Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison
From: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Genetic Determinism utterly trashed
Message-ID: <944@eosp1.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Jun-84 19:21:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: eosp1.944
Posted: Sun Jun 17 19:21:11 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 05:39:58 EDT
Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton, NJ
Lines: 42

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)