Can I make an observation? Or rather, let me state something first. I didn't read any of today's or yesterday's thread (at first), nor did I read the article that was linked in the original post. I'm just not interested in the subject matter (gay, bi, trans) either way.

Now, because of this thread (ATTN Kickstart), I dove in and read the original threads anyway. Kickstart has made exactly 3 posts across yesterday's and today's threads (excluding this one):

• 1 with the original clicky, in which he stated he thought this researcher to be biased.
• a couple of posts later, he defined the word "biased" as he understands and uses it, so that you could understand what he was saying and to rule out any possible misunderstanding. Basically he answered your question of "what do you mean 'biased'?" (paraphrased but that was the gist of it).
• his final post was when he put on his moderator cap and told you that the debate between yourself and Nemohac was getting too heated, this is something all the mods do when things get really heated.

Now for my observation. You weren't in a debate with Kickstart, not about homo- bi- or transsexuality nor about the contents of the article he linked to. You never responded to Kickstart's definition of "bias". You were still establishing the common grounds, the ball was in your court, for you to take him up on his definition of the word "bias" or on how that definition would or wouldn't apply to the article or researcher. What you did do is have a lot of discussion with other people.

And yet, today you start this thread calling Kickstart prejudiced and unreasonable. I'm sincerely asking you, what grounds do you have for calling Kickstart that?

Prejudice? Against who? The researcher who postulated this new theory about sexual selection? The person who wrote the article? Homo- bi- transsexuals as (a) group(s)? You? How did he express this prejudice? By saying he believed the researcher might personally be a little too close to the subject matter and as such her research might possibly have been influenced (subconsciously)? He never actually stated that as fact, just that it was something he thought should be considered. No more, no less. He even said as much in his second post.

The only thing that could possibly be viewed as prejudice on his part is that he assumed homo- bi- and transsexual "agendas" to be one and the same thing (whatever that may be), something which you consider to be very distinct and different. However at the time of his OP he had no way of knowing that.

Unreasonable? You never reasoned with each other, so how could you make that assesment?

Again, what basis do you have for calling Kickstart both prejudiced and unreasonable? As far as I can tell, you have only the flimsiest of grounds for the former and none for the latter. Might it be that you have let previous experiences with Kickstart cloud your judgment? Maybe you took such emotional things as personal likes and dislikes and possibly held grudges from the past into this?

I still haven't read the threads in their entirety, just what transpired between you and Kickstart, and I don't think you had sufficient grounds to start this thread. Not where Kickstart is concerned anyway, I don't know about what other people said to you or you to them. All in all, I consider this thread to be uncalled for or totally misdirected.

I do hope you realize that I don't bear you any ill will, and that I'm not out to make this a "Kickstart is a god, He can do no wrong" post. I am trying to answer the question you asked of fitzso how you could have let your personal feelings colour the debate.