Yoshie writes:
> Precisely, and that's why I bothered to look up the
original article by Lee Ellis and Jill Hellberg. A lot gets
lost in translation from science to journalism, as
journalists, especially when they are reporting on
sexuality, tend to exaggerate researchers' provisional
and usually skimpy findings beyond recognition.
That is why I prefaced my original post with a comment that it was a piece of Friday humour. The article sounded like silly science, but even silly science can be useful if it helps achieve justice.
What I realize now is that Miles was not being homophobic towards me (sorry about that). What I was responding to was the realization of how easily homophobia can flourish when academic methods of establishing truth are applied outside the world of the academy to the everyday world. It is similar to the harm that occurs when religious standards of truth are applied outside the world of religion.
> Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that Ellis and
Hellberg's research findings got replicated several times and
turned out to be 100% reliable. What would *that* prove?
Nothing, but then almost all science proves nothing. All science tells us is what hasn't been disproven. Truths are not out there in the world hidden by the creator like epistemological Easter eggs for us poor human beings to ferret out.
People create truths to achieve their goals, just as we make scalpels and other instruments so surgeons can operate successfully on their patients.
>But you appear to believe that an article published in Personality
and Individual Differences, a peer-reviewed academic journal, can
help "create the truth that queerness is natural and with that truth
create justice for queers," which it doesn't. :-0
Sure it can. It all depends on what uses we chose to put it to. If the scholarly way is to present information in journals and then have it critiqued and then critique the critique, it all seems like academic busywork to me. What is the point? To give scholars something to do? How does any of this activity bring about social justice? It seems to me that the value of these articles lies in whether or not they can be used to bring about the ends we seek.
> The most important strategic/useful truths are that, historically,
homophobia has not been universal and that heterosexism -- the idea
that human beings should be categorized into homosexuals, bisexuals,
and heterosexuals and that heterosexuals are the normal majority --
is a relatively recent historical phenomenon, beginning to arise
first among the middle class in Britain and Europe in the late
nineteenth century and getting exported worldwide as capitalism has
conquered the world.
To me an even more useful/strategic truth is that men have been sucking each others' cocks and women have played with one anothers' pussies since the beginning of human beings. Whether you call us gay, lesbian, queer, dykes, faggots, or peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is beside the point. Queers have been around since people have been around and no harm emanates from our behavior.
Now, people may not agree with my argument. They may be more persuaded by a silly science article. Kewl. If one person can be persuaded to support equality for queers by reading a silly science article, then may a thousand silly articles bloom.
If academics want to argue back in forth in their world -- kewl too. But the methods used to establish truth in the academic world -- statistical models, theories and scholarly give-and-take -- are not the methods used in the everyday world. In this world truth is determined by utility. What is true is what helps us achieve our goals.
People wanted slaves. So a truth was created that Africans were inferior and the descendents of some Biblical so-and-so and, therefore, could be enslaved. Then, slavery was thought to be morally wrong. Africans were now seen as full human beings. Had Africans changed? Of course not. But the truth about them had as the goals of people changed.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister