Reason can not argue that sexuality is entirely one or the other, then it’s the passion that responds. Domination of one over the other? It’s like trying to measure position and velocity of a particle simultaneously. The prism of our intentions allows us to visualize only one of the two. If queer theory led out of a Manichaeism on gender, it remains that the sexualization of the baby at birth is entirely innate and will tattoo the succession of exchanges with the environment thereafter. The reality of development is not “nature or nurture” but nature then nurture. Personality is an integral function of the nature modified by the nurture; each point from 0 to 100 years takes an unpredictable value, because the nurture comprises a large number of unknowns. An entanglement making calculation of dominance impossible, and that makes our diversity.
Queer theory is weakened by a false premise: that culture would be independent of nature. In evolutionary terms, the culture is itself a function. It is the answer that human beings brought to relational difficulties between their nature and the environment. It is not a creation ex nihilo. Thus queer theory is a kind of activism rather than a scientific thesis. And it is very useful as well, as the culture evolves as a result of such militancy, and that male domination was deadly enough so that we give a chance to women (only thing that may bother in the traditional feminism: it encourages a mimicry of the female to the male rather than emancipation, but it is another controversy).
Understanding more precisely the interactions between nature and culture cannot come from accumulation of gender surveys. We need a structural model of personality able to explain sexual differentiation. To see how one I propose behaves, let ask another interesting question: “Why the impression of watching an explosion of sexual genders? Why teenagers are more reluctant to self determine? ”
I will answer after you…