Reply to comment

I am recalling times in my science classes where we were asked to collect data and plot it on a graph. We were next asked to find a relationship between our x inputs and y values. Sometimes, the data would form a parabola. Other times, it would form a straight line. But every time I plotted data, there would be some data points that just didn't fit the curve. And that's what I think natural science does with gender and sexuality issues: it takes the data, tries to find a pattern and the points that don't fit are easily excluded.

Reading about gender and sexuality from the social scientist's lens offered a unique experience: I found that 'people were allowed to come into the picture'. Those were my own words so I don't have to cite it or anything but I felt like that needed some explaining. In a textbook, you'll see a diagram of the penis. In the text underneath, it will inform us that the male has... You will not find in that textbook a blurb where the male says, "Honestly, student, I identify myself as female". That kind of statement doesn't fit with the larger picture, a picture that for so long, hasn't included the beliefs, feelings and thoughts of the individual.

So I'm finding that while science tries to find objective, logical, and calculated ways to classify that reduces variables, social science allows the 'diagram' on the page to have a name, a point of view and a different way of life. However, social science is a discipline that too is guilty of trying to force squares into circles. Now, people with similar beliefs are being forced into the same category as if identifying as male to one person is the same to another.  Which of these lenses speak more to my own questions? Well, I prefer to put both lenses in a pair of eyeglass frames and wear them at the tip of my nose, using them to see while being able to peer above and give things a fresh perspective.

Asia G.