This essay proves that sexuality can change over time. There is no right or wrong, it’s about what’s right for you.
Can we think of critiques of using a biological determinist approach to understanding people and society?
A related series of questions that we will begin considering this week concern the ‘big picture’ concept of classification/categorization – how individuals and groups of individuals come to be grouped into certain ‘boxes’ (for better or for worse) in terms of gender, sex, sexuality, race, ethnicity, etc.Sometimes, it can take time to figure out the sexuality that fits you best. And your sexuality can change over time. It can be confusing; so don’t worry if you are unsure.
You might be drawn
to men or to women, to both or to neither. There is no right or wrong – it’s about what’s right for you. And while there are common terms to describe different types of sexuality, you don’t have to adopt a label to describe yourself. Processes of categorization/classification lead us to ask a number of questions.
What might it mean to suggest that gender is socially constructed? How does thinking of gender in terms of social construction compare with the logic of biological determinism that we’ve begun to discuss?
What might it mean to suggest that race is socially construct?
In scientific, medical, and other (e.g. legal) contexts, folks are often categorize. What do these classification or categorization schema do?
In particular, what scientific purpose(s) do they serve? Do forms of classification based on gender or race serve beneficial ends? Harmful ends? Both? Neither? It depends?
How might attending to multiple intersecting variables (i.e. race/gender/class) inform
particular STEM research projects and/or practical applications/interventions?