Taking Sides : Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Human Sexuality (Taking Sides)

Rating:
Summary: An outstanding reference book for many areas.
Review: I have always called the "Taking Sides" books a reference set. They are nothing other than outstanding at the high school and community college level for use across the curriculum especially in psychology, sociology, government, debate class, speech and the list is endless when you are discussing controversial topics in your classroom. I only wish these books were advertised as a set.

Rating:
Summary: Intellectual fuel for dialoguing and learning
Review: Taverner and Francoeur have provided access to a wide diversity of opinions. Leading voices from the field of sexuality speak about controversial issues which impact the study of Human Sexuality. Moreover, the editing provides an intelligent, compelling and up-to-date read---all the while setting the stage for stimulating discussions and continued learning. The reader now has an opportunity to better know the opposing arguments, thus more fully understanding their own stance.

Rating:
Summary: Taking the Conservative, Ignorant Side
Review: This textbook is outragously disappointing. It made me lose faith in academia. Sure, they let intelligent people like Pat Califia and Susan Hamson write some articles - only to write incredibly warped interpretations of them. Each debate is preceded and concluded with a painful gut-wrenchingly biased quip by the editors. You don't have to be a lawyer to see how obvious the supposed "thoughtful questions" they pose lead the reader to agreement with the editors. Even in the face of a clear, academic, scientific, humanitarian point of view, if the opposer is more well-known, conservative, or male, the editors will regard their conclusions more highly.

The editors make three particular mistakes that make my head swim: they refer to dividing males and females into 2 categories as "diversity" (that's called a binary, folks), they confuse sex with gender identity and with sexuality (those are three different things, people), and they insist on asking "how should people with vandalized lovemaps be treated?" when the debate itself was questioning whether a lovemap exists much less could be vandalized, and why sexual diversity is considered a sickness in the first place.

Here's the worst: They actually ask, "Do we use the emerging evidence of gender diversity to maintain traditional patriarchal prerogatives?" First - this followed a discussion by John Gray - a man with absolutely no scientific credentials. Second - gender DIVERSITY is not a binary. Third - The emerging evidence supports a TRUE diversity of gender (people differ more within the sexes than between them) a truth upon which a patriarchy would fall.