Bailey Quartered

[bcholmes]

I'm having a debate on a trans mailing list about the recent announcement that (finally), the Lambda Literary Foundation has dropped Dr. Bailey's book The Man Who Would Be Queen from the list of finalists for the Lambda Literary Awards. The essence of the debate is that someone posted a lengthy rant about how the trans community was engaged in book burning. Other terms were thrown about: censorship; hypocracy.

I disagree that this is censorship. And I'm really getting tired of the number of times people cry censorship when they don't get their way. Here are things that I don't think are censorship:

• criticizing someone's opinion about things. Just because we think you're a looney (and we tell you that to your face) doesn't mean we're censoring you.
• pressuring an organization like the Lambda Literary Foundation to drop a book like Bailey's from consideration for a queer-friendly award.
• closed spaces in which certain viewpoints aren't welcome. For example, I don't think it's censorship to have a mailing list for pagans that doesn't allow discussion of Christianity (or vice versa). I am often hugely suspcicious of closed spaces of any sort, but I view them as a necessary evil.
• corporations that decline to publish certain material. By extension, I don't think that it's censorship for CBS to refuse to air MoveOn.org's commercial during the superbowl. I happen to disagree with CBS's decision, and I think that because CBS does not own the airwaves that they broadcast on, they are obliged to air various views, including the MoveOn.org commercial. But I don't think their action constitutes censorship.

There are some people who believe that governments are the only ones who are capable of censorship. I'm not convinced that that's true, what with all the ugly games that corporations are capable of. Admittedly, they're usually using the legal system as their weapon of choice, but I don't think that's actually the government doing the dirty work.

And I've even been wishy-washy for several years about my objection to censorship. For example, I think that cigarette advertising restrictions are pretty much censorship, and I'm okay with that.

There are a coupl'a other aspects of the Bailey issue that I'm interested in. First, I argue that Bailey had lots of opportunity to observe the objections that the trans community has to the autogynephilia debate. I feel that he could have incorporated those objections into his writings. He could have taken part in more dialog with the trans community and tried to figure out why we object to autogynephilia. I think he didn't feel any obligation to do so, and I'm glad that he's getting his comeuppance. In general, though, what obligation does scientific research have to take into consideration the social response to that research?

There's a saying that prevailing theories really only change as an old generation of "big names" in a field retire or die off. Newton was said to have done any number of horrible things to discredit ideas that he disagreed with. I've often been fond of Charles Hoy Fort's line:

I conceive of nothing, in religion, science or philosophy, than is more than the proper thing to wear, for a while.

I think that science goes through fashions and that culture affects science far more than scientists want to acknowledge. What kind of processes help ensure that unpopular theories like Bailey's aren't dismissed out of hand?

Comments

[deepforestowl.livejournal.com]

for the uninformed and out of touch...what is autogynephilia? and why is his book so controversial?

[supergee.livejournal.com]

I Googled on it. It appears to be the idea that transsexualism is like homosexuality, only even worse.

[deepforestowl.livejournal.com]

hmm....looks like I have my homework cut out for me. thanks for the heads up.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

The short version is that a guy by the name of Ray Blanchard (who works here in Toronto) developed this theory that there are two primary motivations for male-to-female (MTF) transsexualism: either MTF transsexuals wanted to become women because of their sexual arousal to men, or they wanted to become women because (for whatever reason) they were sexually turned on by the idea of having a cunt.

These two "categories" were termed "homosexual transsexualism" and "autogynephilic transsexualism". For a long time, shrinks had classified transsexuals in two categories (often called primary and secondary transsexualism), but the autogynephilia theory added the twist that sex was the motivation behind those two categories.

A lot of trans folk are affronted by the idea of autogynephilic transsexualism because it sounds like a fetish. They are incensed by the sweeping generalizations that are being made: for example, the idea that MTF transsexuals who aren't oriented toward men must therefore be autogynephilic. In short, they have been saying: "this theory doesn't sound like it describes my experience" and some of the proponents of autogynephilia are saying, "that's because you're kidding yourself."

It's not a fun debate in any way whatsoever.

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

Wow... This sounds like *exactly* the same arguements that were happening years ago about people were really categorically homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, or whether there was invariably a range of feeling of orientation and everyone belonged someplace on the range of bisexuality and "just won't admit it". I'm sure there's still people fighting that fight, but most of the world seems to gotten to the point of regarding the "just won't admit it" accusations involved as merely cheap trick for making others uncomfortable, and that the actual question of whether or not the range idea is true or not as a whole has very little relevance to one actually living one's life. Many of those that feel it's important one way or the other have declared victory for themselves, and more or less everyone's content with leaving it alone. Maybe this will reach that point as well, someday.

[vioxel.livejournal.com]

The answer "that's because you're kidding yourself" (or repressing, or subconsciously motivated, or whatever flavor of the same idea you want) moves an idea outside the realm of science. Instead of being a hypothesis to advance, test, and accept or reject based on evidence, it becomes a hypothesis that cannot be falsified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability). Any argument against it will invariably devolve into an academic version of "nuh-uh, yeah-huh," and no one can get anywhere with the idea.

I left my psychology studies partially because I realized that almost all psych theories, schools of thought/treatment, etc. are based on non-falsifiable hypotheses. In short, I realized that psychology was not science, no matter how hard it tried to be.

I'm sorry you're having to deal with stuff like that. Arguing against a psychologist (Or, in Blanchard's case, a psychiatrist) entrenched in a fallacious theory is a bit like arguing with a Creationist... there's nothing you can say to shake their faith.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

mmm. i'm sad that the book was nominated, and i'm also sad that it was dropped.

mind you, i'd be up in arms had it won.

i think that the process, in this case, to ensure that bailey's unpopular theory isn't dismissed out of hand, would have been to have some bonehead nominate it (that happened), for there to be lengthy public debate about it (that was happening), and for it to be trounced soundly by some other book (which won't happen, because it was dropped).

sadly, i think the book being dropped will only lead to cries of censorship and feelings of martyrdom on the part of autogynephilia proponents.

[futabachan.livejournal.com]

I disagree that this is censorship.

So, if failing to award the "LGBT-friendly book of the year" award to Bailey's LGBT-hostile (especially T!) book is censorship, does that mean that failing to award the Academy Award for Best Picture to Gigli is also censorship?

What kind of processes help ensure that unpopular theories like Bailey's aren't dismissed out of hand?

Tenure? Freedom of the press?

It's not perfect -- ayilmaz's father is the main proponent of a relatively controversial theory of gravity, which most scientists dismiss out of hand, and academic politics routinely determines who gets published, hired, or placed on the schedule for a conference.

[skylark-10.livejournal.com]

it always amuses me when rightist shmucks want to pretend that "freedom from censorhip" means "freedom to be an asshole and not be called one loudly."

this is one of the fabulously messy ways democracy works. stand on a soapbox and you run the risk of being shouted down. pooooor michael. cue the fucking violins.