"homosexuality" vs. "homosexual identity" (was Re: "natural")

Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Fri, 03 Dec 1999 02:56:39 -0800

At 10:28 1999/12/03 +0100, you wrote:
>It appears as if Harvey Newstrom <newstrom@newstaffinc.com> wrote:
>|Homosexuality occurs in a certain percentage of rats, dogs, pigs, monkeys,
>|dolphins, goats, sheep, and lots of other species. Some monkeys who have
>|been taught sign language have engaged in homosexuality, prostitution
>|(negotiating food for sex), and lying about sexual behavior and eating
>What definition do you use for ``homosexuality''?
>(a) A unit engaging in sexual acts _only_ with the same sex,
>(b) A unit engaging in sexual acts _also_ with the same sex, or
>(c) Something else?
>I have the feeling that some on this list use the funny definition method,
>also use to define Negro, namely that the define X (e.g. Negro, or gayness)
>as _inclusive_.
>E.g. they define the offspring of a Negro and Caucasian as a Negro, a person
>who engage in both homosexual and heterosexual acts as a homosexual, and
>so on.
>It indicates that their concept world defines a ``normal'' state and an
>``abnormal'' state, and any ``abnormal'' contents define the object as
>member of the ``abnormal'' set.
>Such a concept world seems rather non-transhuman, wouldn't you say?

I can't claim to speak for the author of the comment, but My_ reading of his meaning is closest to your (c): to wit:

his "homosexuality occurs" is used in the technical, narrow behavioral sense of "same-sex sexual acts are observed to take place".

Try re-reading it with that meaning and see if your evident ire dissipates at all.

He's not talking about the animals moving in together or getting bashed in the Castro by yahoos from Fresno ( :) for the clue-impaired).


"We never used to speak of it. Nowadays you speak of nothing else." -- Quentin Crisp

       (this quote may be slightly off)