Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen/Archive 13

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

About the definition of 'amateur'

"Amateur: one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession."

Alice Dreger wrote a peer-reviewed journal article on a subject. Professors and other people holding academic positions are paid to write articles: it is part of their jobs. This means that they are not "amateurs" according to any basic dictionary definition.

I object to describing Dreger's paper as an "amateur investigation" because DarlieB intends it as a term of disparagement to discredit Dreger in the eyes of our readers, but also because it's just plain wrong. Please don't add that term again unless you can provide a proper reliable source that says that Dreger writes academic papers an unpaid hobbyist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


The paper was an investigation of a controversy that had nothing to do with her field of expertise. She was neither sponsored , nor given official access to any of the information, had no co-operation from witnesses , her assumptions were not verified by anyone independent and the reviews that followed were vastly negative . The peer review was irrelevant in that sense because there was no data to be verified outside her opinion. The paper , from every perspectve , was a recreational pursuit . In this case, on this paper, an unpaid hobbyist ( unless you know of an academic sponsor for this paper ) . Thanks. DarlieB (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that describes Dreger as an amateur, or not? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have to provide the obvious . She is an amateur by even your definition. Unofficial, unsponsered , untrained and inexperienced in investigating. She got no access to documents or witnesses. It's you who have to verify her professional credentials in investigation, it's you have to find a source that says this is her field of expertise. DarlieB (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC
I just can't help but delurk and say something. DarlieB...be careful what you wish for. If the investigations have to have been done by credentiald investigators then many of the critical investigations would also have to be excluded. To do otherwise would not be neutral, as different standards would be applied to different evidence. Furthermore, it would not serve the purpose of having a better article.--Hfarmer (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
DarlieB: Actually, on WP, you do have to support with an RS information that other editor challenges. So, to pose WhatamIdoing's question to you--now a third time--do you have an RS that indicates Dreger is an amateur? Your repeated evasions suggest not.— James Cantor (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
"Do you have proof there isn't god ?" Stating the obvious requires no proof. If you have proof that they are "god" , well in this case a professional/experience/trained investigator of note , I'm happy to remove the "amateur" tag. She got her paper published, mentioned in the NYT's , despite not being an IRB/Northwestern sanctioned paper or even in her field but it was totally amateur. Prove she is a professional and I will remove it. Sorry. Oh and I just need to note that the term "amateur " was used to describe the investigations basis , not as an attack on Dreger. She is still a professional in the field of Bioethics and Humanities. DarlieB (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's basic policy says that if you want to include information that anyone challenges as being factually inaccurate, then the burden is on you to provide a reliable source supporting your claim. Please either provide a source, or remove your unsupportable personal opinion from the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It only applies when you are trying to prove someone has a credential, not stating the obvious fact they don't. Alice Dreger is an amateur without any experience , history , training or background in investigations . She had no access to witnesses , no access to any official documents and she did this all on her own time without sanction or sponsorship from Northwestern or any academic body. The burden is totally on you to show that what is obvious is not . She is the epitome of what an amateur stands for by even your own terms. An unpaid hobbyist who took up Bailey's cause as a sideline to her own course. Perhaps you want to try to prove this has somehow figures into bioethics ? Post her qualifications that dispute her amateur status. DarlieB (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To Hontas , well no , it was gathered as a hobby , without any oversight or sanction. There was no scientific basis , method , no access to data . Had this been with Northwestern approved and with them granting her access to the notes and records then you could say "official ". If she was in any way experienced in these kinds of investigations you could remove "amateur" . Except for one reporter calling it an "investigation " I think you could say it wasn't an investigation , rather an opinion on events . DarlieB (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I want you to think for a minute...how was the critical information about the book, and Bailey gathered? You see when you push for a definition you have to accept that definition being applied to all the sources in the article. I am not saying that Dreger was a professional, and I am not about to say that others were amateurs. That said if we take your definition "gathered as a hobby , without any oversight or sanction" then data gathered by the likes of Lynn Connway would have to be considered amateur as well. Basically what I think about this discussion is that it's totally inane and a value judgement that we should all just stay away from making. None of this has been "professionally" investigated by anyone sanctioned (like by the govt.) credentialed and paid as a professional. All of that so called "amateur" information is necessary to make this article complete and comprehensive. I am now stepping back into the shadows, to read about the exciting topic of cosmological inflation.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
DarlieB, I dispute the factual accuracy of your personal opinion on this matter. You must either provide a source that supports your view, or you must agree to having the unverifiable term removed. If you don't believe me, then you can leave at note at the policy's talk page and ask whether this really, truly is Wikipedia's policy on these matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My "personal opinion " ? How is fact "my opinion " ? Do you have someone who says she is a professional investigator ? Or that she was paid to do this ? Is their any history from her previous investigations of Academic Freedom cases ? Or that it was under Northwestern's direction ? I Please provide the source. It has absolutely nothing to do with opinion WAID , Dreger is an amateur investigator with no history or experience and to tell the truth her paper is mere "opinion" and that is why her critics only have opinion to dispute it. And Hontas I would agree with you except Conway did no investigation into Bailey beyond reading his book . If she had you would be well within your right to call it amateur if it was unsponsored or not in her field of expertise . She is by the way a transsexual information expert, activist and on top of being a transsexual herself totally respected within the community for her vast experience so her credits as a critic are pretty impeccable. Again , this does not discount Alice Dreger in any way, her results may even be considered professional by some but the basis of the investigation was amateur. Enjoy your cosmological literature. The real question is , why do you feel this discredits her ? DarlieB (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Conway did no no investigation? What the... What do you think getting those people to file charges was? Why does she have a page on her Bailey investigation (her terms for what she did)? You can't have it both ways. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hontas , please site where in this wikipedia article Dr Conway's response into the Bailey charges are quoted as an investigation . I don't see any . DarlieB (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DarlieB, I'm not trying to add words like "professional investigator" to the article. Therefore, I don't have to prove anything.
You, on the other hand, have repeatedly added the word "amateur" to describe Dreger's paper. Wikipedia's policy is clear that the editor who wants to add something must provide a reliable source to support the factual accuracy of the statement upon request. Please therefore either provide a reliable source, or agree to have the disputed words removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


That would be hard WAID given there were no sponsored, professional , official , experienced or otherwise investigations . Once more , Dreger had no access to the records or witnesses and she is only being quoted because she was quoted in the NYT . Show me that someone other than Dr Dreger sponsored this so that it is not just a hobbyist doing something that interests her . And no, I did not call her paper amateur, I called her investigation unofficial and amateur. Which it was , no matter how professional you believe the results. DarlieB (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is right in this. Such comments, like anything else in wikipedia, can only be added on the basis of reliably sourced information, and, considering the person in question is apparently still alive, such comments would have to abide by WP:BLP as well. We would need a very reliable source to have such information included. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Well John if it was a personal remark then I could see it as "do no harm " but , it describes the basis of her investigation, not her. Far from personal it does no more than state that this investigation was on her own time and unsponsored. You have absolutely no basis to remove it as a personal remark. DarlieB (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter. Anyone with her degree of devotion to the subject cannot be said to be amateur, and if the term is used in a situation like this, it must be not just sourced impeccably, but quoted as opinion e.g. "In the opinion of X, writing in Journal Y, .... " There are clearer ways of wording it: "has not been investigated by someone with a PhD is the subject, " (if true) said once, for example. Reiterating it is unfairly negative. And I point out that a reanalysis or criticism of what has been published is something which can be fit work for the highest level professional with the best formal credentials, so a statement of the basis of the work has to be worded neutrally also. The reader must be left to form his own impressions of the quality of the work. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Degree of devotion ? Can I get a PhD in psychology for my devotion to a subject ? Do hobbyists who devote so much time become professionals by their mere devotion to a subject  ? Please DGG , prove that she specializes in investigating cases of Academic Freedom. That she has ANY credentials in that field of investigation at all. I challenge you openly to prove your statement that devotion supersedes professional credentials . Based on this paper do you think Dreger could go to an accredited school and teach based on her devotion ? The reader will form their judgement of her work , good or bad, but that has nothing to do with the premise of her investigation. Was she given access to records of ACTUAL INVESTIGATION done by Northwestern ? No, she had no such access to the "official " investigation and did her amateur investigation based on Bailey alone . DarlieB (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The burden of prrof, as per WP:BURDEN is on the person seeking to add tghe information, in this case you. Several editors have now specifically and pointedly asked you to provide the information policy and guidelines require for that material to be included. Continuing failure to provide the evidence required for the information to be included will hardly help your cause. Please produce the sourcing required by policy. Thank you. If no such evidence is produced, I think we will have no choice but to revert the addition until such time, if ever, that the requisite sourcing is provided. John Carter (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


But I'm not trying to include any credentials, you are . I'm stating the factual basis of her investigation and that has nothing to do with her. Again , these are obvious conclusions. DarlieB (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have to admit, I find this fascinating. All of you showing up her virtually simultaneously to protest the word "amateur" in front of Dregers investigation. Do you phone each other or is there some email list ? She was not paid or directed by her university, she was not doing this for a recognized academic group, she had no access to any of the information or witnesses , it has nothing to do with her field and is disputed by the majority , yet you want the public to assume otherwise ? Interesting. DarlieB (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone that has commented has previously commented on past disputes. You might want to read about watchlists; I'd be surprised if these editors didn't have this article on their watchlists.
As for your other objections:
  • "she was not paid" -- Do you have a source for that? Most professors are paid a salary, and producing peer-reviewed academic papers is in their job description.
  • "she had no access to any of the information or witnesses" -- How do you explain the many direct quotations from official documents and witnesses in the paper, if she really had no access to any of the documents (which, you may recall, are posted on Conway's website) and none of the witnesses spoke to her? For that matter, why don't you just ask Jokestress, who is quoted liberally (and unfavorably) in this paper? If Dreger just made up all of those e-mail messages and conversations with Jokestress, then surely Jokestress would want to set the record straight.
  • "it has nothing to do with her field" -- Dreger has published many things about how sexual minorities interact with the medical/scientific establishment.
  • "is disputed by the majority" -- Do you have a source for that? (The majority of trans activists is not the majority of people.)
But all you have to do to solve this dispute is find one reliable source that goes the trouble of calling her paper an "amateur investigation". If zero reliable sources have bothered to say this, then it should not be in this article (as either unverifiable or unimportant). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I had left a message on the WP:BLPN regarding the addition of potentially prejudicial commentary regarding a living person in this article. And, yes, given the, ahem, often problematic conduct of at least one editor on this page, I have placed it on my watchlist. John Carter (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course, everyone just showed up :) Sorry WAID , Northwestern said the Bailey investigation records were sealed, that proves she had no access, do you want me to just post the link it ? It was sourced. Pleas feel free to post a link to anything showing the university gave her access. Did she submit a proposal outlining her study and methods with the IRB ? Have a link for that  ? Witnesses and documents ? You mean , taking quotes from Bailey or his books ? Please be specific because I saw no interviews with witnesses. Emails to Andrea James or anyone else are not "interviews" and you know it. None of these were official nor was she authorized to print them , she just did . They were hostile exchanges. Writing a paper on minorities is not establishing timelines, interviewing witnesses or representing any kind of a proper investigation. No, she did not publish previous articles nor do investigations on academic freedom, she had no history of investigating and no official body recognizes or verifies her conclusions . Given this is not a "theoretical " paper that is amazing ! Just show she had some official capacity granted by the university or that they recognize it as an official Northwestern investigation. If you are saying that she broke the seals on those Northwestern records then you are implying a criminal act that could lose her her job. We would need verification of that. DarlieB (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, the WP:BURDEN is on the person (you) that wants to include information, not on the many people that have told you that this claim requires either a source to support it, or its removal.
Try answering a very simple question: Are you, or are you not, aware of any reliable source that uses words like "amateur investigation" to describe Dreger's paper? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry people, but what a ridiculous discussion this is. "Amateur" is being used disparagingly here to push a POV. Without an authorative reliable source that says this was amateurish, it should be removed immediately. --Crusio (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the word from the article as a possible BLP violation. I would also point to DarlieB that there are several specific policies and guidelines regarding all material which one seeks to include in wikipedia, including WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Frankly, the inclusion of that word could be reasonably seen as a violation of all of those. Also, I would very much request that next time DarlieB seeks to add material, that it be added in a more professional manner. Double spacing after several words and other inappropriate spacing does not help give the material any appearance of quality. What is required for such material to be added is a clear, plain, and unambiguous statement from a reliable source which substantiates the material to be added. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Citation needed" tags

  • Aaccording to WP:BLP, unsourced allegations must be removed immediately until such time they can be sourced. So why are there several "citation needed" tags in this article? Someone please add references or remove this material per BLP. --Crusio (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


  • I've removed some material from this article that was unsourced, including some fairly egregious BLP violations. This article has evolved into a sort of hit job against Bailey, and that is plainly unacceptable. This article isn't a forum for writing your own personal and negative opinion about Bailey - it needs to be balanced, referenced, and about the book. Nathan T 14:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the citation-needed tags appears in the "negative reactions" section regarding Andrea James' reasons for posting obscene captions together with photos of Bailey's children. Her personal website is useable as an RS in that context: [1].— James Cantor (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification: Moser

A commentary by physician Charles Moser has been used to support the second half of this sentence in the lead:

Bailey says that criticism of him was motivated by a desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about autogynephilia theory on transsexuals,[4] while though others reject this assessment.[5]

Here's what Moser actually says on this issue:

Threats towards Bailey or Dreger and accusations involving their family members are clearly inappropriate and there is no excuse for that behavior.

Dreger implies that ad hominem attacks are a new tactic in the attempt to discredit sex research with which one disagrees. This is patently false; Kinsey, Money, Rind, and Bullough, among many others, have suffered such attacks. By the mere mention of their names, some readers will undoubtedly think that those attacks were different because they were either well-founded or baseless. The motivation in all cases was an attempt to prevent the researchers’ ideas from being taken seriously and ruin them personally. Dreger’s article fails to place the attack on Bailey in its historical perspective.

I do not believe that Moser's commentary can be used to claim that "others" (much less Moser himself) believe that the attacks on Bailey and his family were motivated by any purpose other than "to prevent the researcher's ideas from being taken seriously and ruin them personally".

I'm pretty sure that some reliable source can be found to say that at least some of the critics had high-minded motives, so I don't want to remove this statement, but such a source needs to be found. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There were no "threats toward Bailey , Dreger or their family. The photo's were public and Bailey a public figure who's theories are intentionally in the public forum to sell books. This leaves him open to critical examination of his theories. You have taken these out of context clearly. Andrea James posted public pictures of Baileys children against Baileys own words. There were no threats at all and that is slander against Ms James. Bailey's obscenities are simply placed in a context that allows the viewer to see how absurd they were in context. Was it a wise choice ? Baileys disgusting statements are used against transsexual children yet there is no outcry .
Moser CLEARLY STATED that the attacks on academic freedom were totally exaggerated and without merit. It is impossible for Bailey to claim persecution when all he was experiencing was the criticism common to ALL academics that put their theories out for review. Moser disagrees with Bailey that he as being persecuted to suppress his theory (academic freedom) which was EXACTLY what Bailey was claiming. Stop injecting other issues not included in that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Darlie,
Can you find the words "Kate: A cock starved exhibitionist, or a paraphiliac who just gets off on it?" anywhere in Bailey's books or articles? I can't, and I'm sure that if you ask, Jokestress will confirm that this statement was an original creation, not a quotation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not slander if it's properly attributed to Bailey, which it is: "Bailey says ..." Tijfo098 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Moser's letter doesn't directly refute Bailey's claim as stated, i.e. that the opponents were motivated by a "desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about autogynephilia". On the contrary Moser says this happened to others, besides/including Bailey: "The motivation in all cases was an attempt to prevent the researchers’ ideas from being taken seriously and ruin them personally." So, I'm going to remove that citation. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Darlie, I don't feel slandered by this article or this talk page.
Per the Moser refutation, I explain in this speech that Bailey's materials which he claims were the impetus for the response had been published for many years before appearing in the book, and that many people (including yours truly) did not go after him when they were published. The reason the book got slammed was because of how it got published and because of its framing device: a cure narrative about a gender-variant child. The "two types" and stereotyping stuff had been out there since 1999 as I recall. Bailey's book was dedicated to his kids, they did press for the book, and they are featured throughout as examples of normality (theirs and his). Gender-variant children on the other hand, are presented as in need of curing. The 2003 Stanford speech was the last straw. Bailey presented all this mockery of gender-variant children and trans adults and then acted all upset when the tables were turned. (As an aside, the New York Times piece cited five times in this article was not very balanced because the author had a score to settle. Ben Carey was grumpy with me for getting him in trouble with FAIR over an earlier uncritical piece he had written about Bailey, and after I got his 2007 piece spiked till after Bailey's sexology convention, I knew Carey was going to be doing a hatchet job on the trans community and me. I insisted to his editors that he interview me, so after the convention Carey asked me one question and only allowed a 13-word response from me.) I'll leave it to others as to how to summarize this, but the claim about the one chapter being the big problem is an after-the-fact attempt at mythologizing. Since I am featured prominently in this article, I believe my side of things can be better represented by the conference presentation linked above. Jokestress (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Carey's article / pictures issue

I'm not convinced Carey's article is overused. Two of the citations simply reference interview quotes with Dreger and McCloskey. Of the other three:
  • one (which I've added w/attribution) is "To many of Dr. Bailey’s peers, his story is a morality play about the corrosive effects of political correctness on academic freedom." Does not seem unfair to me even unattributed given that many academic sexologists did stick with Bailey.
  • one is used to support that "[Transgender community members] also claimed the book exploited children with gender dysphoria." Again does not seem unfair given what you have just written above.
  • the one that may be an issue is the citation used to support that you, Andrea James, "attacked Bailey by constructing a website with pictures of Bailey's children taken from his public website beside sexually offensive quotes from his book". Is some or all of that disputed? Or does it need more context?
Tijfo098 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The Chronicle of Higher Education had the most in-depth and accurate contemporaneous coverage:
I'd recommend using the "Dr. Sex" article as source and wording for that passage. Let me know if you don't have a subscription. Jokestress (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The article you suggest says this:

Besides the fact that the "sexually explicit captions" are not necessarily from the book as Carey wrote (something that User:WhatamIdoing complained about above), I don't see a big difference in this passage vs. what we have in the article:

Is there something particular from The Chronicle that you think should be mentioned? Tijfo098 (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's more accurate than Carey's version. The article is also a good example of Bailey and family doing publicity for the book.
But this is all a bit of a distraction from the initial concern that the Moser publication does not support the passage "others reject this assessment." If we want an unambivalent source for that, I think that conference presentation I suggested reflects the view of those of us who reject Bailey's assessment about why the book led to the response it did. It was because of his exploitation and mockery of gender-variant children. That was my own initial motivation, that and the way the National Academies Press refused to be transparent about how the book managed to get published by them and marketed as science. Jokestress (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
About Bailey and his children, the only passage I found was:
It seems he had his children with him while being interviewed by a reporter. It's not clear whether that can be unambiguously construed as "Bailey and family doing publicity". It appears the reporter hanged out with Bailey for quite a while in various places. YMMV as they say. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
As for the other matter, it should be pretty easy to source opposition to Bailey's interpretation. I'm not even convinced a citation is needed in the lead given the large number of critics listed in the "Negative reactions" section. For that reason, I would prefer a secondary source that summarizes criticism of several critics be cited if a citation there is really needed. (Insofar nobody tagged it as needing one.) Tijfo098 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


Yes WhatAmIDoing .You only quote the most graphic parts of the subtitles and buried the ones that were exact. Like saying transsexuals are best suited for prostitution. Is there a quote for "cock starved exhibitionist ?" Not those exact words but clearly in that intent. Keeping in mind that the mythical "autogynephilia" is a sexual arousal by ones self dressed as the opposite sex, Baileys preoccupation was with verifying Blanchard's musings about their sexuality. Not gender, not cause but sexuality. Thank you for the opportunity to post these. Enjoy. :

"According to Blanchard, even cross-dressers who do not want to change their sex have autogynephilia, which they share with non-homosexual transsexuals p. 164

"Cross-dressing has also been linked to sexual sadism - although most autogynephiles are not sexual sadists, they are more likely to be sadists compared with men who are not autogynephilic" p. 172

"Today, public statements by those who call themselves "transgendered" (who are almost all autogynephiles rather than homosexual transsexuals) rarely acknowledge any erotic component of "transgenderism". " p. 174

"The best established link is between autogynephilia and masochism. There is a dangerous masochistic practice called "autoerotic asphyxia," in which a man strangles himself, usually by hanging, for sexual reasons. ... About one-fourth of the time, these men are found wearing some article of women's clothing, such as panties. ...Apparantly these men are both masochistic and autogynephilic." p. 172

"Gay transsexuals are boy crazy." p. 178

"The autogynephile's main romantic target is herself." p. 183

"Prostitution is the single most common occupation that homosexual transsexuals in our study admitted to." p. 184"

"The more resourceful and attractive transsexual prostitutes are call girls." p. 185

"As for shoplifting, homosexual transsexuals are not especially well suited as much as especially motivated. For many, their taste in clothing is much more expensive than their income allows." p. 185

""Nearly all the homosexual transsexuals I know work as escorts after they have their surgery." p. 210"


To Jokestress , from the beginning these people have portrayed your "unprovoked" attacks on Bailey's poor family as being a product of your sick transsexual mind. My bent was not to defend your words but the intent of your posting them. Graphic or not Baileys intent was exactly the same, to portray transgenders in the same way as the Nazi's portrayed Jews. Exploiting the the lack of knowledge of a helpless group by creating myth. And now you are a part of that myth. If portraying your intent as just some pervert getting off on harassing some poor researchers children is not slander than I have no idea what is.

Finally there is no proof whatsoever that Bailey or his theories were repressed. Northwestern's dismissal had entirely nothing to do with it and in fact Bailey claim he was vindicated. . So where is the "chilling effect" Dreger claimed ? Moser NEVER acknowledged this as suppression, he said it was a NORMAL part of making theories public. It absolutely supports the fact this was not suppression. One could even make the case the Mr Bailey has achieved fame entirely on the transgender communities reaction to the book. A successful victim given that wouldn't you say ? But then his dismissal wasn't from the public reaction correct? You all must make up your minds. Did the reaction cause Bailey to be fired and make him a champion of free speech or did it have nothing to do with him being fired ? This article plays both sides with only Alice Dreger saying it is a case of Academic Freedom. You decide but it is dishonest to choose both.

As you can imagine , between the sadism, masochism, shoplifting, prostitution and masturbation one can only wonder what transsexuals do all day, musn't one ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


Oh one last question for Ms James, did you threaten Bailey with physical or legal actions ? Yes or no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Last sentence of lede paragraph

Am I being picky that I believe the phrase "others disagree" implies too much? "Some others" seems more appropriate. It is not "all others," certainly, and I think that resolving how many others it is would be impossible.JeanLucDuc (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to drop that phrase entirely, since the convention of "X says this" is widely understood to imply that there's room for disagreement. But "some others" is also acceptable to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


Then you agree to removing the entire comment including Baileys unsubstantiated belief that he was being suppressed? And exactly why is it even there ? It was already in "controversy" ? It has nothing to do with this book at all other than some paranoid belief the world was out to get him. It neither proves nor disproves anything suggested in the book . So you agree to wipe it out entirely ? If not than the entire statement should stand as it is balanced and truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing Moser

Moser on the possibility that the controversy was completely intentional:

"Bailey wrote a very provocative book for the lay public. Dreger admits TMWWBQ is “unnecessarily snide or even contemptuous in places, lacking evidentiary support” and that “TMWWBQ was never envisioned as a work of science.” Dreger noted that some people suggested that the tone or cover be changed prior to publication to minimize the expected negative reaction to the book; Bailey apparently ignored these suggestions. Possibly as intended, publication of TMWWBQ created considerable controversy."


Moser stating this was nothing new historically:


"Dreger implies that ad hominem attacks are a new tactic in the attempt to discredit sex research with which one disagrees. This is patently false; Kinsey, Money, Rind, and Bullough, among many others, have suffered such attacks. By the mere mention of their names, some readers will undoubtedly think that those attacks were different because they were either well-founded or baseless. The motivation in all cases was an attempt to prevent the researchers’ ideas from being taken seriously and ruin them personally. Dreger’s article fails to place the attack on Bailey in its historical perspective. "



On Baileys personal attacks on the transgender community, saying they were "lying or in denial" causing much of the reaction :



"To call a transsexual who denies Autogynephilia vigorously autogynephilic or an autogynephile-in-denial is also inflammatory and inappropriate. One can convey the same point with more cautious language. In general, researchers should avoid inciting hostility from their subjects. Stating that a subject is in denial or misleading the researcher usually leads to an angry reaction. Ridiculing someone for their beliefs, religious, political, or gender identification is never a good strategy. Ignoring these common courtesies will probably lead to an ugly confrontation, such as this “controversy.” Being a researcher does not confer immunity from the consequences of incivility. "



Further on Baileys participation in causing the controversy:



"If you do not like controversy, do not want people making accusations or saying nasty things about you, I suggest that you make your point with respect and kindness. "



On Alice Dreger's bias.



With all due respect to Dreger, was she the correct person to tell this story? She admits she was not unbiased. She has been attacked by the same detractors as Bailey and she has her own political agenda."



Dreger attacking other researchers:


"This is an article about a scientist who was maligned. It is surprising that Dreger chose to malign others in her article. I am not talking about Conway, James, or McCloskey, but I see no reason why Dreger needed to report that Dr. Millie Brown settled a lawsuit brought against her by a former patient. The implication that Brown was guilty of professional misconduct appears to have been added just to undercut her credibility as a proponent of the Feminine Essence Perspective.

Dreger neglected to add that Brown was advised to accept the settlement by her insurance company, which is quite common with this type of lawsuit. Brown chose to follow her insurance company’s advice and move on with her life. The terms of the settlement are confidential, but did not require any admission of wrongdoing (M. Brown, personal communication, September 14, 2007). In this case, Dreger acted like Bailey’s accusers, stating facts out of context to impugn someone’s reputation. "



In conclusion on Baileys accusation of suppression and on Dregers alleged ending of Academic Freedom:



"Dreger asked, “How could there be so much smoke and so little fire”? The same could be asked of Dreger. Did she uncover a pattern of lies and false allegations? No, the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct. I agree that the many voices in this debate “…have been repeatedly silenced, misrepresented, or misheard…”, but this has occurred on both sides of the debate, not just by the Autogynephilia critics as Dreger implies. Did she find anything but a small group of women who felt that this popular book was a threat and let their displeasure be known quite loudly?

My last bits of insight are to remember the Golden Rule. Remember also that you reap what you sow. The death of free speech and academic freedom has been highly exaggerated. Science is not free of politics, never has been, and never will be. The origins of transsexuality are still not known and the concept of Autogynephilia is still controversial. "



Moser sums up everything quite nicely and clearly notes Bailey and Dreger as having fueled the controversy themselves by both action and word. Point out how Bailey's work was suppressed, how it was denied forum or publication. To inject Baileys opinion that he was in any way supressed is making an unsourced , unfounded accusation. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


Balance

I believe there is enough in this Moser article to begin using it as a basis to balance and expand the controversy with a counterbalancing opinion. This article suggests:

1. Bailey intentionally used the controversy about the theory to his advantage till he became victim of it.

2. That Dreger found nothing but three angry women who advanced their opinion vocally.

3. Dregers article has not shown in any demonstrative way that there was any effect on Dr Bailey or Academic research . Baileys removal was clean and without any association according to Bailey himself.

4.That her belief that all theories should go unchallenged as unrealistic given the history of science and theories.

5. Baileys own attacks on the transgender community not only fueled the response but likely was the cause of the backlash.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this represents the tone of the letter; like most of the comments and quotations on this topic, it is selective quotation. the letter, which is a very fair one, makes it very clear that Moser's view is that the appalling behavior of Bailey's opponents started the problems, but that Bailey by responding, continued the dispute, and would have done better not to have done so. The letter is not anti-Dreger or anti-Bailey, and should not be quoted in such as way as to imply that it is. I'll comment further below. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


Well that is really interesting point of view because Moser clearly states that he believed Bailey caused the controversy all on his own with mean spirited statements and attacking his opponents by saying if they disagreed with him they were definitely autogynaphellic. Amnd lets be clear here, only Andre James wrote something worthy of being called "appalling". The rest did not. Remember also that Moser was reading from Dregers biased ( and he says she is) paper. If it were not for the "no original research " rule I would ask Dr Moser. How does one reconcile this with your assertions "The death of free speech and academic freedom has been highly exaggerated. Science is not free of politics, never has been, and never will be."

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen/Archive_13"