This ties in with my next blog post, finally a post rather than a repost but it’s been 2 weeks that I have been trying to finish or edit it.
I was injured and had to take a break from typing, also there’ve been no views as usual. I posted recently on the other blog about about a friend and comrade risking death in activism; it’s the 13th day of his hunger strike because all else failed to stop a new coal power plant being built on our small island and I’ll share the related petition in case anyone ever reads this.
Does anyone else get sort of bored reading articles on scientific research into sexuality? It seems like the scientists and journalists involved are…unimaginative (/unobservant). It’s like they all stick to the same weird checklist. Below, I try to recreate what I think that checklist is. Please feel free to add, comment, or correct (since I might slip into my own unwarranted assumptions on this.)
This project came into being after reading this article: “What We Know and Don’t Know About the Biology of Homosexuality.” It’s actually pretty decent as far as reporting on scientific research in general goes, but again I was just struck by all the suppositions and the weirdly narrow framework that seem to go into this sort of research and reporting.
A Checklist for Doing Scientific Research on Sexuality:
–Assuming that homosexuality is a variation of a heterosexual default: check
–Assuming that homosexuality is essentially just one…
View original post 165 more words