The New York Times has an article about controversy over Professor Michael Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, which reaches some rather politically incorrect conclusions about the reasons some men want to undergo sex changes.
Two quotations in the story caught my eye. First, Deirdre (formerly Donald) McCloskey, a well-known (formerly?) libertarian economist, stated:
"Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment on a book and an author who stepped into the public arena with enthusiasm to deliver a false and unscientific and politically damaging opinion."
Yet the article also relates that McCloskey "wrote to the Illinois state regulators, requesting that they investigate Dr. Bailey for practicing psychology without a license." That goes well beyond "fair comment" and into "trying to get the government to punish an individual I disagree with." (Meanwhile, the charming Andrea James, "a Los Angeles-based transgender advocate and consultant," "downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided.")
Second, Professor Ben Barres of Stanford (whose name has come up on this blog before, in a somewhat related context) is quoted as saying, "Bailey seems to make a living by claiming that the things people hold most deeply true are not true." The quotation is shorn of context, but apparently was meant to be critical, a conclusion supported by Barres's prior defense of political correctness on "gender" issues, linked above. If so, then I vehemently disagree with Professor Barres. Of course, if the relevant research is junk science, it can and should be criticized on those grounds. But scientists have an obligation to pursue the truth, not to worry about people's feelings, and given the climate of political correctness that the controversy over Bailey's research reflects, scientists who are willing to take on subjects that others may deem taboo deserve moral support.
Hat tip: Instapundit.
Sounds like a good blurb for the dust jacket of Freakonomics.
Anon--Good point. Especially when it comes to questions of parenting, which, I can vouch, result in some almost theologically-held beliefs.
Another hypocritical action in my chosen profession. In grad school, we are told that we'll never get published /unless/ we challenge deeply-held, or at least long-held, views. Now we find that you cannot do that. Sometimes.
On the other hand, Christians and Jews have a long tradition (jews much longer) of self-criticism. Jewish thought and teaching has always encouraged challenging traditions thoughts and beliefs. For Christians, it didn't really start until the Jesuits came on the scene during the Counter-Reformation.
I view the ability to criticize Christianity and Jewish beliefs as a strength to be proud of. Unless, you want to be more like the Islamic religion, where dissent isn't really acceptable.
Indeed, the all-powerful atheist lobby, which controls the U.S. government, permits no public condemnation whatsoever of atheists or their views. No one is able to discriminate against atheists in matters such as child custody determinations, for example.
In all seriousness, feel free to challenge my "beliefs" as an atheist. I promise you one thing, I won't claim that you're engaging in blasphemy.
I've noticed recently that many people think that if a view is deeply and sincerely held, that by itself is good evidence that the view is objectively correct. I don't think that this is a mistake which is confined to political topics, or that it is one which is more common now than in the past.
For example, many, many jurors apparently make a decision based mostly on which lawyer they *trust* the most (and frequently make that decision based on things like whether they have shifty eyes). As far as I can tell, it has ever been thus.
As far as I can see, there is no magic bullet. All we can do is try to avoid descending into personalities ourselves, and at the same time defend against personal attack those who seem to be acting in good faith when they challenge orthodoxy.
I believe the phrase is "ripping Bailey a new one"?
A letter on the article, not from Bailey, was published in the February 2004 issue available at http://www.reason.com/news/show/29037.html
Have M&W's careers suffered due to the controversy? They're heroes in the Arab world and were invited to Yearly Kos.
Mutual jackassery?
Yes, but the standards of human subjects research are ridiculous--the definition of "human subjects research" doesn't just include doing things to people, it includes talking to them.
And the Institutional Review Boards which monitor such research have far too much power.
See Carol Tavris, "The High Cost of Skepticism," Skeptical Inquirer 26(4):41-44 (July/August 2002).
- NY Times
Probably somewhat of a compliment, given its source!
-- Note that I personally believe that probably transgendered sexuality is the result of genetics. However, science is science and propaganda is propaganda, and I think Kinsey types are the latter.
To essentially mean he tips over sacred cows because they're sacred cows. And that's a fair criticism regardless of whether this sacred cow needed tipped.
As to the academic standards, I'm not familiar enough with the standards, but it doesn't seem especially dubious to me. The practicing psychology one doesn't either. Remember, he wrote a case study saying these folks would be good candidates for sex re-assignment surgery. That definitely seems to be practicing psychology...and sort of undercuts his claim. If he thinks these guys only want sex reassignment because they are fantasizing about sex as a woman, why would he call them good candidates for sex reassignment surgery?
I'm curious as to the motivation for changing one's sex, and personal stories would be more useful to me. It was a shock when my alumni news referred to my classmate Denise as "Dennis," for example. At the time, she had been just one of the many women who didn't want to go out with me.
In general, the ones I know of were over 40 when they had the operation, so I have a hunch that part of the reason to change was the natural decrease in their primary sex hormones.
Why is that even necessarily a criticism? Sacred cows are by definition both (1) sacred and (2) beliefs so deeply held that they probably haven't been questioned in a long time. The second part is why it's good to "tip[] over sacred cows because they're sacred cows." You could argue that this guy is just trying to hurt people's feelings, but if people have strong feelings about things that are just wrong, why should those feelings be validated?
Or even your leg...
Suppose he is right. Does this in some way invalidate the indications in other unrelated cases? I fully understand the sensitivity of people in the transgender community, but I also fully understand that there is a tendency toward hypersensitivity.
Personally, I think SRS is probably a good answer in some cases, but a poor answer in others. Gender psychology is *not* a simple field.
That sounds like further evidence that they are mentally unstable at best and probably mentally ill. Someone should do some research to find out if that is indeed the case. Wait, someone already did. That's why we're having this discussion.
And most professionals will not allow someone to undergo gender transformation until they have had therapy and have shown that they really need it and will benefit from the surgery. In other words, gender transformation is part of the process of getting mentally healthy.
And yes, of course, people who are in the wrong sex, for whatever reason, are often rather unhappy. Also, one can be unhappy, deeply unhappy enough to commit suicide, and not be mentally ill or 'unstable.' Both need treatment, but there are not necessarily the same thing.
How charitable of you. Some people -- like you -- haven't got the slightest idea of how difficult it is to grow up feeling "wrong" in your very self. To have that confusion, that disconnect, and be told -- as it appears this book does -- that the reason is based on your hyper-attraction to the opposite sex (if I'm reading the comments above correctly) or that insight into your experience can be gleaned from interviews with former hookers is painful beyond some people's comprehension.
It seems to me that one could write a book about this subject for the general public and provide a service to people in doing so, but that book should do more than present your pet theory that is not widely accepted by your profession UNLESS you have real proof that your idea is better than current understandings. That doesn't seem to be the case here, at all.
One last point. What's with the book's title? The Man Who Would Be Queen. Surely the author knows what a queen is in society's vernacular. Is he suggesting that transgender individuals want to live as flamboyant gay men? I don't know how many transgender people the author has met, but I've met several and not a single one had the goal of looking and living like Harvey Feirstein passing as Dolly Parton. The title alone condemns the book.
Male Scientist Writes of Life as Female Scientist
Biologist Who Underwent Sex Change Describes Biases Against Women
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 13, 2006; Page A10
Neurobiologist Ben Barres has a unique perspective on former Harvard president Lawrence Summers's assertion that innate differences between the sexes might explain why many fewer women than men reach the highest echelons of science.
That's because Barres used to be a woman himself.
When I showed that article to my sister, she said it was so obvious. If you want to know how women are discriminated against in society, the best ones to ask are the transgendered who have established a professional record in both genders, and then compare.
Hows' that for a control subject!
Furthermore, sanity is proper adjustment to reality. If one's adjustment is faulty then proper mental hygene is to correct one's relation to reality, not change reality to fit one's pathologies. Sex reassignment surgery is akin to claiming to cure someone of a Napoleon complex by agreeing with them that they are indeed le petit caporal.
But didn't you just glean that insight about my experience from a single sentence? Don't you realize that pained me more than you can possibly understand?
Then again, maybe it's just a hormonal thing and Barres' work improved due to no longer being an emotionally flighty female. This is just a single anecdote and more research is needed.
"That sounds like further evidence that they are mentally unstable at best and probably mentally ill. Someone should do some research to find out if that is indeed the case. Wait, someone already did. That's why we're having this discussion."
Furthermore, your comment that this is 'further evidence' implies that you have concluded that all transgendered people are mentally ill. Combining that with your sarcastic comments can be considered crossing the line and going into terroritory that some call Bigotland. Or at least JerkCity.
And if I needed further proof, you certainly gave it to us: "Furthermore, sanity is proper adjustment to reality. If one's adjustment is faulty then proper mental hygene is to correct one's relation to reality, not change reality to fit one's pathologies."
This clearly shows you know nothing about transgendered people, or indeed even mental illness. Years ago, the reality was that gay people were considered mentally ill and can't fit in to society. The 'reality' then would be to change one's sexual orientation to fit society. But as we now know, it is far better for gay people to accept their sexuality than to try to fight it to fit into whatever reality someone thinks is better.
And your own thesis is undercut by this statement: "But if being in the "wrong" body is so disturbing for someone who is transgendered, then maybe Barres' writing really did improve after the surgery?" Yes, of course. Perhaps Barre was unhappy in the former gender, and better off in the newer one. So what's the problem?
Not all transgendered people are mentally ill, although some are. But most are not. And for the ones that are mentally ill, if changing their gender helps them along, why would you have a problem with that?
If you really think that all transgendered people are mentally ill, then what would you propose as a treatment? And what do you hypothesize is the cause? And do you even care?
the obvious conclusion is only that transgendered people are several times more likely to be mentally ill than the general population. given 20% for the general population (the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) study of the early 1980s and the National Comorbidity Survey (NCS) of the early 1990s), that would imply most of the transgendered are mentally ill, but not necessarily all