Science vs. Politics: fight!
Oct. 3rd, 2005 01:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danaerisSomeone sent this article to the Bi TO list today:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,16625063,00.html
Her reaction, though commendably not outlined in detail, and the reactions I expect will ensue from others, have left me thinking about the sadly controversial status science has in the realm of sexual politics.
As an ex-scientist, I am fascinated by attempts to understand how I work. In many ways, I do not understand how a person can NOT be curious about the nature of their own sexuality and identity, and how those might have come into being. Perhaps this is the reaction most geeks have; they want more knowledge, more understanding, and they see science as a medium for acquiring that.
However, a large segment of the bisexual community -- and other similar communities -- have a very different reaction to the idea of their orientation being studied by scientists. They are skeptical and dubious at best, outright hostile at worst.
It makes sense in a way. We spend so much time fighting for the privilege to be who we believe ourselves to be, that anyone who may gainsay our identities is viewed as an enemy. Meanwhile, scientists are rarely given an opportunity to present things as they see them. They speak through writers like myself, and unfortunately, most of those writers fail at straddling the divide between the realm of sexual politics and scientific reality. Sometimes that's because they aren't qualified, or because they are trying too hard to write punchy copy and not hard enough to be accurate. Other times it is simply because it's really that hard, and even the best authors will get tripped up sometimes.
Our understanding of the human body and especially of the human mind and endocrinal systems is very primitive. Medicine is easily a hundred years behind physics, in terms of being a mature science. For that reason, a lot of the results studies give are misunderstood, misinterpreted, etc. They don't have the same accuracy as physics experiments, and so they can't be used to make certain statements. Yet, the media feels a need to make certain statements when reporting on science, and this creates a very frustrating relationship between the reader and science. Science becomes viewed as less and less trustworthy, yet it isn't the science which is inaccurate so often... it is its portrayal.
I expect that in the next ten years we will learn amazing things about how the brain develops and leads to all sorts of things -- including our sexuality and gender identities. It's coming, whether we queer folk like it or not, because it is an essential part of us which must be studied to make a complete map of ourselves. So buckle in and enjoy the ride.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,16625063,00.html
Her reaction, though commendably not outlined in detail, and the reactions I expect will ensue from others, have left me thinking about the sadly controversial status science has in the realm of sexual politics.
As an ex-scientist, I am fascinated by attempts to understand how I work. In many ways, I do not understand how a person can NOT be curious about the nature of their own sexuality and identity, and how those might have come into being. Perhaps this is the reaction most geeks have; they want more knowledge, more understanding, and they see science as a medium for acquiring that.
However, a large segment of the bisexual community -- and other similar communities -- have a very different reaction to the idea of their orientation being studied by scientists. They are skeptical and dubious at best, outright hostile at worst.
It makes sense in a way. We spend so much time fighting for the privilege to be who we believe ourselves to be, that anyone who may gainsay our identities is viewed as an enemy. Meanwhile, scientists are rarely given an opportunity to present things as they see them. They speak through writers like myself, and unfortunately, most of those writers fail at straddling the divide between the realm of sexual politics and scientific reality. Sometimes that's because they aren't qualified, or because they are trying too hard to write punchy copy and not hard enough to be accurate. Other times it is simply because it's really that hard, and even the best authors will get tripped up sometimes.
Our understanding of the human body and especially of the human mind and endocrinal systems is very primitive. Medicine is easily a hundred years behind physics, in terms of being a mature science. For that reason, a lot of the results studies give are misunderstood, misinterpreted, etc. They don't have the same accuracy as physics experiments, and so they can't be used to make certain statements. Yet, the media feels a need to make certain statements when reporting on science, and this creates a very frustrating relationship between the reader and science. Science becomes viewed as less and less trustworthy, yet it isn't the science which is inaccurate so often... it is its portrayal.
I expect that in the next ten years we will learn amazing things about how the brain develops and leads to all sorts of things -- including our sexuality and gender identities. It's coming, whether we queer folk like it or not, because it is an essential part of us which must be studied to make a complete map of ourselves. So buckle in and enjoy the ride.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
re: bisexuality and science
Date: 2005-10-03 06:27 pm (UTC)Re: bisexuality and science
Date: 2005-10-03 06:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-03 07:06 pm (UTC)And then there is the correlation between handedness and sexuality. When you have the 'non-RightHand' gene, you are more likely to be queer.
Which, to me, points out how absurd it is to chase queers with this sort of data. But, as we know, many lefties were raised as righties throughout the years. The ratios are similar too.
I can't wait for everyone to finally stop arguing about this (well, meaning the conservative majority trying to isolate and eliminate the Other).
But yes, media interpretation/spin and public perception are unfortunately misrepresentations of actual data. If only everyone understood science!
Yeah, maybe one day...
no subject
Date: 2005-10-04 04:44 am (UTC)origin of the english usage of 'sinister', anyone?
the etymological ramifications are staggering.