> Contextual desire triggers are at least partially shaped by experience.

If that were even remotely true, then the arguments about sexual orientation being a choice would be valid.

I don't buy either of those arguments, and for pretty much the same reason.

I think you are missing the point. I think we both agree that there is a non-conscious process by which humans experience attraction. Let's call this process X.

I am a heterosexual male. I therefore am attracted to humans with female biological sex characteristics. If I am walking down the street and see an individual from behind. Lets say they are slightly overweight (increasing waist diameter) and wearing clothing that somewhat masks their hip size. Process X now lacks inputs about typical secondary sex characteristics that can be identified from behind.

If it's an individual with short hair and wearing baggy pants, then process X decides it is less likely that the individual is a biological female, but if it is an individual with long hair and a skirt, then process X decides it is more likely that the individual is a biological female.

This is an example of contextual desire triggers are at least partially shaped by experience.

It can be seen outside of desire too; consider disgust. Bitter flavors tend to trigger disgust in kids. However, take a random new food and mix an emetic with it; watch them react with disgust to that food in the future.

> I think you are missing the point.

I think it's because your point is orthogonal to my point which was in response to the someone upthread who implied that masculinity as a definition is changing, and that change means that women are finding the new definition attractive.

My argument is that it doesn't matter what the prescribed definition of masculinity is, women are going to find attractive what they've always found attractive.

Same with men.

If it were at all possible that experiences in ones life can change what that individual feels attracted to, efforts to "cure" homosexuality would have been successful.

> If that were even remotely true, then the arguments about sexual orientation being a choice

No, they wouldn't.

“Shaped by experience” is not “choice” and “at least partially” does not mean “definitely specifically as to gender orientation”.

> “Shaped by experience” is not “choice” and “at least partially” does not mean “definitely specifically as to gender orientation”.

I see where you're going with this, but I still respectfully disagree - gender orientation (whatever the hell that is - do you mean trans people?) is not the same thing as sexual orientation, which is specifically "who you are attracted to", not "the gender you identify as". It's about sex, not gender.

And if experience can shape someone's sexual orientation, then the "pray the gay away" type of efforts would have succeeded. A lot of homosexual people in the past did not want to be that way, and yet no experience they had, or sought out, managed to change who they were attracted to.

So yeah, the argument "experience can shape your sexual orientation" is, IMNSHO, complete hogwash and at odds with reality as we've seen in the homosexual demographic.