It is not really a scientific work, more of a popularization really. It was, and continues to be, very controversial.
I am not going to repeat my own arguments with the theory of Bailey's here, but point you to a 2007 radio show over at the San Francisco public KQED radio.
The guests are:
The guests are:
- Dr. Alice Dreger, associate professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and BioEthics at Northwestern University. She is the author of "The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History On the Politics of Science, Identity and Sex in the Internet Age".
- Dr. J. Michael Bailey himself , professor of Psychology at Northwestern University
- Joan Roughgarden, professor of Biological Science at Stanford University and author of "Evolution's Rainbow". She is the one having promoted the social selection paradigm in evolutionary biology. I have written about her and her work in my Sex, Gender, Nature series. She was the one who drew my attention to this radio show.
- Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality
It was good to finally hear all sides of this so we could all get a clearer picture of what the controversy is all about.
ReplyDeleteBailey seems like he honestly tried to write the best book he could with what knowledge he gathered, and wrote his opinion (not fact). If you want to attack someone, attack Ray Blanchard (who essentially defines roles).
However, making generalizations about gay men, and that transexuals might be best suited for prostitutes is not something you want to write unless you want a big group mad at you. I'm also curious how many people he actually interviewed to base his opinion.
Attacking Blanchard is the very worst, wrong thing to do... he is merely a scientist, exploring the world, trying to make sense of it. It is those who have attacked him, who have put words into his mouth. He never, "defined roles"... he described phenomena he observed, which many others had observed before him, tested certain hypothesis, made certain predictions (as all good scientists need to do, so that a theory can be developed and tested) and published his findings. I've read his work. It is on solid ground. It is those who do not want to face the easily observable correlation between autogynephilia, in all of its forms, and the desire and for some, eventuallity of seeking somatic feminization. He wasn't the first to note this... he isn't the last. The two type taxonomy is solid and the studies have been replicated.
ReplyDelete