Thoughts on readings.

"Most striking is McFadden's admission that his primary theory relies on evidence that is largely circumstantial" (2008, 309). Bonnie Spanier and Jessica Horowitz

     This reminded me a lot of the discussion we had in class about the Biology textbook chapters and the validity of the text based on the author's status at a University and the fact that Kaye had picked the text. Although we seem to have full-diclosure here I am left feeling unamused that such serious research would be conducted from a loose evidentiary base.

"After acknowledging the possibility that there may, in fact, be no common underlying cause for all the different observations, McFadden reminds the reader that until the answer is found "science dictates that one tries to find the simplest possible explanation for as many facts as possible, and the prenatal-androgen-exposure explanation appears to do the job' (2008, 318). Bonnie Spanier and Jessica Horowitz

Again, this is extremely unsettling to me, as an individual I prefer the rational and logic. However, this sounds like more of a wild goose chase to me. Is it really prudent to conduct research simply searchng for the simplest possible explanation? As we have learned, when is it ever simle when it comes to something as complex, individualized and intimate as someone's sexuality and gender?

"In this book, I ask readers to follow the same journey I have taken, looking closely at the measures and methods in order to understand gaps and fundamental contradictions in the data." Jordan-Young, Brainstorm.

It was refreshing to finally move on to Brainstorm. Although at times similarly frustrating I found the author's section, "Some Notes on the Aims of This Book" to be refreshing.