Ah, yes. But it appears far too often that junk science is that which we disagree with while - of course - "real" science is the science that produces results we like.
Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of this.
You're statement is based on a implicit acceptance of social constructionism, which is the god of liberals everywhere and the foundation upon which 'gender studies' is based. It's has it's limits of validity, but beyond that limit is where junk science comes into the picture:
One of the powerful attractions of this austere vision, long before it “paid off” in technology, lies in the fact that a disenchanted world is correlative to a self-defining subject, and that the winning through to a self-defining identity was accompanied by a sense of exhilaration of power, that the subject need no longer define his perfection or vice, his equilibrium or disharmony, in relation to an external order. With the forging of this modern subjectivity there comes a new notion of freedom, and a newly central role attributed to freedom, which seems to have proved itself definitive and irreversible. (Taylor, Charles. Hegel pp.8).And from Richard Tarnas:
Let us, then, take our strategy of critical self-reflection one crucial step and perhaps inevitable step further. Let us apply it to the fundamental governing assumption and starting point of the modern view—a pervasive assumption that subtly continues to influence the postmodern turn as well—that any meaning and purpose the human mind perceives in the universe does not exist intrinsically in the universe but is constructed and projected onto it by the human mind. Might not this be the final, most global anthropocentric delusion of all? For is it not an extraordinary act of human hubris—literally, a hubris of cosmic proportions—to assume that the exclusive source of all meaning and purpose in the universe is ultimately centered in the human mind, which is therefore absolutely unique and special and in this sense superior to the entire cosmos? To presume that the universe utterly lacks what we human beings, the offspring and expression of that universe, conspicuously possess? To assume that the part somehow radically differs from and transcends the whole? To base our entire world view on the a priori principle that whenever human beings perceive any patterns of psychological or spiritual significance in the nonhuman world, any signs of interiority and mind, any suggestion of purposefully coherent order and intelligible meaning, these must be understood as no more than human constructions and projections, as ultimately rooted in the human mind and never in the world?Perhaps this complete voiding of the cosmos, this absolute privileging of the human, is the ultimate act of anthropocentric projection, the most subtle yet prodigious form of human self-aggrandizement. Perhaps the modern mind has been projecting soullessness and mindlessness on a cosmic scale, systematically filtering and eliciting all data according to its self-elevating assumptions at the very moment we believed we were “cleansing” our minds of “distortions.” Have we been living in a self-produced bubble of cosmic isolation? Perhaps the very attempt to de-anthropomorphize reality in such an absolute and simplistic manner is itself a supremely anthropocentric act. (Tarnas, Richard. Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View. pp. 35).