Alice Dreger and making the evidence fit your thesis
So last week I found out that Alice Dreger's new book, Galileo's Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science, has recently been released. I have not personally read it, but I am well aware of one aspect of the book: the part where she describes the ensuing controversy surrounding psychologist J. Michael Bailey's book The Man Who Would Be Queen. And while I don't know precisely what Dreger says (or more pertinently, fails to say) about that controversy in her new book, I am very familiar with her views on the matter, as I am one of the numerous scientists, academics, and knowledgeable parties who contributed peer commentaries to her 2008 book-length article on this very matter that appeared in the sexology journal Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2008. (For those with access via academic institutions, her article and all the peer commentaries can be accessed here.)
If you were to suddenly develop a strong interest in this story and/or found yourself with an inordinate amount of free reading time to pour over those essays, you would find that most of the peer commentaries argued that Dreger's retelling of this tale was horribly one-sided, focusing almost entirely on how Bailey was bullied by a few "out-of-control trans activists," but with almost no serious discussion about how Bailey's book peddled anecdotes and conjecture as though they were science, nor any consideration of the long history of pseudoscience being used to reinforce the discrimination and delegitimization of marginalized groups. As I say in the last paragraph of my peer commentary:
As a scientist myself, I feel that it is important that we defend scientific freedom of expression. But we must also recognize that with that freedom comes the responsibility not to abuse our positions as scientists. Unfortunately, there has been a long history of dubious research that has lent scientific credence to prejudiced beliefs that already exist in the culture: studies that have claimed to show that people of color are inherently less intelligent than white people, that homosexuals are more criminally-inclined than heterosexuals, or that women are biologically ill-suited for leadership positions. Often, such studies are embraced by the public despite their methodological flaws because they reaffirm and reinforce presumptions and biases that already dominate in the culture. Bailey’s book claims to provide a scientific basis for three of the most commonly repeated sexualizing stereotypes of trans women: that we are either perverted men who “get off” on the idea of being women, gay men who transition to female in order to pick up straight men, and/or that we are “especially well suited to prostitution” (Bailey, 2003, p. 185). Like most research that merely confirms popular stereotypes, the data supporting Bailey’s claims are weak: He relies primarily on Ray Blanchard’s correlations and his own impressions, speculations and anecdotes. The cavalier way in which Bailey forwards these sexualizing stereotypes with no concern for the profound negative impact they have on trans women’s lives is scientifically irresponsible and a misuse of the institutionalized power that he holds over trans people as a psychologist. The fact that Dreger does not consider this institutionalized erasure of trans women’s identities, perspectives and concerns to be ethically important is troubling its own right.
You can read my entire peer commentary, A Matter of Perspective: A Transsexual Woman-Centric Critique of Alice Dreger’s “Scholarly History” of the Bailey Controversy, by clicking on that link.
Also, in 2010, two peer-reviewed review articles were published (here and here) detailing the overwhelming evidence demonstrating that Ray Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia (the one Bailey's entire book is centered upon) is scientifically invalid. Despite the fact that those reviews were published five years ago, I suspect that Dreger did not bother to cite them at all in her book. I suppose this because, in my experience, Dreger is someone who prefers to make the evidence (or the omission thereof) fit her thesis. And this concerns me as both a trans woman and a scientist.
If you were to suddenly develop a strong interest in this story and/or found yourself with an inordinate amount of free reading time to pour over those essays, you would find that most of the peer commentaries argued that Dreger's retelling of this tale was horribly one-sided, focusing almost entirely on how Bailey was bullied by a few "out-of-control trans activists," but with almost no serious discussion about how Bailey's book peddled anecdotes and conjecture as though they were science, nor any consideration of the long history of pseudoscience being used to reinforce the discrimination and delegitimization of marginalized groups. As I say in the last paragraph of my peer commentary:
As a scientist myself, I feel that it is important that we defend scientific freedom of expression. But we must also recognize that with that freedom comes the responsibility not to abuse our positions as scientists. Unfortunately, there has been a long history of dubious research that has lent scientific credence to prejudiced beliefs that already exist in the culture: studies that have claimed to show that people of color are inherently less intelligent than white people, that homosexuals are more criminally-inclined than heterosexuals, or that women are biologically ill-suited for leadership positions. Often, such studies are embraced by the public despite their methodological flaws because they reaffirm and reinforce presumptions and biases that already dominate in the culture. Bailey’s book claims to provide a scientific basis for three of the most commonly repeated sexualizing stereotypes of trans women: that we are either perverted men who “get off” on the idea of being women, gay men who transition to female in order to pick up straight men, and/or that we are “especially well suited to prostitution” (Bailey, 2003, p. 185). Like most research that merely confirms popular stereotypes, the data supporting Bailey’s claims are weak: He relies primarily on Ray Blanchard’s correlations and his own impressions, speculations and anecdotes. The cavalier way in which Bailey forwards these sexualizing stereotypes with no concern for the profound negative impact they have on trans women’s lives is scientifically irresponsible and a misuse of the institutionalized power that he holds over trans people as a psychologist. The fact that Dreger does not consider this institutionalized erasure of trans women’s identities, perspectives and concerns to be ethically important is troubling its own right.
You can read my entire peer commentary, A Matter of Perspective: A Transsexual Woman-Centric Critique of Alice Dreger’s “Scholarly History” of the Bailey Controversy, by clicking on that link.
Also, in 2010, two peer-reviewed review articles were published (here and here) detailing the overwhelming evidence demonstrating that Ray Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia (the one Bailey's entire book is centered upon) is scientifically invalid. Despite the fact that those reviews were published five years ago, I suspect that Dreger did not bother to cite them at all in her book. I suppose this because, in my experience, Dreger is someone who prefers to make the evidence (or the omission thereof) fit her thesis. And this concerns me as both a trans woman and a scientist.
No comments have been added yet.
