I confronted Kevin about whether he was banned from anything, and got different info than you report. Without him speaking for himself here, giving context for what you talked about together, this is arguably hearsay and not agreed reference. It's possible that a young student may have been shifty about over-sensitive topics, but a mistake doesn't show me malice in his reasons for wanting to research.
Assuming barred is his word for formal research, it still appears that he wasn't barred from attending, opening this to interpretation. It still leaves the question: what's wrong with informal mingling with people at a con to learn? If he's not publishing about those specific people, I don't see it as a problem. More like a personal benefit to him as a researcher. I think research from someone who hadn't been to a con would be flawed.
Again, the interpretation of Kevin's hypothesis seems hearsay, as it appears to conflate two different things. He requested discretion in sharing it, which you seem to have done against his wishes.
We might infer political reasons. Specifically, we could infer pushing politics that follow Gerbasi, and identity ideology that goes against science - like "blank slatism" that ignores how some human behavior is biologically rooted. It is relevant to the ETLE theory (if there is no default "erotic target" in humans maybe we should forget about that Darwin guy.) It's relevant to a niche subculture with essential character different from general society.
Lawrence's paper on ETLE that you criticize, certainly has flaws... the worst one I see is shitty pop culture sources... but the theory itself doesn't come from her, and doesn't fall down by attacking the author and calling her crazy. That shows an ideology motive.
The blank-slatist side has it's crazypants embarrassments, too - Dr. John Money.
Bottom line, there's reasons to suspect that Kevin's research is being criticized for reasons other than being untenable. If there are mistakes in it, it still strikes me as non malicious.
Whether he or other researchers bring perspectives besides the one we get, they would be valuable. I don't see it as a good thing to have rivals tattling to Uncle Kage to stop research about the less-socially accepted side of a subculture. Gerbasi's attitude did not impress me when she discussed Kevin.
I confronted Kevin about whether he was banned from anything, and got different info than you report. Without him speaking for himself here, giving context for what you talked about together, this is arguably hearsay and not agreed reference. It's possible that a young student may have been shifty about over-sensitive topics, but a mistake doesn't show me malice in his reasons for wanting to research.
Assuming barred is his word for formal research, it still appears that he wasn't barred from attending, opening this to interpretation. It still leaves the question: what's wrong with informal mingling with people at a con to learn? If he's not publishing about those specific people, I don't see it as a problem. More like a personal benefit to him as a researcher. I think research from someone who hadn't been to a con would be flawed.
Again, the interpretation of Kevin's hypothesis seems hearsay, as it appears to conflate two different things. He requested discretion in sharing it, which you seem to have done against his wishes.
We might infer political reasons. Specifically, we could infer pushing politics that follow Gerbasi, and identity ideology that goes against science - like "blank slatism" that ignores how some human behavior is biologically rooted. It is relevant to the ETLE theory (if there is no default "erotic target" in humans maybe we should forget about that Darwin guy.) It's relevant to a niche subculture with essential character different from general society.
Lawrence's paper on ETLE that you criticize, certainly has flaws... the worst one I see is shitty pop culture sources... but the theory itself doesn't come from her, and doesn't fall down by attacking the author and calling her crazy. That shows an ideology motive.
The blank-slatist side has it's crazypants embarrassments, too - Dr. John Money.
Bottom line, there's reasons to suspect that Kevin's research is being criticized for reasons other than being untenable. If there are mistakes in it, it still strikes me as non malicious.
Whether he or other researchers bring perspectives besides the one we get, they would be valuable. I don't see it as a good thing to have rivals tattling to Uncle Kage to stop research about the less-socially accepted side of a subculture. Gerbasi's attitude did not impress me when she discussed Kevin.