Nobody is ‘born that way,’ gay historians say

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Left-wing humanities PhDs don't believe that biology influences society.  They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study society and language, instead of biology because they don't know how to study biology. They have a bunch of dog-eared copies of Foucault books, not microscopes.

Okay, I've stayed out of this so far because I've of late almost entirely stopped caring about aetiology when it comes to things like this but I just have to say that this is one of the most wildly chauvinistic and unfair characterizations of whole swathes of academic disciplines I've ever read, to the point that I'm not sure I can bring myself to believe it's serious.

[bedstuy]

Left-wing humanities PhDs don't believe that biology influences society.  They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study society and language, instead of biology because they don't know how to study biology. They have a bunch of dog-eared copies of Foucault books, not microscopes.

Okay, I've stayed out of this so far because I've of late almost entirely stopped caring about aetiology when it comes to things like this but I just have to say that this is one of the most wildly chauvinistic and unfair characterizations of whole swathes of academic disciplines I've ever read, to the point that I'm not sure I can bring myself to believe it's serious.

No, I'm serious.  And, yes, I think "whole swathes" of US university humanities departments are terrible and useless. 

But, I think my deeper point is that you can't ask a historian or a linguist to answer the question posed in the original article.  The way the article is framed is blatantly stupid. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Left-wing humanities PhDs don't believe that biology influences society.  They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study society and language, instead of biology because they don't know how to study biology. They have a bunch of dog-eared copies of Foucault books, not microscopes.

Okay, I've stayed out of this so far because I've of late almost entirely stopped caring about aetiology when it comes to things like this but I just have to say that this is one of the most wildly chauvinistic and unfair characterizations of whole swathes of academic disciplines I've ever read, to the point that I'm not sure I can bring myself to believe it's serious.

No, I'm serious.  And, yes, I think "whole swathes" of US university humanities departments are terrible and useless.

Then how exactly do you think society and language should be studied? Not at all? With the same methodological rigidity and demand for replicable results as the natural sciences? Because you can't study society and language that way. It simply doesn't lead anywhere that a historian or a linguist or a literary critic or whatever would consider the least bit relevant to the sorts of questions that historians and linguists and literary critics are interested in answering. It makes exactly as little sense as attempting to use reader-response criticism to study a quasar.

Or, in other words, corporate-liberal STEM PhDs don't believe that anything but biology influences society. They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study biology, instead of society and language because they don't know how to study society and language. They have a bunch of computer printouts of experimental results, not poetry or interesting prose.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A linguist perhaps not, but historians, at least historians specializing in sexuality--of whom there are many--would surely have at least some insight.

[bedstuy]

Left-wing humanities PhDs don't believe that biology influences society.  They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study society and language, instead of biology because they don't know how to study biology. They have a bunch of dog-eared copies of Foucault books, not microscopes.

Okay, I've stayed out of this so far because I've of late almost entirely stopped caring about aetiology when it comes to things like this but I just have to say that this is one of the most wildly chauvinistic and unfair characterizations of whole swathes of academic disciplines I've ever read, to the point that I'm not sure I can bring myself to believe it's serious.

No, I'm serious.  And, yes, I think "whole swathes" of US university humanities departments are terrible and useless.

Then how exactly do you think society and language should be studied? Not at all? With the same turgidity and obsession with replicable results as the so-called hard sciences? Because you can't study society and language that way. It makes exactly as little sense as attempting to use reader-response criticism to study a quasar.

Or, in other words, corporate-liberal STEM PhDs don't believe that anything but biology influences society. They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study biology, instead of society and language because they don't know how to study society and language. They have a bunch of computer printouts of experimental results, not poetry or interesting prose.

Totally.  Everyone is biased and sees the world through their own lens.  But, come on, academics don't write interesting prose.

But, I think my deeper point is that you can't ask a historian or a linguist to answer the question posed in the original article.  The way the article is framed is blatantly stupid. 

A linguist perhaps not, but historians, at least historians specializing in sexuality--of whom there are many--would surely have at least some insight.

Read the original article.  It's a dumb premise for a historian to answer that question.  Also, it's probably 99% the journalist's fault for taking someone's research out of context for their own conservative machinations.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Left-wing humanities PhDs don't believe that biology influences society.  They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study society and language, instead of biology because they don't know how to study biology. They have a bunch of dog-eared copies of Foucault books, not microscopes.

Okay, I've stayed out of this so far because I've of late almost entirely stopped caring about aetiology when it comes to things like this but I just have to say that this is one of the most wildly chauvinistic and unfair characterizations of whole swathes of academic disciplines I've ever read, to the point that I'm not sure I can bring myself to believe it's serious.

No, I'm serious.  And, yes, I think "whole swathes" of US university humanities departments are terrible and useless.

Then how exactly do you think society and language should be studied? Not at all? With the same turgidity and obsession with replicable results as the so-called hard sciences? Because you can't study society and language that way. It makes exactly as little sense as attempting to use reader-response criticism to study a quasar.

Or, in other words, corporate-liberal STEM PhDs don't believe that anything but biology influences society. They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study biology, instead of society and language because they don't know how to study society and language. They have a bunch of computer printouts of experimental results, not poetry or interesting prose.

Totally.  Everyone is biased and sees the world through their own lens.  But, come on, academics don't write interesting prose.

Certainly not (at least not in most cases), but literary critics, and in many cases historians, study (what is hopefully) interesting prose.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A linguist perhaps not, but historians, at least historians specializing in sexuality--of whom there are many--would surely have at least some insight.
[/quote]

Read the original article.  It's a dumb premise for a historian to answer that question.  Also, it's probably 99% the journalist's fault for taking someone's research out of context for their own conservative machinations.
[/quote]

I did. It's a silly and pointless article, but I think that's far more on the journalist's head than the historians'.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You actually get told not to write interesting prose: one reason why I can't say I'm sorry to be out of it now.

[traininthedistance]

I think I'm understanding what others are saying.

If I've misinterpreted what you were saying I apologise. This strikes me as two people driving down a divided road... you don't understand why the other isn't on your side of the road...

I think mostly what I've been trying to say, and not doing a very good job of, is this:

Left-wing humanities PhDs don't believe that biology influences society.  They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study society and language, instead of biology because they don't know how to study biology. They have a bunch of dog-eared copies of Foucault books, not microscopes.

Okay, I've stayed out of this so far because I've of late almost entirely stopped caring about aetiology when it comes to things like this but I just have to say that this is one of the most wildly chauvinistic and unfair characterizations of whole swathes of academic disciplines I've ever read, to the point that I'm not sure I can bring myself to believe it's serious.

I mean, obviously the article in the OP sucks, but that is entirely on the author of the article for misunderstanding the scholarship and introducing an undue political slant that, to be honest, is the exact opposite of what the quoted academics are trying to go for.  But of course some folks are entirely content to just run with that misinterpretation because it comports with their prejudices against humanities scholarship- prejudices that I'd expect to see from someone on the anti-intellectual populist right, but which feel like a deep disappointment and betrayal coming from well-educated liberals.

Not that one necessarily ought to agree with any particular scholar or anything, perhaps these folks are in fact barking up the wrong tree, but consigning entire subjects to the flames in this manner:

And, yes, I think "whole swathes" of US university humanities departments are terrible and useless. 

But, I think my deeper point is that you can't ask a historian or a linguist to answer the question posed in the original article.  The way the article is framed is blatantly stupid. 

is an obviously ridiculous and ignorant position to take.

Does that make any sense?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyone who expresses contempt for social sciences should never ever been taken seriously on a political forum, since he would obviously be utterly unable to master the basic notions necessary to have a remotely worthwhile opinion on political issues.

[bedstuy]

I think I'm understanding what others are saying.

If I've misinterpreted what you were saying I apologise. This strikes me as two people driving down a divided road... you don't understand why the other isn't on your side of the road...

I think mostly what I've been trying to say, and not doing a very good job of, is this:

Left-wing humanities PhDs don't believe that biology influences society.  They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study society and language, instead of biology because they don't know how to study biology. They have a bunch of dog-eared copies of Foucault books, not microscopes.

Okay, I've stayed out of this so far because I've of late almost entirely stopped caring about aetiology when it comes to things like this but I just have to say that this is one of the most wildly chauvinistic and unfair characterizations of whole swathes of academic disciplines I've ever read, to the point that I'm not sure I can bring myself to believe it's serious.

I mean, obviously the article in the OP sucks, but that is entirely on the author of the article for misunderstanding the scholarship and introducing an undue political slant that, to be honest, is the exact opposite of what the quoted academics are trying to go for.  But of course some folks are entirely content to just run with that misinterpretation because it comports with their prejudices against humanities scholarship- prejudices that I'd expect to see from someone on the anti-intellectual populist right, but which feel like a deep disappointment and betrayal coming from well-educated liberals.

Not that one necessarily ought to agree with any particular scholar or anything, perhaps these folks are in fact barking up the wrong tree, but consigning entire subjects to the flames in this manner:

And, yes, I think "whole swathes" of US university humanities departments are terrible and useless. 

But, I think my deeper point is that you can't ask a historian or a linguist to answer the question posed in the original article.  The way the article is framed is blatantly stupid. 

is an obviously ridiculous and ignorant position to take.

Does that make any sense?

Hmmm.  I think the point I brought up against myself is the good counter argument.  I haven't read the original scholarship, I just read the article.  Obviously, Tucker Carlson's cyber-rag is not a reliable source.  But, if it is presenting the key points somewhat accurately, I think the article is garbage.  The reasoning is deeply flawed.

Here's the basic reasoning that I disagree with:

Other and prior cultures did not understand there to be something known as "homosexuality."  Therefore, "sexual orientations are not innate." 

I'm totally fine with the first point.  I think it's illogical to make the leap between the two.

On my somewhat audacious condemnation of university humanities departments, I get that I'm probably overstating the case.  There are plenty of great academics in sociology, history, women's studies and the various amorphous " XYZ studies."  However, I do find them overly-politicized and cult-like in assailing the idea of biological, geographic, geological, hard science relevance to the study of their own subjects.  There is a serious problem of excessive post-modernism, gender and race victimhood and denial of any scholarship not based on run-on sentences, so to speak.  That's my underlying problem and it's born of having gone to a couple of elite colleges where a lot of smart people foam at the mouth about things like white privilege and neo-colonialism.  It's an inchoate complaint, I admit, but it bothers me. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You actually get told not to write interesting prose: one reason why I can't say I'm sorry to be out of it now.

In that case I'm not sure if I hit a stroke of good fortune regarding university, chosen discipline, or both. Although positing deliberate turgidity explains an awful lot about some of the non-primary-source material I've had to slog through. (Primary-source material in East Asian studies is typically fascinating, though I'm obviously not a disinterested source on that.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's the basic reasoning that I disagree with:

Other and prior cultures did not understand there to be something known as "homosexuality."  Therefore, "sexual orientations are not innate." 

I'm totally fine with the first point.  I think it's illogical to make the leap between the two.

It depends upon what one means by "sexual orientation".  If one means by that simply the characteristics people gravitate towards when deciding who they would like to boff, then yeah it's an illogical leap.  But if "sexual orientation" includes other psychological and sociological characteristics that a society layers upon sexual attraction to construct a framework that provided individuals what is necessary to channel such feelings into spontaneous action, then it does make some sense.  Of course, things can still make logical sense without having any common sense.

[bedstuy]

Here's the basic reasoning that I disagree with:

Other and prior cultures did not understand there to be something known as "homosexuality."  Therefore, "sexual orientations are not innate." 

I'm totally fine with the first point.  I think it's illogical to make the leap between the two.

It depends upon what one means by "sexual orientation".  If one means by that simply the characteristics people gravitate towards when deciding who they would like to boff, then yeah it's an illogical leap. 

Thank you.

But if "sexual orientation" includes other psychological and sociological characteristics that a society layers upon sexual attraction to construct a framework that provided individuals what is necessary to channel such feelings into spontaneous action, then it does make some sense.  Of course, things can still make logical sense without having any common sense.

I suppose I agree.  I just don't see any practical application of that knowledge in the case of homosexuality.  I guess the lesson is not to take the social norm as a priori correct.  But, that doesn't mean scrap our current social understanding of homosexuality and adopt 19th century understanding.  Maybe, the lesson is rather that we ought to look at how we treat every sexual minority and think hard whether we're being fair.  Take transsexuals, our society often treats them like freaks and that's wrong.  But, the knowledge that one social norm is not by definition the gospel is only the start of the conversation.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about an anthropologist who specializes in the Etoro people of Papua New Guinea?

Anyway the idea that it's not an area of potential study for historians is absurd. The thesis is "Homosexuality is an orientation which is at a fixed level in the population, is immutable and is unchanged by cultural or social variation" therefore obviously historians have a lot to say on this given it is they who study cultural and social variation in the past(and there quite a lot of historians who have defended the essentialist position btw).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of these things were not mentioned by anyone in the thread (although, admittedly, they do exist although from my perspective at least they are MUCH less prevalent than in the 90s).

Now my turn to be controversial, whatever the problems of a lot of Foucault/deconstructionist inspired historiography, it is still in the scope of things a very minor intellectual phenomenon which has not been of great external consequences. Meanwhile in the Corporate-Liberal STEM-type social sciences of which Nathan spoke earlier it is actually a running competition between economics and psychology as to which has done more damage not just in intellectual life but much more consequently in health, education and government policy (i.e. the things which affect all of us). Right now economics is currently in front in the damage stakes, but it can't be long before psychology catches up (Neuroscientists say the darnest things, don't they?). Let's me clear I'm not talking about disputes such as those on internet forums, I'm talking about actual crimes - crimes against people and society. The history of both disciplines makes one wonder whether we would better off if government just stopped funding them and they die a death.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Anyone who expresses contempt for social sciences should never ever been taken seriously on a political forum, since he would obviously be utterly unable to master the basic notions necessary to have a remotely worthwhile opinion on political issues.

I don't think anyone has expressed contempt for 'social sciences'  - as a former student OF them, I do think there are shortcomings, but I've yet to see contempt.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyone who expresses contempt for social sciences should never ever been taken seriously on a political forum, since he would obviously be utterly unable to master the basic notions necessary to have a remotely worthwhile opinion on political issues.

I don't think anyone has expressed contempt for 'social sciences'  - as a former student OF them, I do think there are shortcomings, but I've yet to see contempt.

You didn't, but Bedstuy definitely did.

[traininthedistance]

Sorry for the bump... but a random thought just flew into my head for some reason and I figured it might be relevant here.  I guess I'd mostly be curious for Nathan's take on it, whether it has some merit or is just ridiculous, since he is the resident expert in both East Asian stuff and gender sociology stuff:

Does the apparent surge in asexuality in contemporary Japan- with young folks increasingly uninterested in not just raising a family, but even dating or sex- provide evidence for some sort of constructivist theory?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think that has a lot of potential merit, but I haven't studied that particular aspect of contemporary Japanese culture enough to know for sure that it's not just a very tempting red herring, since the phenomenon's social, cultural, and economic aetiology isn't really clear.

I will say that Japanese history is--not impossible, but at points very difficult to explain outside an at least partially constructivist framework, in general. Socially expected Japanese male sexuality for a lot of the medieval (Late Heian/Kamakura/Ashikaga/Sengoku/Azuchi-Momoyama) and especially early modern (Edo) periods bore a strong superficial resemblance to (the popular image of) Classical pederasty, but with a strict set of expectations regarding developmental stages that remind one more of the sorts of 'lesbian until graduation'/'experimenting in college' accusations that you see a lot in contemporary American young adult culture, except treated as a good thing.

Also, about the idea that I'm the resident expert on East Asia: I'm more than happy to hold forth on Japan, but as far as China and its immediate sphere of cultural influence go, please, please, please ask anvi before asking me. Not only does he know a lot more about it than I do, but he's by far my senior in the field as a whole.