Flayrah readers, reserve skepticism and question the reporting.
I have no part in Kevin's survey, however I hosted an announcement/link to it, taking care to make no endorsement. I haven't represented it as well designed (I avoided reading it critically so I wouldn't prejudice the announcement), just that questions about understudied topics are worth asking for science. https://dogpatchpress.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/researchers-from-northwestern/
It was very nice of JM to pass Kevin to my blog (it's always nice to be noticed.) From talking to Kevin I got to look behind the scenes of this topic. A bunch of points in this report jump out at me as biased or disingenous:
- The choice of word to say Kevin was "barred" from a convention. As I heard it, he was simply not granted a pass to do official research. In a similar way, if someone doesn't win their application for a dealers den table, you don't say they are "barred". It strikes me as twisting the facts.
- I did hear that he attended and talked to a few people. OK, what's wrong with that? It's hard to research a group you haven't personally met. Another researcher, Debra Soh, did the same and published a very positive paper about an informal visit to a furry con. She then submitted a piece to my blog praising furries for expressing themselves. Nobody was bugged about it. It gives an impression that since Kevin's work deals with sexuality, the topic is what's causing commotion. There are other reasons to think so (such as the IARP's buddy-buddy relationship with Anthrocon.)
- Reporting that Kevin believes furries are zoophiles... it strikes me as out of context, and inflammatory. First consider the source- JM has articles that make very radical opinions that zoophiles are a discriminated minority. So why are we seeing the word put out harmfully from this source, with that context? Second, to my understanding, "autozoophile" doesn't imply real animals. That would be a hypothesis that some people get aroused by imagining themselves being animals. So what? It implies anthropomorphism and role play (does this sound familiar?) Setting aside the furries who want nothing to do with sexy stuff, and concerning the large amount who do, this strikes me as a completely uncontroversial theory- like an analytical label on something already known. Of course labeling has it's own problems, but research benefits from articulating a framework.
-Concerning the Erotic Target Location Error theory (ETLE), again I sense biased reporting of it, more concerned with dismissing inconvenient politics than science. Thats another topic though.
- Speaking of politics: the mention of Gerbasi and Uncle Kage here strikes me as appeal to authority. Actually that's a good reason to distrust this criticism. Critics and complainers about Kevin seem to come from one source- not the public, or subjects presumed at risk of mistreatmnt - but rival researchers. Jealous rival or not, Gerbasi seems to pull much more cred than I think is due. She's the source of the "species identity disorder" baloney (speaking of dubious labels!) Putting Kage (a chemist) as co author on her research paper might raise an eyebrow. The IARP takes a monopoly as go-to source for press quotes, and we could ask if they would rather be the PR wing of Anthrocon or scientists. Maybe give the kid a break, and let other researchers approach the fetish topic from frameworks apart from identity politics and PR? This is a good reason to comment. (I'm not on anyone's "team", just interested in more and better perspectives.)
- Clumsiness you can find here might be attributed to a newbie approaching a topic that's unstudied, rather than malice or disdain for subjects. I don't hold back from calling bullshit when I see it, but I have no reason to think Kevin's heart is in the wrong place.
Agree with this-
Researchers might bear in mind that, unlike hebephilia, many see furry purely as a hobby – one appearing to promote positive self-esteem – and not as a matter for clinical psychology. There is clear potential for inappropriate medicalization, which needs to be addressed.
Flayrah readers, reserve skepticism and question the reporting.
I have no part in Kevin's survey, however I hosted an announcement/link to it, taking care to make no endorsement. I haven't represented it as well designed (I avoided reading it critically so I wouldn't prejudice the announcement), just that questions about understudied topics are worth asking for science.
https://dogpatchpress.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/researchers-from-northwestern/
It was very nice of JM to pass Kevin to my blog (it's always nice to be noticed.) From talking to Kevin I got to look behind the scenes of this topic. A bunch of points in this report jump out at me as biased or disingenous:
- The choice of word to say Kevin was "barred" from a convention. As I heard it, he was simply not granted a pass to do official research. In a similar way, if someone doesn't win their application for a dealers den table, you don't say they are "barred". It strikes me as twisting the facts.
- I did hear that he attended and talked to a few people. OK, what's wrong with that? It's hard to research a group you haven't personally met. Another researcher, Debra Soh, did the same and published a very positive paper about an informal visit to a furry con. She then submitted a piece to my blog praising furries for expressing themselves. Nobody was bugged about it. It gives an impression that since Kevin's work deals with sexuality, the topic is what's causing commotion. There are other reasons to think so (such as the IARP's buddy-buddy relationship with Anthrocon.)
- Reporting that Kevin believes furries are zoophiles... it strikes me as out of context, and inflammatory. First consider the source- JM has articles that make very radical opinions that zoophiles are a discriminated minority. So why are we seeing the word put out harmfully from this source, with that context? Second, to my understanding, "autozoophile" doesn't imply real animals. That would be a hypothesis that some people get aroused by imagining themselves being animals. So what? It implies anthropomorphism and role play (does this sound familiar?) Setting aside the furries who want nothing to do with sexy stuff, and concerning the large amount who do, this strikes me as a completely uncontroversial theory- like an analytical label on something already known. Of course labeling has it's own problems, but research benefits from articulating a framework.
-Concerning the Erotic Target Location Error theory (ETLE), again I sense biased reporting of it, more concerned with dismissing inconvenient politics than science. Thats another topic though.
- Speaking of politics: the mention of Gerbasi and Uncle Kage here strikes me as appeal to authority. Actually that's a good reason to distrust this criticism. Critics and complainers about Kevin seem to come from one source- not the public, or subjects presumed at risk of mistreatmnt - but rival researchers. Jealous rival or not, Gerbasi seems to pull much more cred than I think is due. She's the source of the "species identity disorder" baloney (speaking of dubious labels!) Putting Kage (a chemist) as co author on her research paper might raise an eyebrow. The IARP takes a monopoly as go-to source for press quotes, and we could ask if they would rather be the PR wing of Anthrocon or scientists. Maybe give the kid a break, and let other researchers approach the fetish topic from frameworks apart from identity politics and PR? This is a good reason to comment. (I'm not on anyone's "team", just interested in more and better perspectives.)
- Clumsiness you can find here might be attributed to a newbie approaching a topic that's unstudied, rather than malice or disdain for subjects. I don't hold back from calling bullshit when I see it, but I have no reason to think Kevin's heart is in the wrong place.
Agree with this-