In defense of science, without seeing the full context of this tweet, looking a causes of an observable trait x is not in itself pathologising or x-phobic. If you look for it in order to intervene, that is. But it is a genuinely interesting question and defensible curiousness.
-
-
IMHO to say being LGBT is a trait is confusing. Traits are things like hair and eye colour.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Trait may be the wrong word, sorry. But to me, another interesting question is around nature vs nurture: to what degree is sexuality a biologically determined quality and to what degree it is learned or conscious decision
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Just because LGBT is a sensitive topic, we should not make it impossible or hard for people to ask genuine questions about or comment on it by blanket labelling it as homophobic and retrofitting a motivation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Lots of great research on nature and nurture is done. The biggest flaw in any study is framing it as either or. Thankfully the whole "versus" thing has been dropped within science for a good number of years. Outside of science, like you noted, it's sadly still framed wrongly!
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
You know what I meant though, hence my use of “to what extent”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The answer is more on par with the answer to "what are the genetic substrates for liking and using twitter?" than to "what are the genetic substrates for having a certain height?"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.