What are you ranting about now? Are you saying it is never ethical to undertake psychological or sex research with volunteers?
-
-
Replying to @unwitod @sophienotemily and
I think it's absolutely and totally unethical to use the plethysmograph and the thermistor clip as the basis for any kind of legal ruling, and their use in asylum claims that you mention is barbaric and monstrous
3 replies 1 retweet 21 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @unwitod and
It's the same kind of power-tripping tea-leaf-reading bullshit as selling the polygraph as a "lie detector", only with genitals involved
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @unwitod and
As far as "academic sexologists" doing this shit consensually with volunteers, sure, whatever gets your rocks off Just don't make me fund your little games and don't start basing policy on it
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @unwitod and
You know the key claim behind this kind of biometric testing - that the biometric in question objectively equates to the experience of "attraction" - is unfalsifiable and taken as axiomatic
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @unwitod and
You can never disprove it by having someone actually testify "I had a boner but I wasn't into it" The whole point of the test is to argue "Ah, but the boner proves you WERE into it, and you were LYING" The whole worldview is one aimed at eroding consent
1 reply 1 retweet 20 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @unwitod and
But yeah if you want to validate the generations-old tradition of defense attorneys in rape trials going "Well she showed the biological signs of arousal and sexual interest" you can fuck right off
1 reply 1 retweet 25 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @sophienotemily and
You do enjoy your little rants don't you? How adorable. I was clearly listing potential sources of corroborating evidence, as part of a wider discussion contrasting knowledge of homosexuality (potentially verifiable) with knowledge of gender identity (not verifiable)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @unwitod @sophienotemily and
The point is chasing "objective verification" inevitably leads to these pseudoscientific moral atrocities and you shouldn't do it
3 replies 1 retweet 20 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @unwitod and
You do know what happens to these people if they can’t provide “proof”, don’t you? We don’t live in a perfect world.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Sure except you're part of what's making it "imperfect", by defending the idea of medical gatekeeping as opposed to self-ID
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.