moderate may be the start of a renewal of interest in eugenics.

The core notion is that the the genetic make up of the species can and should be improved, with intelligence chosen as the "uncontroversial" example of what should be improved.

http://www.amazon.com/Future-Human-Evol ... 1557791546

and a review (not so great, but makes some important points):

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... 1/PDFSTART

_/|\_

[Paññāsikhara]

And, on the other hand, those American christian leaders who have been connected (in one way or another) with Uganda recently, instead often seem to be claiming that homosexuality is a "learned" thing, and that people can thus be "trained" out of it. In this vein, note too that the Ugandan groups behind this claim to be afraid of the "West" "importing" homosexuality into their country and culture. Now, assuming that they don't mean having western homosexuals come to somehow transmit their "genes", it appears that they mean "homosexual culture" transmitted through the media, arts, etc.

So, there are two interesting issues going on here, on the level of "views". Those persecuting homosexuals taking a position that it is somehow only "learned" (= environment), whereas those defending them that it is "gen-" related.

I hope it doesn't appear that I'm dragging this thread off-topic with these thoughts, but I very strongly believe that bottom line "views" about how things work and happen is extremely important. Often, changing these views will effect downstream behavior. Treat the source.

[Dan74]

Yes, there are those views but whichever way the science points, it can be twisted to fit the agenda to fight the "enemies" out there.

This is only my take, but perhaps the bottom-line view is an us-versus-them mentality which according to one interpretation, essentially projects any mechanism in the psyche perceived as threatening onto an external "object". So simplistically if I am afraid of my own sexual tendencies, I will hate the perverts out there. if I am afraid of some cruel thoughts that seem to surface, I may become an extreme animal rights campaigner. Easier to fight the battle with the external enemies than face those within, or so the logic goes.

Going even deeper, we find our old "bosom-buddy" reification -> division, conflict.

On the other hand, lost of nastiness can be learnt from pop culture and as a parent, I worry about my kids exposure to it. I recall coming to the West when I was 13 and discovering a kind of a "Realm of Gratification." Sure people have plenty of desire everywhere, but back in the USSR there just wasn't much gratification to be found in consumerism (unless you like queues). And suddenly you could find all your material fantasies in some shop, your sexual fantasies (and many more you never even thought of) in a video library and big posters and commercials creating ever new ones. It had an impact and I hope my kids have more insight and inner strength to develop antibodies to these things as they become more and more exposed to them.

The point is that a lot of traditional cultures probably do perceive a threat of western consumerist-driven pop culture. Perhaps muslim fundamentalism could be partly seen as a reaction to this, I am not sure. To what extent this has motivated the Uganda situation is also unclear to me. I do think some intellectuals in Russia played on the so-called degradation of the West, to foster a pan-Russian nationalism and promote what they see as a pure Russian culture.

[BubbaBuddhist]

Yes, "The Family," The group behind both these prayer breakfasts and the death-to-gays bill is a world-encompassing open modern Illuminati type organization that when I first heard of them I thought "conspiracy theory," but they actually exist. A "secret society" that operates out in the open, in full view, with an open agenda of taking over the world and they don't care that everyone knows it because it's sanctioned by God and it's for "the greater good."

Google them if you never heard of them, and be amazed as I was when I began to learn about them. Reading the book even as we speak.

J

[christopher:::]

Please join me in raising awareness of the situation in Uganda. Write to your representatives and ministers/secretaries for foreign affairs and media outlets.
kind regards

Ben

Rachel Maddow on MNBC has been following this pretty closely with a segment called "Uganda Be Kidding Me"....

phpBB .

AND it appears that the media attention (as well as behind the scenes political pressure) has had "some" effect. The Anti-Gay bill no longer calls for the execution of homosexuals....

phpBB .

[Ben]

Thanks Christopher for posting that.
That was an interesting interview.

Its still barbaric to lock gays up for life because they're gay.
Poisonous christian fundamentalism.
kind regards

Ben