, ,

Earlier this week I criticised an editor in a medical journal for his title in a research paper, suggesting that Serotonin levels were linked (cause and effect) of bisexuality. Needless to say, the comments I have received in reply have been, well, a tad less than encouraging!

Serotonin has long been recognised as a regulator of mood and those taking medication that inhibits the reuptake of serotonin know all too well that their sexual desire/interest often plummets. Conversely, in some conditions, the absence of high levels is irrelevant to the sex drive. Put simply, serotonin does not determine anything and to suggest it is cause and effect of sexuality is nonsense. So, I voice my professional opinion.

(I should add a caveat here, as science progresses, if a link between sexuality and cognition is shown, then it is possible that serotonin might well play a part, but it will only be a contributing factor)

In another area of my life, I am embroiled in a political row in that some of my peers are asking that we take  militant action in response to a new policy from the Government (don’t worry, they are not proposing that we go marching naked down London’s Oxford Street as the Home Secretary might have us). Yet, in respect of the proposed action, I am minded to say NO and voice my professional opinion.

Why is this a bother? Well, in the first issue, people of different sexualities struggle enough in societies where there are is a prevailing view that anything other than hetrosexuality is ideal and so to allow a suggestion that sexuality might be somehow medically changeable or modified is, to my mind, morally corrupt.

Why morally corrupt? to my mind, this idea encourages bigotry and misguided thinking in the rational and misleads those with no more than a passing interest. As such, I choose to take a stand.

On the second issue, my thoughts are simply that, I have a social responsibility not to take action that would have an adverse impact on the general public. In fact, I suspect that my peers might just be projecting their frustration, but that’s another blog.

Let me pose two questions

1. What do you feel strongly about? What would you defend or condemn? Do you have a particular right, interest or desire that you care passionately about?

2. What happens to you, psychologically speaking (e.g. that internal dialogue or feelings), when your moral right is in contrast with someone else’s moral right? What rationale do you use to untangle the conflict?