Battleangel

It’s not easy supporting diversity these days. At least not when you are in danger of overstepping into the domain of genus / gender “experts” and militant feminists. Now you even have the government set against you. It figures.
As reported by Gene Expression, Secular Blasphemy and PrestoPundit and initiated by Carl Hamilton’s article in Aftonbladet two weeks ago, Swedish officials have solved the issue of nature versus nurture. Good for them. And quite spectacular news since the rest of the world is still pondering the issue which has certainly occupied great minds since the evolutionary dawn of abstract thinking to some extent.

The case of Annica Dahlström: World-renowned neuroscientist Annica Dahlström’s work on the neurological differences between the sexes was found to be in violation of the scientific position of the Swedish government. Dahlström was supposed to have been included, or interviewed in a pamphlet about egalitarianism. But that never happened. A branch of the Department of the Interior, which funded the publication, called her opinion “an heretical branch of feminism” and concluded that her views were irreconcilable with the “Swedish policy.”

Hamilton goes so far as to compare this shift in policy with Trofim Lysenko’s infamous rise to power in the Soviet Union. How science crumbled under the weight of ideology and propaganda. This is in so many ways related to “crusade against science” that I always accuse the US government of carrying out. Here is a prime example of a Swedish equivalent. A case where political priorities are allowed to deeply effect the scientific outcome. And even if it’s not “censorship” or a “ban” like some bloggers have been trying to prove, it is still deeply troubling.

As a would-be Social Psychologist it may seem strange that I champion the idea that we are NOT blank slates. But I also have a background in biology. And I do read many of the reports that are published on the topic each year. And as a Social Psychologist, if there is anything I am familiar with it is culture, conformism and hegemony. Terms that better explain what is happening in the field than simply assuming that the best theories prevail. It is perhaps not so surprising that people who never been introduced to natural selection or indeed deductive reasoning can’t understand the damage they have just caused.
It is with a heavy heart that I conclude that many Social Scientists, if not all, have become a second clergy when it comes to gender. And that many of these oversimplifying social constructionists are unwittingly walking hand in hand with the political elite, the masses and the mob. None of which would are scientists or have a say in this. But some people don’t know when to quit. Like snake charmers they keep playing their flute to get their message through.
To be fair to everyone, the “truth” of the matter is that WE DON’T KNOW YET! IN FACT WE HAVE NO IDEA. Anyone who proclaims to know exactly where the line between socialization and genetics is draw is lying. And obviously this would have been a non-issue had it not been entered into state policy.

Note: One should also take care not to twist this into some issue of why science should be under stricter regulation. That is not the issue here. The issue is of course that there are two separate branches explaining the very same thing more or less. I see a definitive danger in this, as opportunists no doubt will be using this to get to science as whole. For the conspiratorial among us, it is a distinct possibility that someone in government made sure this would be official policy so that there would be snags that could invite further government meddling.

But as far as the issue itself is concerned, every research effort must take into account both sides of the controversy but it MUST start out in the realm of biology. ESPECIALLY when it comes to fundamental issues like procreation and gender. Blasphemy!

The future, if we are to have one, is increasingly to be in the hands of the scientifically literate, those who at least know what it is all about. There can be no multicultural solution to the genetics of cystic fibrosis; the ozone hole cannot be deconstructed; there is nothing whatsoever relativistic or culturally contextual about the dopamine transporter molecules whose blockages by cocaine gives a rush of euphoria, the kind that leads the constructivist to doubt the objectivity of science.

Edward. O. Wilson, source: Gene Expression