Philosophy Compass 10 (7):479-488 (2015)

Authors
Abstract
This paper is a review of how biological as well as other scientific theories, concepts and findings have been used to answer philosophical questions regarding the nature of male homosexuality. We argue that while these sciences are certainly relevant for present philosophical debates, few of the different philosophical issues surrounding male homosexuality can be settled by science alone. In the first section, we introduce a number of various essentialist and constructivist views on (male) homosexuality. The second section focuses on the innateness debate over homosexuality. In the last section, we assess the typically constructivist critiques of biological research into homosexuality.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2015
DOI 10.1111/phc3.12233
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,666
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What is Innateness?Paul E. Griffiths - 2001 - The Monist 85 (1):70-85.
Innateness and the Sciences.Matteo Mameli & Patrick Bateson - 2006 - Biology and Philosophy 21 (2):155-188.
A Field Guide to Social Construction.Ron Mallon - 2007 - Philosophy Compass 2 (1):93–108.

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Queer/Early/Modern.Carla Freccero - 2006 - Duke University Press.
Anti-Gay.Mark Simpson (ed.) - 1996 - Freedom Editions.
A Foucauldian Analysis of Homosexuality.George Drazenovich - 2012 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (3):259-275.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-12-17

Total views
79 ( #120,431 of 2,349,374 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #120,417 of 2,349,374 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes