The hostilities began in the spring of 2003, when [J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University] published a book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen,” [in which he] argued that some people born male who want to cross genders are driven primarily by an erotic fascination with themselves as women. This idea runs counter to the belief, held by many men who decide to live as women, that they are the victims of a biological mistake — in essence, women trapped in men’s bodies.
August 21, 2007
"I interviewed people for a book. This is a free society, and that should be allowed.”
Revenge against a scientist who wrote something some people did not want to hear about the desire for sex reassignment surgery.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
This appears to be a continuation of a trend that has gone on for quite a while. Herrnstein and Murray, Jensen, Lomborg have all been pilloried for their academic work.
You retain the freedom to say correct things.
The left inches closer to fundamentalist Islam every day.
Ask Larry Summers what's allowed in a free society.
".... some people did not want to hear about the desire"
You need a dash between "hear" and "about".
Isn't johnaltcoh still doing your proofreading?
I think for me, for the work I do, honestly, I don’t really care what his theories are,” said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, of Dr. Bailey. “But I do want to feel like any theories that affect the lives of so many people are based in good science, and that they’re presented responsibly.”
Now that's what I call passive-aggressive.
I wonder what Ms Keisling thinks is "good science" and what "presented correctly" looks like. And for those who may be more in tune with the Transgendered segment, what is the proper honorific for a TG person?
In his book, he argued that some people born male who want to cross genders are driven primarily by an erotic fascination with themselves as women. This idea runs counter to the belief, held by many men who decide to live as women, that they are the victims of a biological mistake — in essence, women trapped in men’s bodies.
No it doesn't. It's entirely possible for TG-fellow A to be a "victim of a biological mistake" and for TG-fellow B to simply have "an erotic fascination with [himself] as [a] women." That's what "some" means.
Having been on the internet as long as I have, I know that there are some people who claim to be like person A and others who claim to be like person B.
How is this any different than how the left treated Scott Beauchamp?
They didn't like what he wrote, so they set out to destroy him and his family, including printing his wife's address and calling on fellow soldiers to kill Beauchamp.
In fact - this is pretty mild compared to that.
Meant to say how the "right" treated Scott Beauchamp.
How is this any different than how the [right] treated Scott Beauchamp?
The investigations into the two men have established the obvious difference -- Bailey's writing was honest and accurate, while Beauchamp's was fraudulent and riddled with lies.
First, if the argument is that this gentleman's book is not based on science but rather his opinions after having talked with transgender patients, then wouldn't Sigmund Freud himself be in trouble in today's environment. In fact, he also fell out of favor in his day. But he is greatly regarded by many in the field today. The same could be said of Bailey someday. Transgender issues are still relatively new, as they are just now being considered with compassion and understanding being sought in general society. So it seems that maybe transgender parties don't want to be analyzed quite so much anymore for their reasons for being so, but rather want what they want and nothing more -- to be switched. Those issues are muddled in emotionality and, I think, someone seeking to understand outside of the box ("trapped in a man's body" will do as the SOLE reason) that they (transgenders) have made their home is probably uncomfortable. Who said there must be only one reason? Is it because erotic fantasy of themselves as the other sex would be satisfied with mere transvestitism? No, it would not. Not every transgender case has "woman/man trapped in a man's/woman's body" as the sole reason.
As for the cool shoulder academia seems to have given Bailey in fear of being dragged down, it sure sounds a little like the Duke (lacrosse) case to me -- where there is little to no evidence and a smear campaign is run, and the home university runs with it against its own. What a shame.
Just another episode in the liberal war on science, where political correctness must be upheld at all costs, crushing diversity and inquiry beneath it if necessary.
We saw it with Larry Summers.
We see it with Bailey.
We see it with the religious fervor with which they attempt to stifle all scientific debate or inquiry into the global warming phenomenon.
Post a Comment