Science is not a perfect institution

[Buddha1]

MICHEL FOUCAULT​

(from Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

Michel Foucault (October 15, 1926 – June 26, 1984) was a French philosopher who held a chair at the Collège de France, which he gave the title "The History of Systems of Thought." His writings have had an enormous impact on other scholarly work: Foucault's influence extends across the humanities and social sciences, and across many applied and professional areas of study.

M. Foucault is well known for his critiques of various social institutions, most notably psychiatry, medicine and the prison system, and also for his ideas on the history of sexuality. His general theories concerning power and the relation between power and knowledge, as well as his ideas concerning "discourse" in relation to the history of Western thought, have been widely discussed and applied. Foucault was also critical of decidedly social constructs that implied an identity, which included everything from the identity of male/female and homosexual, to that of criminals and political activists. A philosophical example of Foucault's theories on identity is an observation of the history of homosexual identity, which progressed over the years from an implied act to an implied identity.

His work is often described as postmodernist or post-structuralist by contemporary commentators and critics. During the 1960s, however, he was more often associated with the structuralist movement. Although he was initially happy to go along with this description, he later emphasised his distance from the structuralist approach, arguing that unlike the structuralists he did not adopt a formalist approach. Neither was he interested in having the postmodern label applied to his own work, saying he preferred to discuss how 'modernity' was defined.

 

[Buddha1]

In today's America, A scientist takes about a dozen transgendered males who identify themselves as 'homosexuals'. They perfectly fit the homosexual stereotype and so noone can dispute the study. He finds that homosexual men have brain structures similar to that of women.

And this kind of sampling is used in every study that seeks to distinguish between 'heterosexuals' and 'homosexuals' (generally to show the latter as 'feminine').

In any case the 'homosexual' community comprises predominantly of transgendered males (to various degrees) as most masculine gendered males prefer to call themselves 'straight' or 'heterosexual' even if they have a predominant/ exclusive desire for men (for obvious reasons). So even a seemingly 'honest' sampling cannot escape this basic fault.

Another problem with studies that claim to find differences between 'heterosexuals' and 'homosexuals' is the role of the social factor --- including the social feminisation of 'homosexuals' (sic), just like there is a social artificial masculinisation of men who identify themselves as heterosexuals. Homosexual men are socially disempowered and demasculinised which is likely to affect their behaviour, attitudes, self-perception as well as their sense of masculinity. Homosexual men also usually grow up feeling isolated from the rest and do not have the chance to grow up with other boys, and thus are deprived of their chance to develop their masculinity. If they do get accross to a 'homosexual' group it is more likely to be 'queer'/ feminine space that does nothing to develop their masculinity (in fact it looks down at it!). All this will definitely have an impact on the behaviours and attitudes of many 'gay' identified men (although not all), and sometimes even on their anatomy (e.g. responses of the brain!).

A heterosexually identified person of the same gender orientation (i.e. having similar levels of masculinity and femininity) will have a much more hightened sense of masculinity and manhood, which will be reflected in his attitudes, behaviours and self-image, and sometimes in parts of his anatomy.

 

[Buddha1]

They are just saboteurs who are incapable of building anything on their own, and who are certainly not equipped to be guardians of morality, science, or common sense.

They have an axe to grind. We must understand their psychology. They are heavily dependant on the artificial power that heterosexuality brings --- actually they are addicted to it (whether or not they are really heterosexuals in spirit). And this power is heavily dependant on keeping lies afloat by force, hook or crook. They will do everything they can to sabotage. It is for us to find a way to defeat them. After all truth is on our side.

 

[Buddha1]

Another site that clearly shows that brain differences are a 'gender' thing rather than 'sexual'.

http://heathers.net/psy/brain-clue.html

Of course the media has given such publicity to the one proclaiming that 'sexuality' makes one's brain different (so much so that my far off country too carried the news prominently), but the other news has totally escaped the press --- as it is a dampener as far as furthering the heterosexual agenda is concerned.

 

[Buddha1]

They often cleverly say that findings like the 'gene' thing explains 'some' homosexuality, but do not admit that this 'some' refers to 'feminine' homosexuals.

 

[Buddha1]

Or accept the fact that if they disected the brains of transgendered 'heterosexuals' (whether identifying themselves as striaghts or as transvestites/ transexuals), they would pretty much find the same characteristics/ differences as in the so-called 'homosexuals'.

Biology is all about 'gender' not 'sexuality'.

Sexuality is a social construct.

And any obvious or hidden differences are because of social environment.

 

[MetaKron]

I keep feeling like the wiring that attracts men and women to each other IS the wiring that attracts same sex couples to each other and science just isn't interpreting this correctly.

There has to be a reason why they feel that it's necessary to force people to be heterosexual. It can't be the default or it would enforce itself.

 

[Buddha1]

I keep feeling like the wiring that attracts men and women to each other IS the wiring that attracts same sex couples to each other and science just isn't interpreting this correctly.

Not only couples......even singles

Science is approaching the whole subject of sexuality in a very very abstract and haphazard manner.

It has not even got its basic right --- and is too eager to build the upper floors.

It just takes a couple of aspects from here or there --- aspects that are immaterial from biological point of view, but are only important from social (heterosexual ideology) point of view, and then studies them in isolation.

It should try to take a wholesome (is it the right word?) view, but for that it must shed its biases and its blind loyalty to the cause of heteroseuxalism.

 

[Buddha1]

It has not even got its basic right --- and is too eager to build the upper floors.

E.g., it has not even defined scientifically what is or is not 'homosexual', 'gay' straight' or 'heterosexual', or even 'sexual orientation'. In fact they have not even defined the term 'sexuality' (even masters and Johnson's could not define the word). These are all social terms of recent socio-political origins and hence need to be defined precisely before any scientific research --- especially biological --- can be conducted on them. Otherwise it is all a hoax.

And then instead of assuming that heterosexuality is the norm or majority or the original scheme of things, it should clearly prove this through scientific researches --- rather than accept the predominant public opioion as a proof of it.

 

[Buddha1]

It has not even got its basic right --- and is too eager to build the upper floors.

Rather than first building the ground floor or even the upper floors, it is rather concentrating on building the windows of the topmost floor first.

 

[guthrie]

I keep feeling like the wiring that attracts men and women to each other IS the wiring that attracts same sex couples to each other and science just isn't interpreting this correctly.

I would agree. The leading explanation for homosexuality is that certain parts of the brain connected with attraction are affected by hormone levels in the womb, so that they are, in the case of men, feminised so that their ideal mate is actually someone of the same sex, rather than the opposite.

 

[Buddha1]

I keep feeling like the wiring that attracts men and women to each other IS the wiring that attracts same sex couples to each other and science just isn't interpreting this correctly.

If my hypotheses is correct (and there is enough logic and evidences to substantiate that) then the basic circuit of men are designed for male-male attraction. Male-female attraction is an add-on wiring (except in some males who are 'inner hermaphrodites' and have a different basic circuit that makes them exclusively and permanently desire women) and is adusted by the nature from time to time to suit the level of reproduction desired by it.

This is also well borne out by recent scientific advances including the researches of top scientists like Bruce Bagemihl.

also see:

Darwin is wrong about sexuality , and

The Feminisation of men

Heterosexuality is queer

 

[MetaKron]

I would agree. The leading explanation for homosexuality is that certain parts of the brain connected with attraction are affected by hormone levels in the womb, so that they are, in the case of men, feminised so that their ideal mate is actually someone of the same sex, rather than the opposite.

There is a certain confirmation bias in that. The idea that homosexuality has something to do with feminization has a limited validity because a lot of homosexuals are not effeminate. Also, to me, the effeminate stereotype is not legitimately feminine. A real female with real physical strength, a real physique, a Lilith instead of an Eve, this is what I would think a real man would be wired for if anything. So what if she has "male" characteristics? She also has two feet to stand on and two hands to work with, and a brain. She's great as a woman.

What are we really attracted to? That IS complex.

 

[Buddha1]

MICHEL FOUCAULT​

(from Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)
......M. Foucault is well known for his critiques of various social institutions, most notably psychiatry, medicine and ...... also for his ideas on the history of sexuality. Foucault was also critical of decidedly social constructs that implied an identity, which included everything from the identity of male/female and homosexual, to that of criminals and political activists. A philosophical example of Foucault's theories on identity is an observation of the history of homosexual identity, which progressed over the years from an implied act to an implied identity.

What could be a stronger evidence than M. Foucault --- A scientist of such a great repute has held much the same views as I have said all along from science to psychiatry to male gender and sexuality.

 

[guthrie]

There is a certain confirmation bias in that. The idea that homosexuality has something to do with feminization has a limited validity because a lot of homosexuals are not effeminate.

Indeed, but as I tried to make clear but obviously failed, all you need to do is probably fiddle a very small part of the brain, the bit that decides whether you are attracted to a man or a woman, nothing else need get changed at all. Since you do ask what we are attracted, to, that is something we dont quite know yet. Suffice to say that its kind of hard to confirmation bias studies involving randomness and CAT scans of brains etc.

Also, to me, the effeminate stereotype is not legitimately feminine.

Well, not to me. Its more of a value judgement by yourself, rather than something that can be currently proven.

A real female with real physical strength, a real physique, a Lilith instead of an Eve, this is what I would think a real man would be wired for if anything. So what if she has "male" characteristics? She also has two feet to stand on and two hands to work with, and a brain. She's great as a woman.

Again, what you think a real man would be wired for. How many real men have you met? Are you a real man? Men are wired for just about everything- small breasts, large breasts, wide/ narrow hips, long legs, no legs, red/ black/ blonde hair, bottom, nose, feet etc etc.

Perhaps you need to learn more about the brain sex idea:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00018E9D-879D-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF

A quick and easy way of thinking of it is to think of the brain as being made up of different modules, which have various modes, on a continuum. Exposure to hormones and stuff in the womb could be thought of as changing the mode of each module, so that you end up with a brain with a bunch of abilities on various continuums. Each continuum can then be thought of (stereotyped) as male----- female, because men on average exhibit that behaviour more than women. Take agression as an example. I am a quiet, unagressive sort of person, whereas some people are agressive, as if they have a more "masculine" part of the brain that deals with agression, but mine is more "feminine".

Or look at it another way, a friend of mine is a lesbian. She also trianed as an engineer. Does this mean she is a man? No, of course not. You could say she has a more "masculinised" brain. But at base, shes human, like everyone else, and whether someone is "masculine" or "feminine" doesnt really matter.

 

[Buddha1]

But at base, shes human, like everyone else, and whether someone is "masculine" or "feminine" doesnt really matter.

Sure, the heterosexual society doesn't really think gender is biological or natural --- it's just brought about by social conditioning.

But your sexual interest...... that is a different thing althogether. That is the basic, most natural classification men are divided into. What makes a man different from another is whether he likes men or women, not whether he feels like a man or a woman.

To the heterosexual society, it doesn't matter whether one is masculine or feminine, but it makes a hell lot of difference whether someone likes men or women (actually whether or not someone likes women --- that's how the entire heterosexual society is structured/ classified)

 

[Buddha1]

Perhaps you need to learn more about the brain sex idea:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00018E9D-879D-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF

Indeed, the 'brain' theory about so-called sexual orientation has been critisiced severely and dismissed by peers on several other counts --- that are nothing compared to the objections I have raised about the theory above.

But that does not prevent the vested interest group from splashing it about as evidence. They are plain and simple motivated and only interested in defending their position by hook or crook.

And I'm amazed how, a half-baked theory like the brain and sexual orienatation, is being used by 'scientific papers' as if they have been proved beyond doubt.

Like I said there is indeed something terribly, terribly wrong with science --- especially when it comes to sexuality. Science is being blatantly abused by the heterosexual vested interest group.

 

[genep]

Since the original thread to discuss the issue is now discussing a sub-issue "mental illness", I've decided to create a new thread to continue the original discussion.


"Science is getting away from nature and working against it!" .

When I was doing cardio-vascular research in medical school, I took the literature I was using for my research too seriously. So the head of research – an MD-PhD, perhaps the leading expert on Cardio-vascular physiology in the world at the time -- told me with a very serious face that at least 50% of all research is utter fraud. Another 25% is just research that feeds the fraud.
What he did not tell me was that the remaining 25% of research is done to uncover the fraud .. for which no researcher has ever gone to jail no matter how many hundreds of thousands of people are killed or poisoned because of the fraud. They can only get promoted to be department heads, or heads of medical schools.
It would take me another 25 years to laugh because he was way off with his estimates.
When “interferon” went crazy with research in the 70’s well over 80% of all the research was utter fraud. … three times in three cities doctors go on strike and the death rate goes down … 50% of all admissions are iatrogenic…
.
Think about this 50% -- stop doctors from practicing and the death rate will drop and the healthcare bill will be halved while patients will be twice as healthy. This is what science is doing for us, and it is like a cancer.

Research on cancer is just a cancer that feeds on bodies with radiation and drugs until the insurance runs out. This feeding frenzy is so insane that perhaps 50% of the time there is no cancer only the cure. And if there is a cure for cancer then chemotherapy and radiation is sure to kill it, the cure.

Heart disease is another cancer in which health is no longer even an issue because blood tests are far more important. These Blood tests have normal values that are so impossible that drugs must be used to give us these impossible normal values. Like a 0 value for cholesterol and a 25 for triglycerides.
IN fact with healthcare health is no longer an issue because the only issue is what drug-deficiencies do we all have to have so that the drug industry can stay healthy.

And the truth is, that the further you look behind the façade of healthcare, that has nothing to do with “health,” the more insane and absurd this healthcare gets to be not even "death-care" because it is all just an industry that is so sick and decadent that it makes the drugs and whores and gambling of organized-crime look even more respectable than a religion.

UV-gap

 

[duendy]

eally ineresting genep. Yes i too have heard of what you speak, and you speak as an insider.
I would also like us to remember the millions of animal victims who keep tis horrendous show on the road.
I am of course not criticizing all medicine, as that's be silly, but there is massive abuse. again, like with the mental health part of it, it is the greed to push drugs.

 

[guthrie]

Genep, you ever read anything by Ivan Illich? He was around in the 60's and 70's, wrote a book on iatrogenesis.

As for use of drugs etc, your almost certainly correct that too many people pop too many pills for conditions that arent real conditions. Fortunately its not so bad here in the UK.