It's complicated.
I think there's a bit of 'over each others heads here'
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0450-5With depression, there are 'depression-associated genetic variants' identified. So too is familial exposure; growing up in a household with a parent with a depressive disorder can lead to an increased chance a child will also develop a depressive disorder. So while genetics and a combination of associative interactions can play a part can the 'associative interactions' exist on their own? Can the expression of something exist independent of a genetic/internal chemical disposition to it? Does it matter?
Going back a few posts, strictly speaking adult sexual attraction isn't reducable to mere 'behaviour'. It is base and cannot be disentangled from the physical self. There is a genetic composition to that. I don't think Antonio or Cath disputed that. What I think is being argued is that sexual behaviour should ideally accord to that base and it is socialisation that either healthily promotes that or supresses it for it's own ends.
So I can express today through openness of my sexuality and pair bonding, a sense of self that I could not do fifty years ago. I'm homosexual but it's socialisation that allows me to be
gay. That is my 'true self'; my genetic disposition to be homosexual can't be true merely by itself because it is also a 'true' of self loathing opposite sex married closet cases. But my expression of my sexuality isn't something that can ever be independent of it's core.
So the self is the expression of the inherent. Not solely the inherent itself because it needs us as the actor.
Poll
