Thread by @EveKeneinan

Join me in this marvel of a paragraph:

“plausible models” + “controversy reigns” + “seems to” = IT CAN ONLY BE POINTLESS TO … ON THIS BASIS.

Yes … that’s a pretty weak basis for a “can only be pointless to.”

Also, that isn’t what “ethically fraught” means.

Among those who have looked into the way sexual orientations are formed, it isn’t controversial. An inclination for same sex attraction runs in families, so it is partially genetic; identical twins don’t always end up with the same ‘orientation’, so it’s partially environmental.

Being partially genetic doesn’t mean something is not a disorder, by the way. THOSE are frequently genetic too.

Hence “genetic disorder.”

The question of rearranging or modifying a pattern of desires which were formed during a given “imprinting window” is an empirical one, although it has been disallowed in pseudo-moral grounds.

If there is only limited window wherein one’s 'sexual orientation’ is formed in an imprinting process, what can be done with a MISIMPRINTATION?

It seems like an obvious benefit to everyone if we could erase a pedophile’s pedophilia, for example.

“You can’t erase a pedophile’s pedophilia! That is invalidating their existence! How evil! How wrong!”

If I could do that, I wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger on that one.

I personally have been accused of this, by the way. Of “invalidating the existence” of pedophiles.

Ask me if I care.

No, don’t bother. I don’t.

Wow, look at the lesbian taking biology seriously and working out that HETEROSEXUALITY is (uniquely) beneficial to our species (and every species).

Keep going dear. Don’t let me stop you …