cofty: The earth is not flat - that is not a political statement.
Women bear children, men do not - that is also not a political statement.
The sun rises in the East and sets in the west - this is not political.
Appealing to the perspective of worms, Japanese myths and dancing hyenas is bullshit.
Well...technically...the sun doesn't rise. The earth moves, not the sun. That is semantics. Exactly what the structuralists are credited with giving to postmodernism - language as the signifier of political positioning.
If you want to talk about the ethical implications of science then that is an interesting conversation.
No. Not ethics. Not at all. Political positioning isn't about ethics...not really.
I am surprised that you are using Gaad as a proponent for your position, Cofty. I did a quick look at his bio and I wouldn't use him as a spokesperson for hard science. His discipline is soft science at best - soft science with a heavy dose of cultural bias worked into it.
Gaad studied under Russo at Concordia University in Montreal. It took me a while to pull that name out of my memory but I remember critiquing his studies in research methodology class when I took my psychology degree. His studies did not hold up to the rigorous examinations that my professor put them through. Russo's studies were incredibly culturally biased.
Not only that, but there was a graduate student doing his masters in social psych at the time too (he did his undergrad at Concordia). He was always getting his proposals rejected by the faculty because he refused to give up Russo's theories. Russo was not respected in the psych department I attended. It was generally thought that he gave science a bad name. But...I did have some hard core professors who were unforgiving and idealistically motivated.
*nicely done, cofty...edit function is marvelous, isn't it? :)