Reposted with permission
Written by Lisa Harney
September 17th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Or maybe even a fucking three dimensional point coordinate system with waves connecting everything. Who knows?
There is no one size fits all definition, there is no one size fits all description of trans experiences. We run the gamut, and no one explanation can possibly cover the variety of trans people who really exist. No one has found any statistically significant genetic markers. No one knows a thing about etiology. No one has learned a thing whether it’s from brain scans, brain dissection, or sitting in bars and noting which trans women give you a goddamned woody.
Also, why the fuck is there any scientist anywhere in the world who still promotes Bailey’s ~theories~ as scientifically sound or supportable? Does he just not understand why “confirmation bias” is bad? Is sexology just about promoting bad research* that harms a marginalized group of people? Why is Bailey still polluting the pool of scientific study of trans people in such unethical ways, and why does Northwestern still allow him to teach?
* Unethical and nonconsensual use of trans women’s narratives, learning about trans women by cruising gay bars** in Chicago, asserting conclusion as premise, failing the scientific method in every possible way.
** Not, btw, dismissing trans women in those bars, but the idea of cruising bars to learn about women in the first place? What kind of misogynist bullshit is this?
Edit: Corrected the link. The wrong link was to this guy at SFGate, who points out:
“I expect a lot of criticism,” Ramachandran says. “Those who study transsexuality tend to be territorial because they themselves have made so little progress. There is no literature that illuminates the underlying mechanisms, other than psychological mumbo jumbo. And then someone comes striding in and spends two weeks solving the riddle. It must be infuriating.”
I totally disagree that he’s solved the riddle, but he has identified the problem with the research.