robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (06/18/84)
References: This note is only tangential to discussions in net.women recently, but I think it will still be of interest. Genetic determinist arguments have an assumption in them that is usually not made explicit. The determinists work to prove that certain behavior, or a difference among the sexes, is genetically determined, and then assume that, if they are right, society should accept the genetically determined results. The often implicit assumption is that societies should accept "instinctive" behavior, and should not try to force people to go against their predisposed natures. One might think that this implicit assumption is a legitimate topic for open discussion -- should society, and governments, ever try to force people to act against their predetermined patterns of behavior? In fact, it is a closed question that has been decided against the determinists. The test case is toilet training. It is clear that this process battles some of our strongest genetic behavior patterns, and often has such strong effects on individuals as to mold a great deal of their adult personality. Yet virtually everyone agrees that the process is necessary. The next time you are in the home of a genetic determinist, you might like to try to explain to him or her what a mess the house would be if you and the other guests seriously accepted genetic determinist assumptions. (And don't miss your opportunity to make territorialist claims on their "space" in the oldfashioned genetically determined way.) I believe this test case reduces the genetic determinist arguments to rubble. It leaves us with the understanding that no matter how strong a sexual difference may be, society must determine, on completely nongenetic bases, whether to encourage people to overcome the difference. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or: allegra!eosp1!robison (maybe: princeton!eosp1!robison)
timothy@druxt.UUCP (06/19/84)
I think there is a flaw in your argument. There are some human behaviors that are either genetic or learned so early in life that they are "imprinted" (to borrow a term from animal behavior). If we use forcing left-handed people to write with their right hand as the test case, I think you will see a good argument in favor of determinism. I can not think of a good reason to force a left-handed person to use their right hand, although for a long time, such was the standard policy in American schools. The strongest reason, although not a good one, is that this is a "right-handed" world, and a left handed person does indeed have problems with many common pieces of equipment. My biggest, and probably only, disagreement with the original article is with the attitude that genetic determinism is totally wrong. I do not believe that the influence of genetics on specific behaviors is as strong as the proponents would like us to believe, however, as has been expressed a lot lately, there is an influence. I hope this topic quickly becomes a dead horse and people stop beating it. Tim decvax!ihnp4!druxt!timothy