From: "Marcus Strom" <MSTROM-AT-nswtf.org.au>
Date:          Tue, 28 Nov 1995 15:39:38 GMT+10
Subject:       Lysenko, genetics and homosexuality



I have largely let those with more stomach than myself to deal 
with the 'marxism' of our visiting social democrats on the list 
(rosser, burns ....).
I agree with a recent posting that no one should be 'purged' from the 
list - that they should rather wither before the relative truths 
they are flayed with - we do need to deal with their thoughts and 
actions in the 'real world' - we just can't let them dominate a 
revolutionary marxist agenda.

 However, I wish to make a comment on the 
self-named Left Opposition / AKA Doug Pirhana's comments on genetics 
and homosexuality. I, for one, find them profoundly disturbing.

Mr Pirhana said the following

> 
> But, there are contradictions in Lysenko's theory.  Some which have positive
> results.  There are aspects of biology and physiology that are genetic which
> have been historically thought of as "learned behavior."  For fear of beating a
> dead horse (sorry, Ralph), homosexuality comes to mind.  Until 1974, the
> American Psychiatric Association defined homosexuality as a "mental disorder"
> learned in society.  Under Lysenkoism, homosexuality would be defined
> (correctly) as a genetic trait, as natural as hair or eye color.  Given a
> choice, I'll take Lysenko over the APA any day.

I found Doug's assessment on the role of 'stalinist science' (for 
want of a better term) in bolstering the 'natural order' of the 
bureaucracy quite reasonably argued. I find the above very difficult.

The beginning of last year saw the 'discovery' of the gene of 
homosexuality. If you actually read the 'research' that led to this 
'discovery' it is a mastery in statistical manipulation. One aspect 
of the genetic makeup of one chromosone was found to have more 
predominance in people who, in the United States, were openly 
identified as gay. A lot of the research was on twins. One important
aspect of the 'research' was that not all homosexuals had this determining
characteristic in their genetic makeup.

So what does this mean? There are definite genetic attributes to say, 
the colour of one's eyes or skin. I dismiss completely the assertion 
that sexuality is genetic. First of all, genetic material leads to a 
'tendency' for certain characteristics to occur. [As an aside, I 
usually read 'determines' in marxist writing as more of a tendency to 
avoid the all too common accusation of determinist].

If we are about human liberation, we are about liberation of human 
sexuality. I hold that sexuality is overwhelming determined (tends 
to) by social factors. There was some rejoicing in the gay community 
when the 'gay gene' was 'discovered'. I think this was a profound 
error, both scientifically and politically for the movement. If 
homosexuality, is after all a genetic trait,..... well, I'm sure it 
can be genetically engineered out of the 'race', no? The bigots and 
religious right wing nut cases were probably rejoicing the discovery 
of this gene too.

Will we no doubt have pre-natal centres where foetus's can be 
engineered to have this gene removed?? "Suitable" parents can be 
selected?

This is, of course, all a load of crap. The whole process is 
intrinsically linked with the human genome project - a profoundly 
disturbing project if ever there was one - it is basically reborn 
eugenics and that other dubious 'science' that measured peoples' 
intellect from the shape of their skull (i forget the name - can 
someone remind me).

The human genome project is about 'mapping' a 'normal' genetic 
structure (read: white western straight middle class male). 
Abnormality is then compared with this 'norm'. It is dangerous scary 
shit.

Then there is the argument that it is a genetic disposition, like 
some have argued about alcoholism. This argument holds some water  - 
basically because it is an each way bet. It *could* be genetic 
factors, it *could* be social.

What these arguments are are profoundly individualistic. They are not 
about the social and political reality of homosexuality in homophobic 
society. For marxists, it is this social reality which is our 
starting point - for science as well as for politics. WHY IS IT that 
the capitalist class pours so much money into this sort of genetic 
research? What are the class interests at stake?

For communists, we fight for the genuine liberation of sexuality for 
all humans. This has some outfall. In one respect, I don't give a 
shit whether homosexuality is genetic or not (although it is 
important). It is a profoundly *social* question. To debate gay 
rights (i don't like this term - I prefer to talk about liberation of 
sexuality) on this individual basis is to fall into a trap that 
strips the whole political content of the question.

Some gay activists welcomed the discovery because they thought they 
could rebut the argument that gays and lesbians actively chose to be 
gay and lesbian (ie abnormally). With this genetic stuff, they thought they could 
turn around and say "look, I can't help it, I was born this way". 
Well this is selling us ALL short. Of course, all humans choose their 
sexuality *within the concrete social conditions into which they are 
born*. Politically, lesbians and gays need to be able to turn around 
to bigots and say proudly "I'm gay/lesbian - I chose it - I'm proud - I'm fucking 
happy - have you got a problem?" This was the real political
victories that have been won through pride marches and mardi gras 
around the world, not based on shonky scientific evidence, but on 
collective political action of queers and straights for liberation of 
sexuality.


PS:

Mr Pirhana / Left Opposition said:
 Under Lysenkoism, homosexuality would be defined
> (correctly) as a genetic trait, as natural as hair or eye color.  Given a
> choice, I'll take Lysenko over the APA any day.

It is 'funny' that these two - Lysenkoism and the APA are 
counterposed when the social and political *outcome* of two different 
'scientific' arguments are the same. Homosexuality was made illegal in 
the USSR in the 1930s precisely because of this sort of crap. People 
were locked up in psych hospital because of their sexuality in the US 
and the USSR - on different 'scientific' bases - one to defend the 
bureaucracy, the other the capitalist class - BOTH TO DEFEND BORGEOIS 
NOTIONS OF THE FAMILY.


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------