disability-research
>Ron wrote
>I think Gregor is intrigued with the "gay gene" because we know that there
>are genes "for" certain impairments. There would be rhetorical parallels
>with arguments about selective abortions, for example. Those parallels
might
>have uses in political debates. But the nature/nurture dichotomy is bogus
>all the way down. No interesting traits are purely genetic, or purely
>environmental. The Social Model of disability is important only because
the
>dominant ideology depicts disability as purely biological. I look forward
>to the day when the Social Model is so dominant that someone has to come
up
>with a theory of the Biological Construction of Disability.
Actually that was my point. Sociobiologists might argue the biological
importance of having homosexual younger brothers in the family from the
'selfish gene' platform. So one might think they could come up with a
'biological advantage' to the family/species for impairment. I've yet to
come accross such a hypothesis. Sociobiology,( for which I have a low
regard) tends to be hetrosexist, macho and sexist at the core, even a
positive hypotheseis as to the 'natural' nature of homosexuality would
indicate a massive change in stance by sociobiologists. I doubt the ability
of the field to encompass imparment as positive.
Amaryllis
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|