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 -
But that is the definition of any trait - a genetically predisposed characteristic. Whilst I don't think it's helpful to reduce LGBT to a single "phenotype" (urgh), I don't think the word is misused here.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @froggleston @o_guest and
But I do agree that it's like saying "your whole body type is a trait". Clearly a misnomer.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Being LGBT is a collection of behaviours and thoughts and much much more than just physical characteristics or a "body type". It's like saying a culture is a trait. Being Cypriot (me), isn't a trait.
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Exactly. "Defining characteristics" are sociologically divisive, especially when you try to mix genetics in to fuel that divisiveness, like Blanchard.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sorry, I've lost you. You said you don't think the word is misused but you also agree with me that claiming LGBT people have a different trait is wrong?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think you put it better than me. A collection of traits. My cold-addled brain is running on slow.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm sorry you're sick! I'm still confused because I do not think LGBT is a collection of traits.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
OMG — get well soon! 
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.