'Stereotype, attack and stigmatize those who disagree': Employing scientific rhetoric in debates about lesbian and gay parenting

摘要: In this paper, I explore the controversy surrounding lesbian and gay parenting within psychology, focusing on rhetoric with which ‘authoritative’ accounts of are produced. Both ‘advocates’ ‘enemies’ have used what Celia Kitzinger (1990) has dubbed ‘rhetoric pseudoscience’ to preserve scientific integrity their research while, at same time, undermining credibility opponents’ findings. Authors engage in pseudoscience when they attempt persuade readers that a piece is bad science its results, therefore, cannot be taken seriously: highlight (among other things) flaws methodology bias political motivation researchers (Kitzinger, 1990). light recent debates about merits essentialism social constructionism psychology (e.g. Dickins, 1999; Kitzinger, 1999; Rahman, 1999), consider (political) costs benefits using rhetoric.