Callout: dgaicun's askme answer calls expertise into question June 4, 2006 7:51 AM Subscribe
Shorter dgaicun: 'I know nothing about this extremely sensitive topic, therefore I will derail it early on with a heap of ignorant stereotypes.' Flagged with extreme prejudice.
The Wikipedia article our anonymous friend linked to in reference to his sexual orientation calls it "a potential aesthetic attraction, romantic love and/or sexual desire for anybody," which—kind of speaks for itself.
Looks to me like another case of skimming-the-question-itis.
posted by Zozo at 8:11 AM on June 4, 2006
Looks to me like another case of skimming-the-question-itis.
posted by Zozo at 8:11 AM on June 4, 2006
"...but you asked"?
That's an excuse for someone with no knowledge of a subject to jump in and answer? RIP, AskMe.
posted by mediareport at 8:24 AM on June 4, 2006
That's an excuse for someone with no knowledge of a subject to jump in and answer? RIP, AskMe.
posted by mediareport at 8:24 AM on June 4, 2006
ArmyOfKittens had a well-thought out response that was based on personal knowledge, research, and a genuine interest in the subject.
Dgaicun should be embarrassed by his answer which was shallow, uninformed, and well, pretty stupid. Especially coming on the heels of AOK's.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:35 AM on June 4, 2006
Dgaicun should be embarrassed by his answer which was shallow, uninformed, and well, pretty stupid. Especially coming on the heels of AOK's.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:35 AM on June 4, 2006
I got email from the OP indicating that he thought people had missed his point, so I expect he'll update the thread. dgaicun's response wasn't super helpful, but it wasn't offensive. It just might be nice if people who don't know much about a topic could reign in their desire to reply.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:48 AM on June 4, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:48 AM on June 4, 2006
I have an interesting post on my blog about this malarkey.
posted by exlotuseater at 8:49 AM on June 4, 2006
posted by exlotuseater at 8:49 AM on June 4, 2006
You could easily get a sex change, and it may even look somewhat convincing, but your dating/love life will not be as satisfactory than just living as a homosexual.
The assumptions and idiocy in that statement sure look offensive to me. What a wretched mess of an answer.
posted by mediareport at 9:16 AM on June 4, 2006
The assumptions and idiocy in that statement sure look offensive to me. What a wretched mess of an answer.
posted by mediareport at 9:16 AM on June 4, 2006
What took the cake for me was this:
So my advice to you is to take the (difficult) masculine route and hit the gym, etc, so you can date gay men.
Which I'm certain was pulled out of the USENET Troll Handbook, c. 1995.
posted by holgate at 9:56 AM on June 4, 2006
So my advice to you is to take the (difficult) masculine route and hit the gym, etc, so you can date gay men.
Which I'm certain was pulled out of the USENET Troll Handbook, c. 1995.
posted by holgate at 9:56 AM on June 4, 2006
Man, what a pile of ignorant bullshit that comment was. Flagged with extreme prejudice, indeed.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:03 AM on June 4, 2006
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:03 AM on June 4, 2006
We can parse dgaicun's answer sentence by sentence for the dumbest (or to paraphrase jessamyn, "the least super helpful") comment, but I think that this is in the running:
Honestly, you just sound gay.
This is after the poster states:
And mentally, emotionally, what-have-you, I feel like a slightly-tomboyish girl with a dick.
Sheesh. When did we start celebrating and advertising ignorance??
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:07 AM on June 4, 2006
Honestly, you just sound gay.
This is after the poster states:
And mentally, emotionally, what-have-you, I feel like a slightly-tomboyish girl with a dick.
Sheesh. When did we start celebrating and advertising ignorance??
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:07 AM on June 4, 2006
I guess he can add the comments here to his "what are the critics saying" section of his userpage.
posted by vacapinta at 10:16 AM on June 4, 2006
posted by vacapinta at 10:16 AM on June 4, 2006
I think you guys are being a little hard on him. Maybe the comment was stupid (I have no idea), but I don't think he was trying to be offensive or to derail. It was a pretty open-ended questions (as far as I could tell), in another situation, perhaps, it could have been valuable.
posted by loquax at 10:22 AM on June 4, 2006
posted by loquax at 10:22 AM on June 4, 2006
I'm bi. My exwife is pre-op transexual. dgaicun, for his book knowledge, nailed it, albeit clumsily.
holgate, what are your credentials for calling dgaicun out? In fact, among those of you who have responded in this thread, who is not straight?
If you are straight, your 'advice' is virtually worthless.
posted by mischief at 10:38 AM on June 4, 2006
holgate, what are your credentials for calling dgaicun out? In fact, among those of you who have responded in this thread, who is not straight?
If you are straight, your 'advice' is virtually worthless.
posted by mischief at 10:38 AM on June 4, 2006
In fact, among those of you who have responded in this thread, who is not straight?
*raises hand*
Bi, tipping to straight side.
posted by jonmc at 10:40 AM on June 4, 2006
*raises hand*
Bi, tipping to straight side.
posted by jonmc at 10:40 AM on June 4, 2006
I'm bi. My exwife is pre-op transexual. dgaicun, for his book knowledge, nailed it, albeit clumsily.
I'm transsexual, and I know an awful lot of other trans people, including a lot of people who almost transitioned and then didn't, and people who were unsure about the whole thing but are now glad they did it. dgaicun missed the nail and hit himself in the arm.
You're a feminine man with a female fiancee and you think you might be transsexual! Get down the gym and date men! That'll help!
In fact, getting down the gym or joining the army or doing something else stereotypically masculine are classic coping mechanisms for pre-everything transsexuals trying to repress. They usually only end up fucking themselves up even more.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 10:52 AM on June 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm transsexual, and I know an awful lot of other trans people, including a lot of people who almost transitioned and then didn't, and people who were unsure about the whole thing but are now glad they did it. dgaicun missed the nail and hit himself in the arm.
You're a feminine man with a female fiancee and you think you might be transsexual! Get down the gym and date men! That'll help!
In fact, getting down the gym or joining the army or doing something else stereotypically masculine are classic coping mechanisms for pre-everything transsexuals trying to repress. They usually only end up fucking themselves up even more.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 10:52 AM on June 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
mischief:
holgate, what are your credentials for calling dgaicun out? In fact, among those of you who have responded in this thread, who is not straight?
If you are straight, your 'advice' is virtually worthless.
Okay then. For what it's worth, I was born physically male, transitioned to female at age 20 (hormones, medical approval and all), and lived, worked and (I'm told) 'passed' perfectly for more than two years. I then effectively transitioned back to somewhere nearer male (I bind these days! It's weird.) and currently inhabit a variable space with regard to gender, sometimes presenting in one way and sometimes another, but with a distinct bias toward my basic state being feminine-male and my name and passport reflecting this.
If we're bringing sexuality into the equation, I'd call myself bisexual in that I don't think there are sufficient innate differences between genders for my having a preference to make any sense. I've had partners of both genders, grew up in and around the queer community and, incidentally, was a sex worker for a while some time back.
Now, if I were to give any credence to the ridiculous idea that all this alterna-gender and -sex cock-waggling had any bearing whatsoever on the discussion, I'd say I was pretty fucking well qualified to comment, and rather moreso than someone who apparently thinks he's awfully experienced because he was once involved with a TS person, thankyou very much.
Anyway, I'd be rather more inclined to say that having something thoughtful or interesting to say qualified a person to answer anonymous's question. Failing that, perhaps people with experience of being only one gender might not have as much to offer, but I fail to see what the hell sexuality could possibly have to do with it.
posted by terpsichoria at 11:03 AM on June 4, 2006
holgate, what are your credentials for calling dgaicun out? In fact, among those of you who have responded in this thread, who is not straight?
If you are straight, your 'advice' is virtually worthless.
Okay then. For what it's worth, I was born physically male, transitioned to female at age 20 (hormones, medical approval and all), and lived, worked and (I'm told) 'passed' perfectly for more than two years. I then effectively transitioned back to somewhere nearer male (I bind these days! It's weird.) and currently inhabit a variable space with regard to gender, sometimes presenting in one way and sometimes another, but with a distinct bias toward my basic state being feminine-male and my name and passport reflecting this.
If we're bringing sexuality into the equation, I'd call myself bisexual in that I don't think there are sufficient innate differences between genders for my having a preference to make any sense. I've had partners of both genders, grew up in and around the queer community and, incidentally, was a sex worker for a while some time back.
Now, if I were to give any credence to the ridiculous idea that all this alterna-gender and -sex cock-waggling had any bearing whatsoever on the discussion, I'd say I was pretty fucking well qualified to comment, and rather moreso than someone who apparently thinks he's awfully experienced because he was once involved with a TS person, thankyou very much.
Anyway, I'd be rather more inclined to say that having something thoughtful or interesting to say qualified a person to answer anonymous's question. Failing that, perhaps people with experience of being only one gender might not have as much to offer, but I fail to see what the hell sexuality could possibly have to do with it.
posted by terpsichoria at 11:03 AM on June 4, 2006
Yeah, YMMV has a time and a place, but 'Hey, you asked, pally' doesn't make pulling stuff out of your ass okay. 'You sound gay, get fit and hook up with gay dudes' sounds pretty insensitive and boar tit useless to me.
PS. I am a straight male.
I didn't know that common bloody sense or the ability to articulate an informed opinion was so tied into one's sexuality.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:05 AM on June 4, 2006
PS. I am a straight male.
I didn't know that common bloody sense or the ability to articulate an informed opinion was so tied into one's sexuality.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:05 AM on June 4, 2006
If you are straight, your 'advice' is virtually worthless.
posted by mischief
Just on this one subject in particular, or on everything in general? :-)
And how does being bi make one more of an expert on transgender than being straight? (Not a snark--just want to know why you think that.)
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:26 AM on June 4, 2006
posted by mischief
Just on this one subject in particular, or on everything in general? :-)
And how does being bi make one more of an expert on transgender than being straight? (Not a snark--just want to know why you think that.)
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:26 AM on June 4, 2006
How does one's sexual orientation inform gender identity discussions?
posted by gaspode at 11:53 AM on June 4, 2006
posted by gaspode at 11:53 AM on June 4, 2006
If you are straight, your 'advice' is virtually worthless.
I don't think that fighting generalizations with generalizations is going to work here. I'm not straight either. But someone better tell the straight transsexuals to butt out, eh?
posted by desuetude at 12:44 PM on June 4, 2006
I don't think that fighting generalizations with generalizations is going to work here. I'm not straight either. But someone better tell the straight transsexuals to butt out, eh?
posted by desuetude at 12:44 PM on June 4, 2006
That's an excuse for someone with no knowledge of a subject to jump in and answer? RIP, AskMe.
'I know nothing about this extremely sensitive topic, therefore I will derail it early on with a heap of ignorant stereotypes.'
Telling a man not to enter a heterosexual marriage, so he can live a homosexual lifestyle, is hardly as reactionary as many of these comments are suggesting.
"No knowledge" is not true. Have any of my accusers, I wonder, spent time learning the science of gender at all? Perhaps outside of the theoretically limited and empirically stunted canon of "social construction" lit? Read Doreen Kimura, Michael Bailey, Simon LeVay, etc? Please read this excellent and detailed summary on the current state of homosexuality research from the Boston Globe.
Have you seen my posting history - I have more than a passing familiarity with the topic. I am not the world's foremost expert, but I have a fully adequate knowledge of the current science of gender, homosexuality, and transsexuality to answer that Askme question informed by that perspective. That you don't like that perspective is fine, but let's not pretend these alternate perspectives are based on much (if any) more real data. I realize there are other "interpretations" of gender, etc., and that they are strongly opposed to the majority science perspectives. I have read them and do not find them convincing or data-inspired. In fact I think they contradict the data.
I'm dealing in "crude stereotypes"? Well guess what - the poster described himself in those stereotypes. More importantly those "stereotypes" reveal a number of truths about the biological basis of gender. Artificially adjust the hormone levels in animals and you can control those "stereotypes". Accidental developmental hormone events control those "stereotypes" in humans. While fortuitous shifts in social construction do not alter those "stereotypes" in humans.
Our poster was describing a complete reverse in gender behavior at a very young age, coupled with later homosexual desire. These are the classic signs of homosexuality, and suggest his orientation was forged in utero. I do not believe in bisexual orientation, along with a number of current researchers. I don't believe he will feel satisfied in a monogamous heterosexual marriage. And based on what I know about homosexuals and transsexuals I believe he will be happier (that is more successful) as a biological man dating gay men, than a post-op transsexual trying to date straight men.
I leave his true feelings and ultimate decisions to him, but informed by my reading and knowledge of the empirical lit, this is my prediction and suggestion. It could very well be wrong, but thus is any response on a still largely mysterious topic confounded by the great diversity of human behavior - which I left elbow room for in my response.
posted by dgaicun at 1:50 PM on June 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
'I know nothing about this extremely sensitive topic, therefore I will derail it early on with a heap of ignorant stereotypes.'
Telling a man not to enter a heterosexual marriage, so he can live a homosexual lifestyle, is hardly as reactionary as many of these comments are suggesting.
"No knowledge" is not true. Have any of my accusers, I wonder, spent time learning the science of gender at all? Perhaps outside of the theoretically limited and empirically stunted canon of "social construction" lit? Read Doreen Kimura, Michael Bailey, Simon LeVay, etc? Please read this excellent and detailed summary on the current state of homosexuality research from the Boston Globe.
Have you seen my posting history - I have more than a passing familiarity with the topic. I am not the world's foremost expert, but I have a fully adequate knowledge of the current science of gender, homosexuality, and transsexuality to answer that Askme question informed by that perspective. That you don't like that perspective is fine, but let's not pretend these alternate perspectives are based on much (if any) more real data. I realize there are other "interpretations" of gender, etc., and that they are strongly opposed to the majority science perspectives. I have read them and do not find them convincing or data-inspired. In fact I think they contradict the data.
I'm dealing in "crude stereotypes"? Well guess what - the poster described himself in those stereotypes. More importantly those "stereotypes" reveal a number of truths about the biological basis of gender. Artificially adjust the hormone levels in animals and you can control those "stereotypes". Accidental developmental hormone events control those "stereotypes" in humans. While fortuitous shifts in social construction do not alter those "stereotypes" in humans.
Our poster was describing a complete reverse in gender behavior at a very young age, coupled with later homosexual desire. These are the classic signs of homosexuality, and suggest his orientation was forged in utero. I do not believe in bisexual orientation, along with a number of current researchers. I don't believe he will feel satisfied in a monogamous heterosexual marriage. And based on what I know about homosexuals and transsexuals I believe he will be happier (that is more successful) as a biological man dating gay men, than a post-op transsexual trying to date straight men.
I leave his true feelings and ultimate decisions to him, but informed by my reading and knowledge of the empirical lit, this is my prediction and suggestion. It could very well be wrong, but thus is any response on a still largely mysterious topic confounded by the great diversity of human behavior - which I left elbow room for in my response.
posted by dgaicun at 1:50 PM on June 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
Pretty nice response dgaicun. I thought the call-out was a little weak in the first place, and now reading your (rather) well-informed comeback, I see you had no intention to derail, you really have a point! Food for thought...
posted by msali at 2:00 PM on June 4, 2006
posted by msali at 2:00 PM on June 4, 2006
I suspect that I am, and have always been, a woman trapped in a man's body. This is what I am Asking MetaFilter:
1) Is there a way to know for sure, one way or the other?
2) Is transgenderism something you even can wonder about, or is it an "If you have to ask, you're not" kind of thing?
3) All the resources I can find are aimed towards people who've already figured things out; can you point me at information geared towards people in my position?
Those were the questions the poster requested answers to.
Your reply:
Honestly, you just sound gay.
So my advice to you is to take the (difficult) masculine route and hit the gym, etc, so you can date gay men. No matter what you choose it sounds like you will be making annoying and uncomfortable compromises, but I think that's your best route.
And that's a helpful answer to the questions posed?
posted by leftcoastbob at 2:06 PM on June 4, 2006
1) Is there a way to know for sure, one way or the other?
2) Is transgenderism something you even can wonder about, or is it an "If you have to ask, you're not" kind of thing?
3) All the resources I can find are aimed towards people who've already figured things out; can you point me at information geared towards people in my position?
Those were the questions the poster requested answers to.
Your reply:
Honestly, you just sound gay.
So my advice to you is to take the (difficult) masculine route and hit the gym, etc, so you can date gay men. No matter what you choose it sounds like you will be making annoying and uncomfortable compromises, but I think that's your best route.
And that's a helpful answer to the questions posed?
posted by leftcoastbob at 2:06 PM on June 4, 2006
Daigun, another reason your advice came off particularly odd is because anonymous is happily involved with a woman. And expressed no desire to be more traditionally masculine. Or date gay men. And isn't confused about his sexual orientation.
Your answer in AskMe, as well as your response above, seem to me to indicate that you just want to lecture, not answer the question. You gave an answer to "what might some people interested in gender/sexuality research have to say generally about the sucess of relationships between self-identified pansexuals," but your responses are out of sync with the AskMe.
I note that you don't like it when people make rash judgements about the depth of your knowledge and experience. But you completely discount anonymous's knowledge of his own life.
posted by desuetude at 2:30 PM on June 4, 2006
Your answer in AskMe, as well as your response above, seem to me to indicate that you just want to lecture, not answer the question. You gave an answer to "what might some people interested in gender/sexuality research have to say generally about the sucess of relationships between self-identified pansexuals," but your responses are out of sync with the AskMe.
I note that you don't like it when people make rash judgements about the depth of your knowledge and experience. But you completely discount anonymous's knowledge of his own life.
posted by desuetude at 2:30 PM on June 4, 2006
And that's a helpful answer to the questions posed?
If there was only one answer allowed per AskMe question, it would've been a bad answer. But since that's not the case and others in that thread gave more direct answers, dgaicun's (and klangklangston's) answers seem like helpful additions. It doesn't mean they're right, but given only a few paragraphs to work from, I don't see how an educated interpretation, such as dgaican's, is any less valid than the others. Plus, we've seen over and over again that emotionally-charged topics like human relations and sexuality always result in answers that stray from the answer-template provided by the poster--and that's a good thing, in my mind.
posted by mullacc at 2:31 PM on June 4, 2006
If there was only one answer allowed per AskMe question, it would've been a bad answer. But since that's not the case and others in that thread gave more direct answers, dgaicun's (and klangklangston's) answers seem like helpful additions. It doesn't mean they're right, but given only a few paragraphs to work from, I don't see how an educated interpretation, such as dgaican's, is any less valid than the others. Plus, we've seen over and over again that emotionally-charged topics like human relations and sexuality always result in answers that stray from the answer-template provided by the poster--and that's a good thing, in my mind.
posted by mullacc at 2:31 PM on June 4, 2006
"No knowledge" is not true. Have any of my accusers, I wonder, spent time learning the science of gender at all? Perhaps outside of the theoretically limited and empirically stunted canon of "social construction" lit? Read Doreen Kimura, Michael Bailey, Simon LeVay, etc? Please read this excellent and detailed summary on the current state of homosexuality research from the Boston Globe.
Michael Bailey. Simon Levay. I realise these are both links to the same website, but please realise that Bailey in particular was at the centre of a shitstorm of controversy, in and out of the transsexual community, for his unethical methods and general arseholery. Bailey has the same credibility amongst psychiatrists that Crichton has amongst climatologists.
I've had email conversations with Bailey. I politely disagreed with him, citing my own experiences as being contrary to his statements and "research", and his response was to repeatedly call me a liar, tell me that I was delusional, and order me to buy another copy of his book. The man has no credibility, and nor does anyone who cites him.
Many years ago I spent quite some time learning the "science of gender", such as it is, because I have a very Christian mother who needed a lot of reassurance before she could fully support my transition. There's not a lot of it out there, unfortunately. Popular science books written by crackpots with considerably more than half an eye on the bestseller lists do not count.
I believe, based on my experiences and much discussion over the years with many people to whom these circumstances apply, that your advice was useless at best and actively harmful at worst.
Once again we've ended up in metatalk picking over the motivations and private feelings of someone whose only crime was to ask a complicated question about gender and sexual identity. I'm beginning to feel that ask.mefi is not an appropriate place for this sort of subjects.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 2:37 PM on June 4, 2006
Michael Bailey. Simon Levay. I realise these are both links to the same website, but please realise that Bailey in particular was at the centre of a shitstorm of controversy, in and out of the transsexual community, for his unethical methods and general arseholery. Bailey has the same credibility amongst psychiatrists that Crichton has amongst climatologists.
I've had email conversations with Bailey. I politely disagreed with him, citing my own experiences as being contrary to his statements and "research", and his response was to repeatedly call me a liar, tell me that I was delusional, and order me to buy another copy of his book. The man has no credibility, and nor does anyone who cites him.
Many years ago I spent quite some time learning the "science of gender", such as it is, because I have a very Christian mother who needed a lot of reassurance before she could fully support my transition. There's not a lot of it out there, unfortunately. Popular science books written by crackpots with considerably more than half an eye on the bestseller lists do not count.
I believe, based on my experiences and much discussion over the years with many people to whom these circumstances apply, that your advice was useless at best and actively harmful at worst.
Once again we've ended up in metatalk picking over the motivations and private feelings of someone whose only crime was to ask a complicated question about gender and sexual identity. I'm beginning to feel that ask.mefi is not an appropriate place for this sort of subjects.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 2:37 PM on June 4, 2006
This callout wasn't warranted. Folks can disagree with dgaicun, but his perspective was presented courteously and clearly, with a disclaimer about its limitations. He was even kind enough to amplify it here.
If there's a "shitstorm of controversy" about a topic someone's trying to learn about, it can be quite helpful to point that out, rather than suppressing it entirely.
Also, someone opposed to dgaicun pointed out that the original anon poster was "happily involved with a woman." To the contrary, the anon poster took great pains to point out that s/he is happily involved with a partner who has an unusual gender identity.
People's strong feelings are getting in the way of useful discussion here.
posted by ikkyu2 at 2:51 PM on June 4, 2006
If there's a "shitstorm of controversy" about a topic someone's trying to learn about, it can be quite helpful to point that out, rather than suppressing it entirely.
Also, someone opposed to dgaicun pointed out that the original anon poster was "happily involved with a woman." To the contrary, the anon poster took great pains to point out that s/he is happily involved with a partner who has an unusual gender identity.
People's strong feelings are getting in the way of useful discussion here.
posted by ikkyu2 at 2:51 PM on June 4, 2006
Bailey has the same credibility amongst psychiatrists that Crichton has amongst climatologists.
Wow, you are really full of shit aren't you? This is easily debunked though, let's simply type Bailey, JM into Google Scholar, and what do we find? Why lots of highly cited, peer reviewed papers in the top research journals on human sexuality. Bailey publishes in the top journals and is a leader in the field.
As someone who has good knowledge of global warming as well, I can't help but sneer, but let's humor you by now typing Crichton, M into Google Scholar and see if we likewise see him publishing in the climatology journals. Oh, I see Jurassic Park and The Andromeda Strain, but no peer-reviewed climatology papers. What explains this? Could it be you are a liar with an extra-scientific agenda Army of Kittens?
I politely disagreed with him, citing my own experiences as being contrary to his statements and "research"
Well then get your anecdotes in the science journals. Makes a research program. You know how science works, right? He publishes original research in the journals. He has theory and data. You need to do likewise.
And nice website links. I'll just repeat:
I realize there are other "interpretations" of gender, etc., and that they are strongly opposed to the majority science perspectives. I have read them and do not find them convincing or data-inspired. In fact I think they contradict the data.
posted by dgaicun at 3:03 PM on June 4, 2006
Wow, you are really full of shit aren't you? This is easily debunked though, let's simply type Bailey, JM into Google Scholar, and what do we find? Why lots of highly cited, peer reviewed papers in the top research journals on human sexuality. Bailey publishes in the top journals and is a leader in the field.
As someone who has good knowledge of global warming as well, I can't help but sneer, but let's humor you by now typing Crichton, M into Google Scholar and see if we likewise see him publishing in the climatology journals. Oh, I see Jurassic Park and The Andromeda Strain, but no peer-reviewed climatology papers. What explains this? Could it be you are a liar with an extra-scientific agenda Army of Kittens?
I politely disagreed with him, citing my own experiences as being contrary to his statements and "research"
Well then get your anecdotes in the science journals. Makes a research program. You know how science works, right? He publishes original research in the journals. He has theory and data. You need to do likewise.
And nice website links. I'll just repeat:
I realize there are other "interpretations" of gender, etc., and that they are strongly opposed to the majority science perspectives. I have read them and do not find them convincing or data-inspired. In fact I think they contradict the data.
posted by dgaicun at 3:03 PM on June 4, 2006
ikkyu2, anon's partner is a "pan/omni/bi/whateversexual woman". No unusual gender identity there.
If there's a "shitstorm of controversy" about a topic someone's trying to learn about, it can be quite helpful to point that out, rather than suppressing it entirely.
The studies that back up the idea that most transsexuals would be happier not transitioning, that bisexuals don't exist, that transsexuals who do transition do so either because they are repressed homosexuals or because they are extremely sexually excited by the idea of having a vagina... how do I put this? Their methodology and conclusions are as trustworthy as research into global warming funded by oil companies.
Transsexuality and the surrounding issues are indeed controversial fields, but the people dgaicun cited are not taken seriously by people in these fields. It's like coming into a discussion about global climate change and trying to argue that isn't happening because Texaco say it isn't.
Gender identity is a very personal thing, and there are as many permutations as there are stars in the sky. Based on the information provided by anonymous, we can no more definitively say that she is transsexual than we can say that he is not. Most advice given in that thread is to explore the issue, to read about it, to meet people with similar experiences, and to generally have a jolly good think and a jolly good experiment. dgiacun's advice is to ignore the issue, to brush it under the rug, to become manlier and gayer and date guys because the pop-science books he has read claim that transsexuals like me don't actually exist, and we're just faking it, guys, and it's impossible to be happy or have a satisfying life and incidentally if we could dance for Dr Bailey on the way out he'd be happy to slip us a fiver.
On preview:
Oh dear lord, dgiacun. I do not have an "extra-scientific agenda". I am simply trying to ensure that someone in a potentially vulnerable situation does not receive damaging advice.
I can't speak for Bailey's general record. However I can tell you that the head of the Kinsey Institute described "The Man Who Would Be Queen" as "not science", and the head of the Harry Benjamin Organisation described it as "bad science". The wikipedia page is a rather unsatisfactory summary of the clouds surrounding the book, but as it has been a few years now and my memory is a bit hazy, it'll have to do. This page has a better summary, but is rather longer.
I am not familiar with Bailey's other work, but his work on transsexuality has been widely condemned by professionals in the field.
Wow, you are really full of shit aren't you?
dgiacun, you sing like the sweetest of angels.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 3:21 PM on June 4, 2006
If there's a "shitstorm of controversy" about a topic someone's trying to learn about, it can be quite helpful to point that out, rather than suppressing it entirely.
The studies that back up the idea that most transsexuals would be happier not transitioning, that bisexuals don't exist, that transsexuals who do transition do so either because they are repressed homosexuals or because they are extremely sexually excited by the idea of having a vagina... how do I put this? Their methodology and conclusions are as trustworthy as research into global warming funded by oil companies.
Transsexuality and the surrounding issues are indeed controversial fields, but the people dgaicun cited are not taken seriously by people in these fields. It's like coming into a discussion about global climate change and trying to argue that isn't happening because Texaco say it isn't.
Gender identity is a very personal thing, and there are as many permutations as there are stars in the sky. Based on the information provided by anonymous, we can no more definitively say that she is transsexual than we can say that he is not. Most advice given in that thread is to explore the issue, to read about it, to meet people with similar experiences, and to generally have a jolly good think and a jolly good experiment. dgiacun's advice is to ignore the issue, to brush it under the rug, to become manlier and gayer and date guys because the pop-science books he has read claim that transsexuals like me don't actually exist, and we're just faking it, guys, and it's impossible to be happy or have a satisfying life and incidentally if we could dance for Dr Bailey on the way out he'd be happy to slip us a fiver.
On preview:
Oh dear lord, dgiacun. I do not have an "extra-scientific agenda". I am simply trying to ensure that someone in a potentially vulnerable situation does not receive damaging advice.
I can't speak for Bailey's general record. However I can tell you that the head of the Kinsey Institute described "The Man Who Would Be Queen" as "not science", and the head of the Harry Benjamin Organisation described it as "bad science". The wikipedia page is a rather unsatisfactory summary of the clouds surrounding the book, but as it has been a few years now and my memory is a bit hazy, it'll have to do. This page has a better summary, but is rather longer.
I am not familiar with Bailey's other work, but his work on transsexuality has been widely condemned by professionals in the field.
Wow, you are really full of shit aren't you?
dgiacun, you sing like the sweetest of angels.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 3:21 PM on June 4, 2006
Also, someone opposed to dgaicun pointed out that the original anon poster was "happily involved with a woman." To the contrary, the anon poster took great pains to point out that s/he is happily involved with a partner who has an unusual gender identity.
Anonymous said that he is "engaged to marry a pan/omni/bi/whateversexual woman." The woman's sexual preference is "unusual", but her gender identity is not in dispute, based on anonymous's characterization of her. If he had said that she was pangender, that would be an "unusual gender identity."
posted by desuetude at 3:23 PM on June 4, 2006
Anonymous said that he is "engaged to marry a pan/omni/bi/whateversexual woman." The woman's sexual preference is "unusual", but her gender identity is not in dispute, based on anonymous's characterization of her. If he had said that she was pangender, that would be an "unusual gender identity."
posted by desuetude at 3:23 PM on June 4, 2006
dgaicun:
According to people who are actually living the lives Michael Bailey is purporting to research and quantify, Michael Bailey is full of shit.
He believes that male to female transsexuals are just gay men who're, I dunno, so into being fucked that they go to extremes in order to get fucked lots and lots (this is a gross oversimplification, but pretty much on the mark).
Uh, no. Transsexualism is an actual condition and has nothing to do with homosexuality, except insofar as ignorant people seek to either conflate the two or posit one as the cure for the other.
I'm not even gonna touch the whole "bisexuality doesn't exist" thing, as it's so, well, bad second-wave feminism a la 1987...
posted by mountain_william at 3:44 PM on June 4, 2006
According to people who are actually living the lives Michael Bailey is purporting to research and quantify, Michael Bailey is full of shit.
He believes that male to female transsexuals are just gay men who're, I dunno, so into being fucked that they go to extremes in order to get fucked lots and lots (this is a gross oversimplification, but pretty much on the mark).
Uh, no. Transsexualism is an actual condition and has nothing to do with homosexuality, except insofar as ignorant people seek to either conflate the two or posit one as the cure for the other.
I'm not even gonna touch the whole "bisexuality doesn't exist" thing, as it's so, well, bad second-wave feminism a la 1987...
posted by mountain_william at 3:44 PM on June 4, 2006
Dgaicun's last post in this thread, shortened: "How dare you call the size of my science penis into question!"
I probably shouldn't get into this, but I thought all this sounded somewhat familiar, and lo and behold.
Draw your own conclusions about Bailey and his work from that. Personally, I think Bailey's full of shit, and that that dgaicun basically deserved what he got in the AskMe thread. If he'd qualified it a bit more, maybe it wouldn't have started the ensuing shitstorm, but as it was, his answer struck me as being equivalent to a fundamentalist Christian claiming that really, atheists all believe in God deep down. It came off as the same sort of "I know the Truth, and so I know you better than you know yourself" BS.
posted by a louis wain cat at 3:46 PM on June 4, 2006
I probably shouldn't get into this, but I thought all this sounded somewhat familiar, and lo and behold.
Draw your own conclusions about Bailey and his work from that. Personally, I think Bailey's full of shit, and that that dgaicun basically deserved what he got in the AskMe thread. If he'd qualified it a bit more, maybe it wouldn't have started the ensuing shitstorm, but as it was, his answer struck me as being equivalent to a fundamentalist Christian claiming that really, atheists all believe in God deep down. It came off as the same sort of "I know the Truth, and so I know you better than you know yourself" BS.
posted by a louis wain cat at 3:46 PM on June 4, 2006
Wow, dgaicun, you really are a rude little creature when roused, aren't you?
To be honest, I'm not at all sure any of the studies that claim to have gained results regarding effectiveness of treatment for transsexualism are worth anything at all when applied to real people today. I'm not convinced it's possible to work with an adequate or representative sample of transsexual people right now, full stop. The framework for treatment, insufficient as it may or may not be, has only been in existence for a relatively short time. Within that time, treatment has been and still is given to all sorts of people - people who, honestly speaking, are probably transvestites or auto-erotic fetishists, 'genuine' transsexuals amongst whom the treatment may have been less or more essential and urgent, intersex people and so on. To pick one example, sixty-year-old late-transitioners and twenty-five-year-olds who started hormones at sixteen will likely have been treated according to vastly different criteria of suitability and had vastly different experiences. But it's nowhere near as simple as the difference between those two groups (or any number of similar groups), of course - consider the issues of stealth and the difficulty in interviewing transsexuals who nobody knows are TS, for instance.
Give it fifty years. In fifty years, the methods of treatment and criteria for diagnosis might just have been stable for long enough that a voluntary sample of transsexual people might just mean something. Right now, you're not getting results based on transsexuals who are selected and treated with modern criteria and procedures in what is a relatively fast-moving field of psychology and medicine. It's a group of people that has traits and problems in sample selection shared with no other group, and I remain unconvinced that any of the research I've read, and the research you've linked in particular, can offer a single goddamned piece of helpful information or advice to a young potential transitioner in the modern psychiatric and medical environment.
Oh, go on, one final thing:
dgaicun: I can't help but sneer
Yeah, that's sort of the problem in general, isn't it?
posted by terpsichoria at 4:02 PM on June 4, 2006
To be honest, I'm not at all sure any of the studies that claim to have gained results regarding effectiveness of treatment for transsexualism are worth anything at all when applied to real people today. I'm not convinced it's possible to work with an adequate or representative sample of transsexual people right now, full stop. The framework for treatment, insufficient as it may or may not be, has only been in existence for a relatively short time. Within that time, treatment has been and still is given to all sorts of people - people who, honestly speaking, are probably transvestites or auto-erotic fetishists, 'genuine' transsexuals amongst whom the treatment may have been less or more essential and urgent, intersex people and so on. To pick one example, sixty-year-old late-transitioners and twenty-five-year-olds who started hormones at sixteen will likely have been treated according to vastly different criteria of suitability and had vastly different experiences. But it's nowhere near as simple as the difference between those two groups (or any number of similar groups), of course - consider the issues of stealth and the difficulty in interviewing transsexuals who nobody knows are TS, for instance.
Give it fifty years. In fifty years, the methods of treatment and criteria for diagnosis might just have been stable for long enough that a voluntary sample of transsexual people might just mean something. Right now, you're not getting results based on transsexuals who are selected and treated with modern criteria and procedures in what is a relatively fast-moving field of psychology and medicine. It's a group of people that has traits and problems in sample selection shared with no other group, and I remain unconvinced that any of the research I've read, and the research you've linked in particular, can offer a single goddamned piece of helpful information or advice to a young potential transitioner in the modern psychiatric and medical environment.
Oh, go on, one final thing:
dgaicun: I can't help but sneer
Yeah, that's sort of the problem in general, isn't it?
posted by terpsichoria at 4:02 PM on June 4, 2006
Ok, here we go. A lot of anger and insults but no data. We have published journal research (PDF) competing against anecdote, hostility, ignorance, partisan websites, and incredulity. This of course, is not about J. Michael Bailey, who has become the scapegoat among any number of people with competing gender theories. I could name a dozen other top gender/homosexuality/transsexuality researchers whose body of published research would be blithely dismissed with a link to the (first-rate objective, for sure) Lynn Conway and Transsexual Roadmap websites presented by Army of Kittens.
Who, by the way, fully deserved to be called full of shit - which I clearly demonstrated with Google Scholar. The Bailey/Crichton comment was a lie and reflected full ignorance of the entire matter other than what can be "learned" from the "Anti-Bailey" websites AoK linked. There are a lot of people getting all their information from websites like this. (readers beware, btw, there is a lot of misinformation out there - a lot very energetic folks who do not like this research for various reasons, who are part of the web, not the field)
I'm presenting what is roughly the most mainstream/accepted viewpoints on these topics (see Boston Globe link above). I didn't say there isn't a buttload of controversy and uncertainty. I was giving, based on my judgment, the best advice based on the most data-inspired information available. That's the best we can do. The vitriol against me here doesn't bother me one little bit (though false information always bothers me a lot, e.g. AoK), and in fact I think it speaks for itself.
Like Nancy Hopkins storming out on Larry Summers in an angry and offended huff, we have people interested in the issues and the data, and people more interested in decrying the people interested in the issues and the data, because the data isn't saying what they want it to.
posted by dgaicun at 4:47 PM on June 4, 2006
Who, by the way, fully deserved to be called full of shit - which I clearly demonstrated with Google Scholar. The Bailey/Crichton comment was a lie and reflected full ignorance of the entire matter other than what can be "learned" from the "Anti-Bailey" websites AoK linked. There are a lot of people getting all their information from websites like this. (readers beware, btw, there is a lot of misinformation out there - a lot very energetic folks who do not like this research for various reasons, who are part of the web, not the field)
I'm presenting what is roughly the most mainstream/accepted viewpoints on these topics (see Boston Globe link above). I didn't say there isn't a buttload of controversy and uncertainty. I was giving, based on my judgment, the best advice based on the most data-inspired information available. That's the best we can do. The vitriol against me here doesn't bother me one little bit (though false information always bothers me a lot, e.g. AoK), and in fact I think it speaks for itself.
Like Nancy Hopkins storming out on Larry Summers in an angry and offended huff, we have people interested in the issues and the data, and people more interested in decrying the people interested in the issues and the data, because the data isn't saying what they want it to.
posted by dgaicun at 4:47 PM on June 4, 2006
All right, dgaicun, I've read all of the journals and studies you've linked (with the exception of anything involving self-selected samples of transsexual people - such as The Man Who Would Be Queen - for reasons detailed above). Your Science Penis, I suppose, is now a shared burden.
And hey, you know what? I still think your answer in the AskMefi thread was unmitigated arse. It still requires an absurd level of assumption and a quite breathtaking dollop of arrogance to decide that research into non-gender-normative behaviour in childhood and its effect on homosexuality in later life means that our anonymous friend - based on anecdotal evidence of some element of femininity in childhood and the presence of that tenacious non-existent phantom we call bisexuality in his life today - is best-advised to end an extant, loving relationship and strike out in search of masculinity and mansex.
You're still telling the poster that his feeling happy in his relationship now is overridden by your interpretation of your data - that you know better than he how he feels, and that he'll be proven wrong in time. You're not recommending experimentation or discussion, but instead suggesting a sudden and fundamental change in lifestyle and rejection of both self-proclaimed happiness and feminine traits with which the poster is apparently perfectly content. I don't see any clear basis for this whatsoever in the linked articles. It's still potentially harmful to the poster's happiness and wellbeing, it's still brusque to the point of social ineptitude and it still thoroughly deserves to have been called out.
posted by terpsichoria at 6:01 PM on June 4, 2006
And hey, you know what? I still think your answer in the AskMefi thread was unmitigated arse. It still requires an absurd level of assumption and a quite breathtaking dollop of arrogance to decide that research into non-gender-normative behaviour in childhood and its effect on homosexuality in later life means that our anonymous friend - based on anecdotal evidence of some element of femininity in childhood and the presence of that tenacious non-existent phantom we call bisexuality in his life today - is best-advised to end an extant, loving relationship and strike out in search of masculinity and mansex.
You're still telling the poster that his feeling happy in his relationship now is overridden by your interpretation of your data - that you know better than he how he feels, and that he'll be proven wrong in time. You're not recommending experimentation or discussion, but instead suggesting a sudden and fundamental change in lifestyle and rejection of both self-proclaimed happiness and feminine traits with which the poster is apparently perfectly content. I don't see any clear basis for this whatsoever in the linked articles. It's still potentially harmful to the poster's happiness and wellbeing, it's still brusque to the point of social ineptitude and it still thoroughly deserves to have been called out.
posted by terpsichoria at 6:01 PM on June 4, 2006
holgate, what are your credentials for calling dgaicun out?
My 'credentials' are that I know a potential derail when I see one, and this was a classic. Early post, capable of generating lots of tangential discussion, anonymous poster. Flagging alone wasn't going to stop it degenerating unless the flag was noticed instantly.
Think silent movie actor who pulls the lever diverting the runaway train from one track to another. And unless mattamyn have been cleaning up the original thread, it's been kept largely free of people diving in to argue about whether gay men spend all their time in gyms. Unlike this thread. No regrets whatsoever.
posted by holgate at 6:17 PM on June 4, 2006
My 'credentials' are that I know a potential derail when I see one, and this was a classic. Early post, capable of generating lots of tangential discussion, anonymous poster. Flagging alone wasn't going to stop it degenerating unless the flag was noticed instantly.
Think silent movie actor who pulls the lever diverting the runaway train from one track to another. And unless mattamyn have been cleaning up the original thread, it's been kept largely free of people diving in to argue about whether gay men spend all their time in gyms. Unlike this thread. No regrets whatsoever.
posted by holgate at 6:17 PM on June 4, 2006
It was perhaps (I really take no position) a worthless comment, but what is this callout about again? I realize that some things call for more than a flagging, but this did not rise to that level. It didn't even rise to the level of a flagging, for me. It was perhaps one of the lesser helpful answers, but an honest (if lame) attempt was made, and it was published with disclaimers to that effect.
My 'credentials' are that I know a potential derail when I see one, and this was a classic.
I have to differ with you there. I'm not convinced it was even a real specimen, much less a "classic." Sounds like you're judging the comment based on where it MIGHT have led the conversation, and you were wrong. It appears to have spurred other comments, but that is not a "derail," that is a "conversation."
MeTa. If dgaicun wants to derail, he can go troll in the grey.
This hissy tone with which you posted this probably lowered the tone of things as much as anything else. Up until this point, people are debating the content, you are the one who whips out his dick and makes it personal.
Lo and behold, the threaed continued to be productive despite your insistence that it had been derailed beyond repair.
What is it with people recently? They bring any little comment they don't agree with to MeTa. and I thought it was just the 30Kers.
posted by scarabic at 6:26 PM on June 4, 2006
My 'credentials' are that I know a potential derail when I see one, and this was a classic.
I have to differ with you there. I'm not convinced it was even a real specimen, much less a "classic." Sounds like you're judging the comment based on where it MIGHT have led the conversation, and you were wrong. It appears to have spurred other comments, but that is not a "derail," that is a "conversation."
MeTa. If dgaicun wants to derail, he can go troll in the grey.
This hissy tone with which you posted this probably lowered the tone of things as much as anything else. Up until this point, people are debating the content, you are the one who whips out his dick and makes it personal.
Lo and behold, the threaed continued to be productive despite your insistence that it had been derailed beyond repair.
What is it with people recently? They bring any little comment they don't agree with to MeTa. and I thought it was just the 30Kers.
posted by scarabic at 6:26 PM on June 4, 2006
yeah, and "flagged with extreme prejudice"? a little grand-standey, don't you think? unless you're some sort of theatrical matriarch.
posted by Hat Maui at 6:42 PM on June 4, 2006
posted by Hat Maui at 6:42 PM on June 4, 2006
It appears to have spurred other comments, but that is not a "derail," that is a "conversation."
The green is not the blue. I quote: 'Please limit comments
to answers or help in finding an answer.' When you have an anonymous poster who can't respond directly it takes one comment high in the thread like dgaicun's to turn it into a thread entirely about that comment. There were three replies to his comment in the five before I posted to MeTa. dgaicun's past history shows that he likes an argument on this topic, and ideally one where he's the centre of attention. Afterwards? None in that thread.
Lo and behold, the threaed continued to be productive despite your insistence that it had been derailed beyond repair.
Where exactly did I say it was 'beyond repair'? I saw one comment that was likely to dominate the thread to the expense of other answers. That comment ceased to dominate the thread. That's a curious 'despite'. Unless you wanted the thread to turn into an exchange about dgaicun's prescription to 'take 20 reps and see me in the morning'.
posted by holgate at 6:54 PM on June 4, 2006
The green is not the blue. I quote: 'Please limit comments
to answers or help in finding an answer.' When you have an anonymous poster who can't respond directly it takes one comment high in the thread like dgaicun's to turn it into a thread entirely about that comment. There were three replies to his comment in the five before I posted to MeTa. dgaicun's past history shows that he likes an argument on this topic, and ideally one where he's the centre of attention. Afterwards? None in that thread.
Lo and behold, the threaed continued to be productive despite your insistence that it had been derailed beyond repair.
Where exactly did I say it was 'beyond repair'? I saw one comment that was likely to dominate the thread to the expense of other answers. That comment ceased to dominate the thread. That's a curious 'despite'. Unless you wanted the thread to turn into an exchange about dgaicun's prescription to 'take 20 reps and see me in the morning'.
posted by holgate at 6:54 PM on June 4, 2006
Previously, I was unaware that scholar.fucking.google.com was the repository of academic authority.
posted by stet at 7:08 PM on June 4, 2006
posted by stet at 7:08 PM on June 4, 2006
I was unaware that scholar.fucking.google.com was the repository of academic authority
I think you mean what scholar.google.com links to. The stuff you find there is usually considered authoritative, as far as it goes.
posted by Mr. Six at 7:27 PM on June 4, 2006
I think you mean what scholar.google.com links to. The stuff you find there is usually considered authoritative, as far as it goes.
posted by Mr. Six at 7:27 PM on June 4, 2006
What's wrong with his answer with the exception that it's wrong? It's an answer.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:44 PM on June 4, 2006
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:44 PM on June 4, 2006
I saw one comment that was likely to dominate the thread to the expense of other answers. That comment ceased to dominate the thread. That's a curious 'despite'.
There's nothing curious about it. You over-reacted. Many of us are guilty of the same. You see a comment that incenses you, you mull over what to do about it, you see a few other disagreeable comments, are emboldended by them, and seek to make the issue a sitewide debate. But it's not. Hello. You disagree with someone. End of story.
There were three replies to his comment in the five before I posted to MeTa.
And zero thereafter. Admit that you jumped the gun and be done. There's no shame in admiting that your timing was off a little.
As for the "beyond repair" bit, it's not a true "derail" unless it is beyond repair. There are digressions in many great AskMe threads. Your callout presumes that this was more than just a limp response, more than just a point of digression but a true derail. Perhaps you were trying to head off trouble at the pass, but you went about it in a pissy way and pulled the trigger prematurely.
Simple advice: let it go. This callout does not ring true.
posted by scarabic at 7:45 PM on June 4, 2006
And zero thereafter.
Um, that's my exact fucking point.
Imagine all of dgaicun's posts here, and all of the replies to them, strewn through the top half of that thread. Let it go yourself, scarabic, and dial down the patronising crap: I'd rather have a potential flame war diverted to MetaTalk than having it fuck up another sensitive topic in Ask. Instead, you're doing a fantastic job of proving why Ask is the only part of this site worth giving a shit about these days.
I have no regrets about doing it; I think my timing was right; I'd do it again if the same circumstances presented themselves. And if you feel like patting me on the head again, keep your hands in your pockets.
posted by holgate at 7:58 PM on June 4, 2006
Um, that's my exact fucking point.
Imagine all of dgaicun's posts here, and all of the replies to them, strewn through the top half of that thread. Let it go yourself, scarabic, and dial down the patronising crap: I'd rather have a potential flame war diverted to MetaTalk than having it fuck up another sensitive topic in Ask. Instead, you're doing a fantastic job of proving why Ask is the only part of this site worth giving a shit about these days.
I have no regrets about doing it; I think my timing was right; I'd do it again if the same circumstances presented themselves. And if you feel like patting me on the head again, keep your hands in your pockets.
posted by holgate at 7:58 PM on June 4, 2006
I do not believe in bisexual orientation
*laughs*
That NYT article you cite as evidence for your belief was dissected at the time by almost every g/b/l/t commentator I saw. It was classic bad science penis. Are you seriously claiming to have a decent understanding of the "majority science perspective" on these issues? Give me a break.
posted by mediareport at 8:37 PM on June 4, 2006
*laughs*
That NYT article you cite as evidence for your belief was dissected at the time by almost every g/b/l/t commentator I saw. It was classic bad science penis. Are you seriously claiming to have a decent understanding of the "majority science perspective" on these issues? Give me a break.
posted by mediareport at 8:37 PM on June 4, 2006
Ask is the only part of this site worth giving a shit about these days.
Some days are better than others.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:28 PM on June 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
Some days are better than others.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:28 PM on June 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
. . . was dissected at the time by almost every g/b/l/t commentator I saw. It was classic bad science penis. Are you seriously claiming to have a decent understanding of the "majority science perspective" on these issues?
So, again, I present peer-reviewed journal research and you present rumors of the Internet chatter you liked best. Nice. Obviously I'm the one speaking from the fringes.
Bimodal male sexual orientation is not an isolated theory based on one experiment, but fits in the larger matrix of homosexuality research. A normal curve of orientation didn't have to be false, anymore than a normal curve of handedness had to be. But in both cases its not what we found, and it gives us a better understanding of the biological origins of homosexuality. In a normal curve we would find more bisexuals than homosexuals, but we find the reverse - for men, not women. We do not find bisexual arousal patterns for men, and this fits in with the biological (as opposed to socially constructed) data points of male sexual etiology.
Both educated summaries, such as the Boston Globe link I provided, and research journal articles such as the Rahman & Wilson PDF provided, accept this fact for now, that male sexuality is roughly bimodal (homosexual and heterosexual) while female sexuality is more plastic.
If you would like to show the most accepted research opinion is otherwise, you could do better than say all your friends on the Internet disagreed with a New York Times article.
posted by dgaicun at 10:06 PM on June 4, 2006
So, again, I present peer-reviewed journal research and you present rumors of the Internet chatter you liked best. Nice. Obviously I'm the one speaking from the fringes.
Bimodal male sexual orientation is not an isolated theory based on one experiment, but fits in the larger matrix of homosexuality research. A normal curve of orientation didn't have to be false, anymore than a normal curve of handedness had to be. But in both cases its not what we found, and it gives us a better understanding of the biological origins of homosexuality. In a normal curve we would find more bisexuals than homosexuals, but we find the reverse - for men, not women. We do not find bisexual arousal patterns for men, and this fits in with the biological (as opposed to socially constructed) data points of male sexual etiology.
Both educated summaries, such as the Boston Globe link I provided, and research journal articles such as the Rahman & Wilson PDF provided, accept this fact for now, that male sexuality is roughly bimodal (homosexual and heterosexual) while female sexuality is more plastic.
If you would like to show the most accepted research opinion is otherwise, you could do better than say all your friends on the Internet disagreed with a New York Times article.
posted by dgaicun at 10:06 PM on June 4, 2006
We are talking about research (poorly and unethically) conducted by J. Michael "Formerly Chair of the Psychology Department at Northwestern" "Forced to Step Down Because of Shoddy Research Practices" "Hi, I Can't Keep My Creepy Hands Off My Research Subjects" "I Call Anyone Who Actually Has The Experiences I Write About But Disagrees With My Conclusions a Lying, Psychotic Freak" Bailey, right?
Right?
Look, dgiacun-you are entitled to your beliefs, regardless of how provably false they are. You're not, though, entitled to have them validated by people who know better.
posted by mountain_william at 10:15 PM on June 4, 2006
Right?
Look, dgiacun-you are entitled to your beliefs, regardless of how provably false they are. You're not, though, entitled to have them validated by people who know better.
posted by mountain_william at 10:15 PM on June 4, 2006
"You're not, though, entitled to have them validated by people who know better."
No, but neither are you. I think that he's wrong, but both the complaint at his comment and this dismissal (not disagreement, but dismissal) of his argument rubs me the wrong way. You may not like the conclusions of the peer-reviewed authority he appeals to, but the simple truth of the matter is that history is littered with people who are stupendously wrong about matters with which they have intimate personal experience.
And it's certainly not the case that this is an example of the homophobic and culturally conservative establishment denying something that the gay/lesbian/bi/trans community all agrees upon. A large number of gays and lesbians, even moreso among the most strident activists, are either hostile to or deny bisexuality. And a lot of those people, because it's the way of things, have practical experience with a bisexual lifestyle. So I just don't see some overwhelming authority that can be fairly appealed to here and, in that context, I don't see that there's cause to just smack down dgaicun as if he's an imbecile.
And, anyway, there's no point to having this argument here. This is a matter of MetaFilter etiquette and by those standards I don't believe there's a thing wrong with dgaicun's comment.
Don't people see that this desire to not only refute the positions with which we disagree, but to call them invalid, to attack the motives of those who put them forth, isn't in good-faith and is overkill? Why can't they merely be wrong, and not also stupid, ignorant, mendacious, and whatever?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:34 PM on June 4, 2006
No, but neither are you. I think that he's wrong, but both the complaint at his comment and this dismissal (not disagreement, but dismissal) of his argument rubs me the wrong way. You may not like the conclusions of the peer-reviewed authority he appeals to, but the simple truth of the matter is that history is littered with people who are stupendously wrong about matters with which they have intimate personal experience.
And it's certainly not the case that this is an example of the homophobic and culturally conservative establishment denying something that the gay/lesbian/bi/trans community all agrees upon. A large number of gays and lesbians, even moreso among the most strident activists, are either hostile to or deny bisexuality. And a lot of those people, because it's the way of things, have practical experience with a bisexual lifestyle. So I just don't see some overwhelming authority that can be fairly appealed to here and, in that context, I don't see that there's cause to just smack down dgaicun as if he's an imbecile.
And, anyway, there's no point to having this argument here. This is a matter of MetaFilter etiquette and by those standards I don't believe there's a thing wrong with dgaicun's comment.
Don't people see that this desire to not only refute the positions with which we disagree, but to call them invalid, to attack the motives of those who put them forth, isn't in good-faith and is overkill? Why can't they merely be wrong, and not also stupid, ignorant, mendacious, and whatever?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:34 PM on June 4, 2006
A final post. dgiacun, if you really must have your science penis and suck it, you can read the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care here, along with many papers that represent a pretty good cross-section of the current "science of gender". It's a very complicated field in which, to my knowledge, no-one has ever shown (in a peer-reviewed study) that anon's symptoms are definitely not gender dysphoria and would be best approached with weight-lifting and man-humping.
The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association's Standards of Care are followed in the treatment of transsexuals in the US and the UK.
I was impressed to see how you proved me "full of shit" with your link to Google Scholar that had, in the first ten pages that I flicked through, no studies related to the area in question, transsexuality. Still, if you want to apply homosexuality research to the area of gender dysphoria, I suppose I can't stop you. Similarly, if you'd like to claim that your homosexuality research overrides a few decades of successful G.I.D. diagnoses based on criteria that are, to you, clearly and only indicators of homosexuality, be my guest.
So, was your answer based on pop-science books, as you originally said, or an analysis of peer-reviewed data with little to do with transsexualism, as you currently claim? Never mind, don't answer; it'll probably be based on astrology next.
I'm out.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 11:40 PM on June 4, 2006
The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association's Standards of Care are followed in the treatment of transsexuals in the US and the UK.
I was impressed to see how you proved me "full of shit" with your link to Google Scholar that had, in the first ten pages that I flicked through, no studies related to the area in question, transsexuality. Still, if you want to apply homosexuality research to the area of gender dysphoria, I suppose I can't stop you. Similarly, if you'd like to claim that your homosexuality research overrides a few decades of successful G.I.D. diagnoses based on criteria that are, to you, clearly and only indicators of homosexuality, be my guest.
So, was your answer based on pop-science books, as you originally said, or an analysis of peer-reviewed data with little to do with transsexualism, as you currently claim? Never mind, don't answer; it'll probably be based on astrology next.
I'm out.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 11:40 PM on June 4, 2006
Now, my Science Penis is woefully small, and though I suspect that the general outlook of scientists studying these things isn't exactly as uniform as dgaicun is painting it, I wouldn't know where to look for peer-reviewed studies that contradict his outlook. Since truth is only to be found in peer-reviewed journals, I obviously didn't have a case until I could find something. Despite my poor scientific endowment, I did find this review of Bailey's book from the Journal of Sex Research.
Yes, I know, it's hosted on Lynn Conway's site, and she's one of the leftist cabal who are out to conceal the Truth, but the journal looks pretty damn scholarly and reputable, the author's a Ph.D studying human sexuality, and he doesn't seem to think much of Bailey's book. Makes a pretty good case for why, too. I mean, I've seen lots of other excellent cases against it- I think the whole sleeping-with-your-research-subjects thing alone calls a lot into question- but they weren't in peer-reviewed journals and so can safely be dismissed.
I'm sure that dgaicun will have an answer to it, though. Maybe it doesn't count because it isn't strictly a peer-reviewed study, or maybe the Journal of Sex Research isn't scholarly enough, or maybe Walter Bockting is a leftist in denial about the blinding Truth that Bailey has revealed, but I'm sure, somehow, it doesn't count. And so, all across the world, bisexual men, along with transsexuals who don't fit Bailey's theories, will simply vanish in a puff of logic, their nonexistance conclusively proven.
posted by a louis wain cat at 12:03 AM on June 5, 2006
Yes, I know, it's hosted on Lynn Conway's site, and she's one of the leftist cabal who are out to conceal the Truth, but the journal looks pretty damn scholarly and reputable, the author's a Ph.D studying human sexuality, and he doesn't seem to think much of Bailey's book. Makes a pretty good case for why, too. I mean, I've seen lots of other excellent cases against it- I think the whole sleeping-with-your-research-subjects thing alone calls a lot into question- but they weren't in peer-reviewed journals and so can safely be dismissed.
I'm sure that dgaicun will have an answer to it, though. Maybe it doesn't count because it isn't strictly a peer-reviewed study, or maybe the Journal of Sex Research isn't scholarly enough, or maybe Walter Bockting is a leftist in denial about the blinding Truth that Bailey has revealed, but I'm sure, somehow, it doesn't count. And so, all across the world, bisexual men, along with transsexuals who don't fit Bailey's theories, will simply vanish in a puff of logic, their nonexistance conclusively proven.
posted by a louis wain cat at 12:03 AM on June 5, 2006
Frankly, I think y'all are being shrill about dgaicun. He has a different view. OMG! Eliminate him!
The way I see it, he has his own point of view, and offered it. Not as something concrete, but an opinion. I hear dgaicun saying "Here, this is my take. Try it on, see if it fits, and think about it."
For a question of this nature, I can not begin to see how this is a 'derail'.
Disclaimer: I'm gay. I don't know much of anything about transsexuality, except I considered it myself as an adolescent. And I'm sorry I disagree with AofK, as I'm fond of her posts.
posted by Goofyy at 1:30 AM on June 5, 2006
The way I see it, he has his own point of view, and offered it. Not as something concrete, but an opinion. I hear dgaicun saying "Here, this is my take. Try it on, see if it fits, and think about it."
For a question of this nature, I can not begin to see how this is a 'derail'.
Disclaimer: I'm gay. I don't know much of anything about transsexuality, except I considered it myself as an adolescent. And I'm sorry I disagree with AofK, as I'm fond of her posts.
posted by Goofyy at 1:30 AM on June 5, 2006
Ethereal Bligh: And, anyway, there's no point to having this argument here. This is a matter of MetaFilter etiquette and by those standards I don't believe there's a thing wrong with dgaicun's comment.
Don't people see that this desire to not only refute the positions with which we disagree, but to call them invalid, to attack the motives of those who put them forth, isn't in good-faith and is overkill? Why can't they merely be wrong, and not also stupid, ignorant, mendacious, and whatever?
I can't say that I agree with this. I think this is primarily an issue of etiquette- this whole thing ensued partially because of what he said, but I think it was mostly the way he said it. His comment seemed to ignore much of what the questioner said about himself, and said some things which could be construed by many as offensive. That isn't inherently bad in itself, but if one is about to say something potentially offensive, and offending people isn't the point, it generally helps to tread very carefully in how you say it. Which he didn't.
If he'd said something to the effect of "From the research I've read, what you've described strikes me as very similar to accounts of classic signs of homosexuality. I could be wrong, but you might want to give that some thought", there probably would have been some polite disagreement, but I don't think the shitstorm would have ensued. As it is, it's hardly surprising people would passionately disagree, and I think opening this thread was probably a good idea, to keep it out of the green if nothing else.
And true, not everyone has exactly been a model of sweetness and light in their response(and I may have to plead guilty myself in that regard), but to me it looks like he's giving as least as good as he's getting. "Dismissive", indeed, would be an excellent way of describing his first response to ArmyOfKittens. I mean, he didn't just disagree, he basically accused her of being a malicious liar. I wouldn't call this a one-way street.
posted by a louis wain cat at 1:30 AM on June 5, 2006
Don't people see that this desire to not only refute the positions with which we disagree, but to call them invalid, to attack the motives of those who put them forth, isn't in good-faith and is overkill? Why can't they merely be wrong, and not also stupid, ignorant, mendacious, and whatever?
I can't say that I agree with this. I think this is primarily an issue of etiquette- this whole thing ensued partially because of what he said, but I think it was mostly the way he said it. His comment seemed to ignore much of what the questioner said about himself, and said some things which could be construed by many as offensive. That isn't inherently bad in itself, but if one is about to say something potentially offensive, and offending people isn't the point, it generally helps to tread very carefully in how you say it. Which he didn't.
If he'd said something to the effect of "From the research I've read, what you've described strikes me as very similar to accounts of classic signs of homosexuality. I could be wrong, but you might want to give that some thought", there probably would have been some polite disagreement, but I don't think the shitstorm would have ensued. As it is, it's hardly surprising people would passionately disagree, and I think opening this thread was probably a good idea, to keep it out of the green if nothing else.
And true, not everyone has exactly been a model of sweetness and light in their response(and I may have to plead guilty myself in that regard), but to me it looks like he's giving as least as good as he's getting. "Dismissive", indeed, would be an excellent way of describing his first response to ArmyOfKittens. I mean, he didn't just disagree, he basically accused her of being a malicious liar. I wouldn't call this a one-way street.
posted by a louis wain cat at 1:30 AM on June 5, 2006
I know what you're getting at, Goofyy, and broadly speaking I agree - I wouldn't have called dgaicun out myself, since I think his answer was thoroughly responded to in the AskMe thread. On the other hand I honestly do believe, based on nothing more than years of experience and anecdote, that in practical terms the advice he gave has the potential to be harmful and even life-wrecking if taken seriously. He's completely free to offer whatever advice he honestly thinks will help - I don't think anyone was arguing that he isn't - and I'm certainly not saying that anonymous was so gullible as to implement massive lifestyle and attitude changes based on one AskMe answer, but it would have felt irresponsible to let it stand without any challenge.
So that's the AskMe thread, really. I thought dgaicun was thoroughly wrong, and said as much in-thread, and I thought his answer was phrased in a brusque, absolutist and thoughtless way, but not so much that I'd have dragged it into MetaTalk or continued a fight in the thread itself.
His attitude in here is what's led us into this joyful mire, though. If he'd come in and attempted to discuss things and justify his answer (and I'm not saying posters on either 'side' were perfect in this regard), I can see it having ended with a sort of 'yeah, the callout was a bit unnecessary, but maybe you could have explained all this peer-reviewed data you based your answer on in the original thread, y'know, in the interest of being helpful' from the initially anti-dgaicun folks.
He's been rude and abrasive, repeatedly intellectually dishonest in moving the goalposts of the justification for his initial answer from 'five or six pop-science books' to peer-reviewed journal material that (as I said upthread, and he ignored) doesn't even support his answer any more.
posted by terpsichoria at 2:04 AM on June 5, 2006
So that's the AskMe thread, really. I thought dgaicun was thoroughly wrong, and said as much in-thread, and I thought his answer was phrased in a brusque, absolutist and thoughtless way, but not so much that I'd have dragged it into MetaTalk or continued a fight in the thread itself.
His attitude in here is what's led us into this joyful mire, though. If he'd come in and attempted to discuss things and justify his answer (and I'm not saying posters on either 'side' were perfect in this regard), I can see it having ended with a sort of 'yeah, the callout was a bit unnecessary, but maybe you could have explained all this peer-reviewed data you based your answer on in the original thread, y'know, in the interest of being helpful' from the initially anti-dgaicun folks.
He's been rude and abrasive, repeatedly intellectually dishonest in moving the goalposts of the justification for his initial answer from 'five or six pop-science books' to peer-reviewed journal material that (as I said upthread, and he ignored) doesn't even support his answer any more.
posted by terpsichoria at 2:04 AM on June 5, 2006
you could do better than say all your friends on the Internet disagreed with a New York Times article.
Yeah, that's what I said. All of the research you cite is suggestive at best; claiming it represents "majority science perspectives" is laughably wishful thinking.
posted by mediareport at 6:58 AM on June 5, 2006
Yeah, that's what I said. All of the research you cite is suggestive at best; claiming it represents "majority science perspectives" is laughably wishful thinking.
posted by mediareport at 6:58 AM on June 5, 2006
a louis wain cat: If he'd said something to the effect of "From the research I've read, what you've described strikes me as very similar to accounts of classic signs of homosexuality. I could be wrong, but you might want to give that some thought",...
He starts off by proclaiming his earnestness and even suggests that the poster can just ignore him if s/he doesn't agree. He ends by saying that it's just an opinion based on what he's read, and "you know you better than me..."*
Isn't that "to the effect of" what you suggest?
What he said struck me as viscerally wrong (despite the fact that I'm simply a straight male, and therefore according to mischief incapable of having a reasonable opinion on the matter), but the way he said it wasn't really out of line.
*Ok, he really ended it with a dig that WAS out of line, but no one seems bothered by that.
posted by solotoro at 12:59 PM on June 5, 2006
He starts off by proclaiming his earnestness and even suggests that the poster can just ignore him if s/he doesn't agree. He ends by saying that it's just an opinion based on what he's read, and "you know you better than me..."*
Isn't that "to the effect of" what you suggest?
What he said struck me as viscerally wrong (despite the fact that I'm simply a straight male, and therefore according to mischief incapable of having a reasonable opinion on the matter), but the way he said it wasn't really out of line.
*Ok, he really ended it with a dig that WAS out of line, but no one seems bothered by that.
posted by solotoro at 12:59 PM on June 5, 2006
« Older Why does AskMe loading depend on dynamic.fmpub.net... | london meetup before I go home Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by popechunk at 8:08 AM on June 4, 2006