|
Whether or not something is a social construction is always a difficult question to answer -- the best way is to look at other societies, and see how they vary. It's not sufficient to answer the question (since there can be other ways to explain cultural differences than social construction), but it does rule out nature as a causal explanation.
As far as sexuality is concerned, the only aspect I know enough about to comment on is homosexuality. And here it is clear that our categories of homo-, bi-, and heterosexual are not natural categories. In ancient Greece it appears that the norm was to be attracted to attractive people, regardless of gender. There were very few long term homosexual relationships, but it was not considered unusual for a teacher to be attracted to his (male) students, and have a sexual relationship with them.
This indicates to me that, at the very least, the gender to which one is attracted is pliable. It may not be the case that it is infinitely pliable -- i.e., there may be people that are only attracted to persons of the same/opposite gender, and whatever they might do, that's not going to change -- it's certainly not the case that it's simply a matter of choosing, but rather a matter of training oneself. Given that, though, I tend to think that, for most people, the gender to which one is attracted is influenced by nature, but also heavily influenced by environment and choice.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."
"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
|