| |
Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege
by Stefanie at 10:53 am EDT, Aug 21, 2007 |
The central figure, J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University, has promoted a theory that his critics think is inaccurate, insulting, and potentially damaging to transgender women. In the past few years, several prominent academics who are transgender have made a series of accusations against the psychologist, including that he committed ethics violations. A transgender woman he wrote about has accused him of a sexual impropriety, and Dr. Bailey has become a reviled figure for some in the gay and transgender communities. The hostilities began in the spring of 2003, when Dr. Bailey published a book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen,” intended to explain the biology of sexual orientation and gender to a general audience. “The next two years,” Dr. Bailey said in an interview, “were the hardest of my life.” Many sex researchers who have worked with Dr. Bailey say that he is a solid scientist and collaborator, who by his own admission enjoys violating intellectual taboos. 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. Dr. Bailey described the alternate theory, which is based on Canadian studies done in the 1980s and 1990s, in part by telling the stories of several transgender women he met through a mutual acquaintance. In the book, he gave them pseudonyms, like “Alma” and “Juanita.” “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.” But that, say supporters of Dr. Bailey, is precisely the problem: Who defines responsible? And at what cost is that definition violated?
(Some of my comments below were previously posted on my own website.) Autogynephilia is described as an attraction to the image of oneself as a woman (referring to M-to-F transsexuals). It is a controversial theory intended to explain transsexualism, originated by Ray Blanchard and advanced by Anne A. Lawrence and J. Michael Bailey, in which transsexualism is caused either by homosexuality taken to an extreme (in androphilic males), or by paraphilia in the form of a misdirected sex drive (in non-androphilic males), rather than being a matter of intrinsic identity, as indicated by traditional conventional wisdom. I do think that the theory of autogynephilia could possibly explain why some M-to-F transsexuals are the way they are, but I don't believe that autogynephilia and/or homosexuality are the o... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ] |
| |
RE: Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege
by Shannon at 1:43 pm EDT, Aug 21, 2007 |
If you could imagine a world where people are more like animals, naked and primitive, with no means to actually switch sexes, what would define a transsexual? I'd assume that the only means would be through behavior. In animals, most of these behavioral quirks are related to breeding. In humans on the other hand, many of these behaviors are determined by cultural social structure which is artificial rather than natural. Because behavior in humans is largely arbitrary and not natural, it makes sense that some humans will naturally be inclined to behave outside of the socially defined expectation. In a social evolution sense, transsexuals might be defined as one of the things that forces a wide paradigm in the artificially enhanced behaviors which are determined by society. Sort of like a mirror echo. |
|
| | |
RE: Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege
by Stefanie at 5:35 pm EDT, Aug 21, 2007 |
Interesting suggestions... I agree that behavior is a key observable factor, but I don't think it's accurate to suggest that human behavior (as it relates to sex and gender) is "largely arbitrary and not natural." Hormones do affect our behaviors, and while we are creatures of reason, we do still have instincts. Many observed gender-related behaviors (such as wearing three-piece suits and wingtip shoes vs. dresses, makeup, and high heels) are cultural constructs (or as you suggest, "artificial"), but most of them are based on the biological tendencies of males to be more masculine and females to be more feminine. Were we all bald and wore the same outfit (in the style of THX 1138, for example), and didn't have the medical technology to provide transsexual hormone treatments or surgeries, transsexuals would still exist. Sex-specific behaviors and social gender roles would still exist, and homosexuals, intersexuals, and transsexuals (as well as those who consider themselves androgynous, neuter, genderqueer, etc.) would not fit the typical patterns for male and female behaviors. Granted, there will always be those who are "inclined to behave outside of the socially defined expectation," as you put it, but transsexualism isn't simply about the presence of gender-based social norms and the willingness to break or redefine them. It's about identity, and it's primarily internal. As long as there is sex differentiation (male and female) within our species, there will always be natural gender differentiation (masculine and feminine). The specific ways in which those gender differences are expressed might vary from culture to culture (mannerisms, vocabulary, dress, social status, etc.), but the chromosomal and hormonal differences between the sexes dictate that there will be some natural behavioral differences between the two sexes. Even among other animals, I wouldn't consider those differences mere "behavioral quirks," but essential differences that complement each other. In my opinion, the only social changes that transgenderists might bring about are acceptance and tolerance of those who don't fit the prescribed social norms (or "artificially enhanced behaviors") by those who do. The prescribed norms have changed over time, and from place to place, but I don't think the changes have ever been tranny-driven, if you'll allow me that phrase. ;) |
|
| | | |
RE: Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege
by Shannon at 2:59 pm EDT, Aug 22, 2007 |
Even though man has instincts, it's not clear at all how they relate to gender. On top of which, rationality, neurosis, and society can alter the expression of these instincts especially when it comes to gender. If you had a person who was raised alone (maybe raised by a robot or something) I'm not sure what kind of behavior could be expected without a gender specific role model of some kind. It really wouldn't surprise me if the person did not fit into what we normally think of as traditional gender roles. Lets say there were two males raised this way... (we can call them ernie and burt for fun), instincts would likely create behavioral differences probably on the basis of dominance and you might end up with something resembling gender behavior yet the behavior would not at all be determined by biological sex. In society, how someone groups themselves in relation to others enhances how they could be more masculine or feminine beyond nature. For instance in the Victorian era it was common for wealthy , masculine men to wear makeup, curly wigs and lace, while women who did the same were often prostitutes. So, if society defined masculinity by what we define femininity as, might you rather identify as male? So i don't think the culture is "tranny driven," but i think that the phenomenon emphasizes the fact that these roles are fake and keeps them from overly stagnating or separating to far from one another. |
|
|
|
