The Persons Unique Characteristic - Case Study Example

November How Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation Appeal to Some Biological Influences? Most of the time, human diversity is attributed to how each faction of one’s individual being forms the person’s unique characteristic. Oftentimes, our miscellany comes from our differences in various categories including sex, age, and gender orientation. These categories, although at times considered biologically influenced, are likewise social and cultural constructs. For example, while both race and ethnicity are influenced by certain biological elements to some degree, still, race and ethnicity are considered social constructs in that the biological influence that appeal to these categories ranges between 3% and 7% (Drewnoski et al. 2211). In other words, the assumption that race and ethnicity are merely biological traits is utterly mistaken. Human categories such as gender and sexual orientation are oftentimes subjected to intense debates, especially gender orientation, as to whether they are nature or nurtured; and if there is a correlation between genes and gender orientation; the environment and gender orientation. Later on, an elaborative analysis shall be taken in order to explain whether, if indeed, race, sex, and gender orientation appeal to some biological influences. Also, this paper shall attempt to provide consequential and pertinent corroborations that should clarify some mistaken understandings in so far as the issues on biological influences in race, sex, and gender orientation are concerned. [Student’s Last Name] 2 Race Race “was a presumably biological feature that an individual had, but was composed of disparate elements that might contradict one another within a single body” (Marks 108). Thus, race cannot be identified solely by its biological aspects but certain conditions should be taken into consideration such as the social and cultural influences to race. Furthermore, regardless of its characteristic, whether inherent or developed, race should yet be expressed clearly. The different notions regarding race provide and extensive and important supposition. Race is frequently labelled according to population consistent with common physical physiognomies. Race has been conventionally considered to classify population according to communal biological traits like genes, hair, eyes, and other apparent physical features (Drewnowski et al. 2211). While race expresses a common characteristic among a number of people, it is used profoundly to emphasize cultural and social characteristics and not biological influences (Drewnowski et al. 2211). Therefore, the attempts to study the biological influences in race are something that is not feasible. In fact, “if races are discrete groups of populations, the continuous nature of human variation undermines the utility of race as a basic way to study the species” (Marks 108). This is particularly true in that while it is “something relatively stable” (108) as it is part of human physiological composition, the evolution of man through its years of existence must have transpired significant modifications on its genetic composition with every succeeding generation that passes. Thus, obviously, there is no avenue through which one can scrutinize biological influences to race as there is no consistent representation of the genetic detail that could be considered coherent or uniform regardless of human variations. “Race is [Student’s Last Name] 3 largely a social category” (Marks 109). It “correlates to some extent with genetics but is principally derived from a non-scientific or folk concept of heredity” (109). This is partly due to the fact that while genetics affect race to some degree, there is no guaranteed uniformity or coherence on this biological influences due to the genetic changes that take place with respect to every generation that passes; thus, there can be no effective approach to completely scrutinize the organic side of it. The overwhelming notion of race in the social and cultural realm overrides the biological aspect of it. When someone refers to race, no one speaks up about the hereditary or genetic history of someone, but ultimately to what group that someone is associated with. One of the apparent proofs that race is a social or a cultural construct is the overwhelming classification of humans in the society, which frequently results to prejudice, stereotype and discrimination. In a nutshell, race is determined socially and culturally and thus a construct of both; not “genetic but social” (Marks 109). Gender and Sexual Orientation The role of biology in characterizing sexual orientation is normally influenced by certain traditional or ascribed beliefs on the standard of sexual orientation. Oftentimes, the notions of gender and sexual orientation are solely based on what is conventionally, widely accepted and practiced views by the majority rather than a prospective investigation of the subject matter; thus, it implies that gender and sexual orientation are more socially and culturally influenced than are biologically influenced. Biology, in this instance, is the focus of recent researches in an attempt to understand whether there is a correlation between biology, and gender and sexual orientation. There is no sole and plain foundation for sexual orientation that has been decisively [Student’s Last Name] 4 established. Many studies in the past and until now pose some dissenting inferences to the combined causative influence of the environment, genes and hormones, but regard biological factors as the prime causal factor for the different forms of sexual orientation: homosexuality, heterosexuality, queer, etc. Normally, men get attracted to women and vice versa. Somehow, one can concede that this is the “natural order of things” (Levay and Hamer 44). But what about those people who get attracted to members of their own sex? What are the underlying factors affecting these variations? For straight men and women, even more, the society believe in the “ostensibly scientific view of human sexuality and puritanical views of some conservative theologies: sex is for reproduction” (Marks 227). Seen this way, there is a seeming indisposition to sexual orientations other than heterosexuality. Reproduction is not a primary goal for other sexual orientations such as homosexuality or asexuality; that is why, perhaps, sexual orientations are often viewed prejudicially towards a certain sexual orientation, which is of course, heterosexuality. This has an inference that all other “non-reproductive sexuality” (227), in political, social and cultural perspectives, can be considered as irrelevant and immoral. This is a common societal dilemma. So what is the significance of discussing these things? This only proves that gender and sexual orientation are more of social or cultural constructs than biological. Nevertheless, in a scientific point of view, several researches have already been conducted in the past, and in fact, and of course, prospective studies have likewise been employed. While there had been strong proofs that can be used to attribute human sexuality to genetics, still there are admonitions associated with it: “finding genes related to personality traits have been proven [Student’s Last Name] 5 controversial” (LeVay and Hamer 49). Also, the gene that could possibly determine the correlation between genes and human sexuality, until now, has not been isolated yet (49); thus, there are no proven, reliable grounds in which one can infer that gender and sexual orientation are biologically influenced. But where does our concept or perspective about gender and sexual orientation come from? Obviously, the widely accepted concepts of human sexuality formed society’s understanding about gender and sexual orientation. Perhaps, there is a true connection between human sexuality and genes or some other biological influences, but as of now, one must only understand that the attempts to reconcile the linkage between gender and sexual orientation and biology is still at its infancy. Moreover, human thinking of sexual orientation is simply driven by the individual perspective of sexuality and some other social and cultural factors. On the whole, race, gender and sexual orientation did not occur as a result of a purely biological mechanism. The varied ideas of these social aspects suggest the apparent influence of human variations. One cannot necessarily attribute race to some biological influences in that human genes, just like everything else modifies itself with respect to time; thus, there can be no coherent or uniform genetic data that can be used to scrutinize the correlation between race and biology. Similarly, while past and on-going studies show that there is a strong avenue that could overwhelmingly link human sexuality to some biological influences, still there are caveats that need to be stabilized with more corroborative effort. As of now, one should stick with the current ideas of human sexuality that is socially and culturally influenced. Works Cited Drewnowski, Adam et al. “Influence of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture on Childhood Obesity: Implications for Prevention and Treatment.” Diabetes Care 31.11 (2008): (2211 – 2219). Print. LeVay, Simon, and Dean Hamer. “Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality.” Scientific American May 1994: 44-49. Scientific American. Web. 1 November 2012. Marks, Jonathan. Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race and History. 3rd ed. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers, 1995. Print. Read More