I wasn't disrespecting her work. In this discussion, though, her writing on the hard science being referenced is extremely valuable. Her giving a conclusive statement on the intent of the original author muddies the pool a little bit.

I keep hearing "well the scientists say so!", but it's simply not enough. For instance, I am enamoured with the work of physicists and their unique ability to explain the beauty of the "clockwork of the universe", so to speak. Outside of my personal sphere, I wouldn't consult a PhD Physics for advice on breaking up a fight between friends, necessarily.

Also, I didn't attack anyone here so please leave the ad hominem jabs at home.

edit: typo

Sorry to disagree and with all my respects I find you attacked her when you under valuate her job in the topic compared with other professionals. It is exactly her topic of research and you throw her away.

I didn't attack her at all, nevermind on her work in Neurosexuality. Frankly, it's a subject I know nothing about and have no position to do so.

I did imply that it's no more her position to conclude the subject of the original essay than anybody else's, and cautioned against taking words of any number of scientists as canon on the understanding of both the original essay and any social implications it may or should have.

edit: Rereading my original statement, I could have certainly made my implication more clear. I'll concede that point.

Probably you missunderstood what neurosexuality mean. It is a mix of philosophy, psychology, social sciences, physics and biology. That is why I think it is very relevant for the topic. I didn't mean to attack you, but I would like to people to consider her opinions too. Some people trend to discard what doesn't fit with their opinions too quickly and this leads to problems

I can assure you, I didn't misunderstand what it means.