Alice Dreger: The unethical ethicist?
By Curtis E. Hinkle
© 2008
February 29, 2008
Alice Dreger, the DSD activist, who bills herself as a bioethicist has over the past few years become mired by one ethical scandal after another. Just to mention a few of her scandals, let me start with what will be one of the major setbacks in intersex history. It was Alice Dreger who was one of the prime movers of the shift from “intersex” to DSD, “disorders of sex development”. She did this by consulting with doctors and determining what worked for them and consulted the intersex community after the change had been made. Quite unethical for an ethicist because there is practically no support for this replacement of the term “intersex” with “disorders of sex development” and the ensuing Consensus Statement (1) which approved this change of terminology which elaborated a set of protocols that are a major setback for intersex people with surgery being recommended between two and six months of age. (2) This was a scandal of historical proportions.
After controlling intersex activism for over a decade and leaving it in shambles, she decided to move on to transgender activism. And already she is becoming the same divisive “activist” in the transgender movement that she was in the intersex movement. She has begun by taking sides with the gatekeepers of the trans movement, just as she placed herself with the gatekeepers of the intersex community and then left us with a more pathological terminology and set of protocols based on intersex being a genetic defect. (3)
As she started her trans activism, many of us in the intersex movement saw the same pattern slowly emerge that had been her hallmark within the intersex movement – siding with proponents of a highly problematic, pathological definition of transsexualism and attacking any opponents who resisted the academic and discursive control she was usurping over their own right to self definition and in determining their own sociopolitical agenda without having to contend with another interloper who had no experiential understanding of trans issues.
All of a sudden she picked a fight with Andrea James and tried to prevent Ms. James from being allowed to speak at the university where Alice Dreger works and alleged she was afraid of Andrea James. It was quite odd that the organization which invited Ms. James to speak at Northwestern University where Dreger works was evidently not frightened by Andrea James. Dreger decided to use the Bush foreign policy model of a pre-emptive strike against anyone who might possibly be viewed as a threat and published “The blog I write in fear” (4) in which she brought up an unfortunate event that had happened a few years ago between her colleague J Michael Bailey and Andrea James. She alleged she was frightened of Andrea and that she should not be allowed to speak at the University. This is the strawman that has been used for years now to silence any discussion of the unethical behavior that Bailey and Dreger have been involved in. Instead of dealing with the facts of their own behavior, anyone who dares discuss the facts is automatically smeared with ad hominem attacks linking them to the serious mistake that Andrea James made a few years ago. Dreger even did this to me when I openly questioned her DSD model as a replacement for intersex. (5) Instead of dealing with what she was doing, Dreger sent out an e-mail alleging that I had teamed up with Andrea James, someone I didn’t know at the time, and warned intersex people that if they were not vigilant, the intersex movement would be destroyed. Well, that was already a fait accompli and it was Dreger who was instrumental in its destruction. Many of us are trying to rebuild and move on.
We later found out why Dreger was alleging she was so afraid of Andrea James. She was working at the same University as J Michael Bailey and she was writing an article in defense of his unethical behavior and she was going to include Andrea James in that article. It certainly would be good fodder for the article if she could have provoked Andrea to get more dirt on her to include in her upcoming “exposé” of the “facts” to suit her employer, Northwestern University.
Dreger then published a 60-page tome in defense of her colleague, J Michael Bailey and in that article she once again threw ethics out the window and simply gives Bailey another platform to justify having sex with research subjects: “there is nothing intrinsically wrong or forbidden about having sex with a research subject[….] Some of my colleagues have had sex with their research subjects, because it is not unusual to ask one’s romantic partner to be a subject” (Bailey, 2005).” Rather disturbing ethical standards that Dreger is disseminating in this tome in defense of her colleague. (6)
Finally, someone is challenging Dreger on her ethics and many of us in the intersex community feel it is high time. Robin Mathy has filed ethics complaints with the American Psychological Association against Dreger and Bailey. One of the allegations in the complaint centers on Dreger and Bailey having both expressed that having sex with a research subject is not inherently wrong. Robin Mathy has also filed a complaint with the Illinois Board of Examiners of Psychology against Bailey for allegedly misrepresenting himself as a psychologist. (7)
It does appear that Robin Mathy has a lot of facts to substantiate these allegations along with many others. Ethics? Alice Dreger’s ethics seem to be focused on what is best for her career and gaining access to more power, not helping the powerless which she now has a history of dismissing, silencing and abusing.
Notes:
(1) Consensus Statement on Management of Intersex Disorders
(2) This is a quote from the Same group that gave us the Consensus Statement on DSD's.
Consensus Statement on 21-Hydroxylase Deficiency from The Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society and The European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology Joint LWPES/ESPE CAH Working Group
Surgery is recommended at age 2-6 months:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Once a decision has been made to raise a newborn as female, surgery for those with virilized genitalia caused by CAH is recommended when the patient has a high proximal junction between the vagina and urethra (12, 13). Surgery on infants with ambiguous genitalia requires a high degree of expertise and should only be performed in centers with significant experience. Based on recent clinical experience, the recommended time for surgery is at age 2–6 months; although, at present, this is not universal practice. It is important to note that surgery at this stage is technically easier than at later stages."
You can download the complete Consensus Statement on CAH at:
(3) Alice Dreger: Disorders of Sex Development
(4) “The Blog I Write in Fear”. May 13, 2006.
(5) Email from Alice Dreger to some intersex activists
(6) “In his online self-defense piece, “Academic McCarthyism,” published in October 2005, Bailey countered with this: “her ‘complaint’ is not true. The alleged event never happened. If I ever needed to do so, I could prove this, but there is no reason why I should” (Bailey, 2005). Bailey’s reasoning for why he should not have to prove he didn’t have sex with Juanita was twofold: first, he “insist[ed] that Juanita was not a research subject” when she claimed they had sex; second, “there is nothing intrinsically wrong or forbidden about having sex with a research subject[….] Some of my colleagues have had sex with their research subjects, because it is not unusual to ask one’s romantic partner to be a subject” (Bailey, 2005).”
Dreger, Alice. 2007. The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A
Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age. p. 43
(7) Debate resumes on methods of psych professor's research by Michael Gsovski
Issue date: 2/27/08
Comments on the Northwestern Article cited above from OII members
Curtis Hinkle
posted 3/02/08 @ 5:45 AM CST
[Dreger wrote] I would have expected Mr. Gsovski (who seems to me, from previous experience, a fine reporter) to look into Ms. Mathy's claims and thus to see they had no merit before giving her a public forum to try to damage my reputation.
Ad hominem - If the claims have no merit, then tell why.
[Dreger wrote] (I don't think Mr. Gsovski needed me to do his simple homework--which would have shown him the charges are absurd, baseless, and sometimes downright comical--any more than the Chronicle of Higher Education needed Bailey to do their homework in 2003-2004;
Ad hominem - If the claims have no merit, then explain why.
[Dreger wrote] Ms. Mathy seems to be seeking to make a career out of filing charges, but that doesn't mean they have any merit.
Ad hominem - If the claims have ho merit, then explain why.
[Dreger wrote] Ms. Mathy is remarkably (even amusingly) inconsistent in her attitudes, as shown by the above letters to Bailey, and also by the following interchange on November 18, 2008:
Ad hominem - And misleading. Why not include the other letters? If they had been included, one would see there is no inconsistency in Ms. Mathy's attitude.
[Dreger wrote] First, Mathy writes to ask me why I am publishing my article in Archives of Sexual Behavior. She is asking because she is writing a commentary on my paper (and she contacts me after the deadline for commentaries, and tells me to hurry up in my response because she's past the deadline).
Ad hominem - and not accurate. I found no evidence that Robin Mathy was hurrying up Dreger because of a deadline.
[Dreger wrote] If I got anything wrong in my article, we might have something real to discuss. Instead, Ms. Mathy and others are doing to me exactly what they did to Prof. Bailey -- trying to kill the messenger. I'm not going anywhere, nor is my work, which stands factually unchallenged.
Ad hominem.
It would be good if academics would engage in productive conversations and when responding to an article, it would help if they would deal with the substance and not simply dish up one ad hominem attack after the other.
I think the reason that Dreger's response is nothing but a series of ad hominem attacks is because the facts as she has written them do not appear to be facts and when you compare what she has written to the sworn affidavits and to the transcript of Anjelica's interviews, you see that there are inconsistencies that do merit discussion and an investigation.
-Anjelica filed a complaint against Bailey who is a professor at Northwestern University.
-Links were made between Bailey and racists who would mostly likely have known about Anjelica filing the complaint..
-Anjelica's picture showed up very quickly on a racist hate site not long after filing the complaint with Northwestern University.
-Then the next day a dead cat showed up on her doorstep - a cat that looked just like her own cat.
-In Dreger's article, she conveniently leaves out the salacious details about Bailey and fills her articles with further details which put Anjelica in an unfavorable light.
-In Dreger's article she says that Bailey could not have been with J****** because he was at home on Sunday night. No one made sworn affidavits about where Bailey was on Sunday night.
I think that Alice Dreger did get things wrong in her article defending J Michael Bailey.
I feel that this article should have explored what appeared to many to be alleged defamation and Abuse of Research Subjects/Case Studies at Northwestern University I have spent hours speaking with Anjelica Kieltyka and reading the interview transcripts that Dreger had. My investigation has led me to think there may be some possible serious abuse of these women still going on that should be investigated and denounced.
a) Dreger's article appears to me to be an attempt to discredit an already defamed and intimidated witness and former participant in research/case studies at Northwestern University.
b) Anjelica Kieltyka has stated repeatedly that she was misled about the contents of the book and what parts of her participation were to be included and what aspects of her private life were to be considered public.
c) Dreger devotes a lot of time to further include salacious details about Anjelica in her recent article and selectively chooses not to include information that would be prejudicial against Bailey.
d) Dreger asked leading questions in her interview. For example: "Why did the story change?" I find no evidence that the story changed. Framing this question this way is biased.
e) It certainly appears to me that Dreger is further abusing Anjelica Kieltyka by depicting her as pathetic and most likely delusional. I strongly disagree and so did Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism and the Southern Poverty Law Center. I feel that Anjelica has very good reasons to feel further intimidated, defamed and manipulated after reading both Bailey's "Queen" book and Dreger's article defending Bailey.
Intimidation of a Witness in the Investigation at Northwestern University
First consider the Bailey Controversy as reported by Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism.
Ask yourself the following questions:
Why would a white woman show up on a hate site specifically targeting African Americans and homosexual men immediately after filing a complaint against J Michael Bailey?
Why would a dead cat show up on Anjelica's door step not long after she is on the hate site?
Secondly, consider the Bailey Controversy from the Southern Poverty Law Center's perspective and look at Bailey's connections that are related in that article.
Now ask yourself these important questions:
Why would The Southern Poverty Law Center immediately understand why Anjelica's complaint, the disturbing evidence she presented and the threats she received were to be taken seriously? (They have a whole team of people monitoring hate groups and have people who have infiltrated some of them.)
Why would Dreger dismiss such a report from a legal firm (The Southern Poverty Law Center) as merely an ultra-liberal publication? (See: The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age, page 32 by Alice D. Dreger, Ph.D.)
Why would Dreger, who considers herself a queer rights activist, (pg3.) concerned for the health and welfare of the GLBT and Intersex Communities (and other sexual minorities), dismiss Anjelica Kieltyka's repeated attempts to show her where the real controversy and conspiracy lay : On Prof. Bailey's "doorstep" and his "Queer Science" and "Queen" book?
Facts:
1) Anjelica was on a hate site
2) Medill's editorial staff confirmed the serious threats made against Anjelica.
3) Connections were made in this report from a highly respected institute (which has done more for racial equality than most any other association) between Bailey and racist academics who are involved in artificial genetic selection and other racist and homophibic research
More important questions to consider:
Who had most to gain by threatening Anjelica, a key witness in the whole Bailey "affair"?
Who has most to gain by compromising, coercing or discrediting Anjelica and/or the other vulnerable women who testified against Bailey?
4) Alice Dreger incredulously overlooks all these disturbing facts, never deals with the chilling effects they would have on the subsequent investigation and simply ignores or dismisses the evidence presented by both the editors of Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Dear Sarah,
I feel that there are a series of startling coincidences that occurred.
1) a person files a charge
2) that person (who filed the charge) shows up on a racist hate site
3) the next day they find a dead cat on their doorstep
4) they contact a highly professional law firm which makes connections between the the person that had charges filed against them and racist groups
5) the author (Dreger) dismisses the professional law firm instead of investigating the serious allegations which do seem to merit a serious investigation
because
the person did feel intimidated by all this and the person was intimidated at a very opportune time for certain individuals who had charges filed against them.
This could all be coincidental but simply dismissing the law firm that investigated them as liberal is just name-calling and not a serious inquiry for truth.
Curtis Hinkle
posted 2/27/08 @ 6:17 PM CST
Some factual challenges to Dreger's article defending Bailey:
Please read the following paragraph on Alice Dreger's blog in response to Joan Roughgarden:
"Prof. Roughgarden said "Some of the women claim to have had sex with him as well." In 2003, after meetings with Conway, one and only one woman, "J*******," [...] claimed that in 1998 (five years earlier) she had "sexual relations" of an unspecified sort with Prof. Bailey (for details, see my article, pp. 41-46). Her friend Kieltyka has speculated J******* was paid by Conway to produce this charge (see p. 28 of my article). Prof. Bailey has provided evidence that he could not have been where J******* claims he was when they had sex (see my article, pp. 43-44). J******* is now refusing to discuss this with the press."
Please Note : Anjelica Kieltyka is the one who brought this Dreger Blog to my attention. She has stated emphatically that " Dreger and Bailey are BOTH lying here."
Anjelica continued : "First of all, my speculations NEVER included J******* being paid by Conway (or anyone for that matter) to "produce" or make-up or file the "sex charges". Second of all, Bailey's evidence (his "alibi") is totally bogus. He was NOT home "babysitting" on the night into morning in question. Dr. Bailey was out partying at "Shelter" with J******* and me on the night of March 21 (Saturday) and left with J******* at around 4 in the morning Sunday, March 22 when the club closed. I have no evidence for what happened afterwards. That is "he said-she said" or "Dreger said-Bailey said".
This is what Anjelica said and testified to : "I saw Bailey and J******* leave Shelter together early Sunday morning - March 22, 1998."
She again emphasizes: “Both of them are lying and Dreger is covering up for Bailey."
Here is what Dreger says Anjelica said on page 28 of her article defending Bailey entitled, The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age:
"Finally, although Kieltyka told me that the only money she received from Conway was to reimburse her for phone calls made as part of their collaboration, Kieltyka speculated to me that in J*******'s case, monetary reward for her aid to Conway's "investigation"--including her sexual relations charge against Bailey--may have been substantially higher. Kieltyka adds "[J*******] denied it, so I had no proof" -
(Kieltyka, 2006d).
The facts:
Dreger's report (and blog) are in direct conflict with her own interview notes with Anjelica and Anjelica's statements and testimony: Kieltyka's speculations NEVER included the "sex charges" and her testimony was that she, Anjelica, saw Bailey leave the nightclub with J******* early Sunday morning. J******* was going to go home with Anjelica since they had gone to the club together. Instead she left with Bailey.
In order for Dreger to make these speculations sound convincing, Dreger manipulates some other key facts in her erroneous history. She states that Bailey has proof that he was home at the time of the alleged meeting with J*******. Dreger gives the right date but she states that it was on the night of that date and Anjelica's statements make it clear it was in the morning of that same date.
Later, in a conversation with Anjelica, J******* also shared the fact that Bailey couldn't "get it up". (See below: Actual quotes from Dreger's interview notes.)
Both J******* and Anjelica were witnesses of the same sexual charges. Anjelica was a witness to his leaving with J******* herself. There was no reason to pay J******* to include the sexual charges because everyone knew Anjelica was going to substantiate those charges herself.
I feel the time manipulation is deliberate and is used so that it makes the whole charge less credible and therefore makes it look like someone had to be paid to bring the charges and then Dreger puts words in Anjelica's mouth to make it appear that Conway paid J******* to make the charges. (See footnote below with quote from Dreger's article about the time.)
In Dreger's article she uses the words "including her sexual relations charge against Bailey" but on her blog she has very cleverly replaced that phrase with "produce" the sex charges. This gives the impression that the testimony was not only included but actually fabricated. That is totally erroneous.
Anjelica would never have speculated that Conway had paid J******* to PRODUCE this charge because J******* had talked to about her rendez-vous with Bailey the very next day with Anjelica, long before either of them knew Lynn Conway.
Notes:
1) Dreger: [When did the woman identified as J******* first tell you that she had had sexual relations with Bailey? When did you learn about that?]
Anjelica: She told me the day after Bailey drove her home from the Shelter nightclub, that Bailey had tried to do something .... that they had "messed around" - She was being slightly evasive and uneasy so I left it alone. When Lynn Conway were over at my house, J******* was there, and that's when she told the two of us that Bailey in fact had had sex with her. This was the first time that I found out it wasn't that he had "tried something" - it was that he had tried to have sex with her. But that he couldn't get it up.
Dreger: [Why did the story change?]
Anjelica: One could interpret that as her telling me on the day after it happened that he "tried something" - that "something" was "tried to have sex with her ..... but couldn't get it up". Maybe she was embarrassed for him or thought maybe she was to blame - that she felt inadequate being a transexual ..... so she left it as "tried something" back then ..... So maybe now she has no need to protect his "manhood" or his reputation - she sees how he is embarrasing her with what he says about her in his book.
From Dreger's interview notes of :
Charlotte Anjelica Kieltyka
Monday, August 21, 2006
Approx. 12:15 Central
DRAFT (for CAK to correct, if she wishes, and return)
[Alice Dreger's comments/questions appear in brackets.]
(2) "Amazingly, somehow in the midst of all this controversy, Bailey managed to be vilified by both the right- and left-wing presses. Although the book received a warm review from John Derbyshire in the ultra-conservative National Review (Derbyshire, 2003), the equally conservative Washington Times reported both the Northwestern investigation into Bailey as well as the disgust among certain House Republicans that Bailey's sexual arousal studies received federal funding (McCain, 2003). Almost simultaneously, the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) claimed in their Intelligence Report that "many of those who praised" TMWWBQ "belong to a private cyber-discussion group of a neo-eugenics outfit, the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI)" (Beirich & Moser, 2003)."
Source: The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age, page 32 by Alice D. Dreger, Ph.D.
Responses by Sophie and Ronnie
Sophia
posted 3/01/08 @ 8:07 PM CST
Originally posted by Alice Dreger
If I got anything wrong in my article, we might have something real to discuss. Instead, Ms. Mathy and others are doing to me exactly what they did to Prof. Bailey -- trying to kill the messenger. I'm not going anywhere, nor is my work, which stands factually unchallenged.
Hello Professor Dreger
I think a lot of real issues are going un discussed. Things like how does one diagnose a carrier of something like 5 alpha, or Why does Professor Bailey hide when people confront him about something, or why did you write that lengthy defense of his Ideas, knowing what would happen, What was that "Dwarf party" all about? Seriously Alice I have so many questions. Like when a surgeon butchers and intersex child and they grow up unhappy about it, you call them "Transgendered". As if it is their fault, why is that? Is it some HSTS/AGP thing?
Let me see, "Going outch because of Genital mutilation in childhood, now equals having a sexual fetish about being the "opposite sex" and being "perfectly", no sorry "especially" suited for prostitution"
How does that add up?
Of course you will not answer these questions because, you are above all that. Don't worry your silence (if you decide it to be silent) will say plenty.
So many "Cosmic jokes" and "Divine monsters" that seem to inhabit your ideas and writings, meaning so many questions. I am not being hostile to you and certainly not because you have defended Professor J Michael Bailey. I just find it interesting why you seem to like provoking people in the same way Bailey has for years. Like that "Slicing and dicing" speech you gave at the Kinsey institute, and your comments about nature being untidy. Is this your idea of "The truth" because it is not mine and I feel fully entitled to disagree with you, having lived with a "Challenging anatomy" all my life, I think it only fair I have an opinion. But hey, if anyone dares to criticize you or those you have decided to defend in a controversy that was a few years old, they are told to be quiet, they are lambasted, and then we read about "Freedom of Speech".
I must admit Alice, I find this behavior of yours and of Professor Bailey quite fascinating. The truth is that the many difficult questions people will ask, will also not be going anywhere in a hurry. Everything you write and say will be questioned, that is the nature of your work. do you just expect to say things and not have people ask questions, like is Peer review a process where someone who agrees with you just says "Yes fine, no problem, good paper!" Well to be honest with you if academic study was conducted like that, the world would still appear flat and doctors would use leeches to cure terminal cancer. You are after all the Scientific historian you should know that.
All the best
Sophie
Sophia
posted 3/01/08 @ 9:11 PM CST
Hmm Strange.
Originally posted by Aron Sousa, MD
I have been referenced in Mr. Gsovski's article as a research subject with whom Dr. Dreger had sex. Let me say that I think both the research and the sex were/are excellent.
So your nocturnal activities with your wife are "research" and I assume these nocturnal activities will somehow translate into policy or scientific theory that can be applied to others. So the "Nuptials of Alice and Aron" will be some new scientific standard? by which new methods and protocols will be defined. Is this the new idea? "Dynamics of Sousa and Dreger" or "DSD".
Narcissism?
I am sorry but it all seems to get more surreal by the minute.
ronnie
posted 2/29/08 @ 1:36 PM CST
Thank you Curtis for clarifying this further and dismantling Dreger's nonsense. Just by reading the other commentaries on Conway's, James, sites and more of the e-mails than Dreger let's us see in the articles, we can see how Dreger's "selective edit" mentality
is at work when we read her article. Gee, everyone knows that her article is old and un-reliable even before it will be published in ASB. We also know it is PAY PER VIEW not peer review as is often now stated. LOL. It is also becoming common knowledge, that one need only to start with Paul Vasey (Bailey's friend) to find out how the "project" got started. LOL. But with Blanchard, Bogaert, Cantor, Chivers, Dhawood, Vasey, Lawrence (the only non-academic who curiously has gotten some strange papers published at ASB), Zucker, McFadden all being Baileyites, this will further expose the political pay per view type of journal this has become. It would be nice for someone to use the popular press with ASB as an example at how the paid per view process works. Fortunately, your site and clear clarification of Dreger's bogus paper and her connections will reach a wider readership, than her article. Furthermore, I'd say the campaign to stop others (more serious scholars) who were going to take this seriously and contribute to a response to Dreger's article was successful. Looking at the commentaries, it is clear many more contributors wised up. After all, who can trust the editing of such commentaries? LOL. Moreso, with Dreger getting a circus forum to respond to them, again the whole thing being edited by the crew. Nice going Curtis. You and Sophie Seidleberg are doing a great job as well as others at OII.
With Bailey's connections to the PSU task force on psychosexual development in so-called DSD's (with Berenbaum, Vilain, Wallen, Sandberg, and yes Bailey's student at PSU, who is now faculty, Kytham Dawood), it is clear that there was not a few trans women against Bailey, but that Bailey is abusing his connections for furthering his agenda against others. I hope the APA accrediting commission and state board look into the new charges carefully.
I also suggest pressing for an inquiry in to how Lawrence & Zucker gets to speak for intersexed folks in the APA booklet.
Sophie
posted 3/01/08 @ 7:25 PM CST
Originally posted by Willow Arune
Ye Gawds! Will this nonsense ever end? The same case of characters - Curtis Hinkle, Boo, Rupunzel, Diane and others attacking Bailey and now Dreger. They surface when any article happens to mention Bailey - a gang or swarm, take your pick. Not just here but on any site that happens to mention Bailey or Blanchard, and now Dreger.
I very much doubt it will ever end Willow, One thing Bailey seems to talk about is evolutionary psychology. During Rutting season (Such as at the Gombe Chimp Reserve) you can observe genetically pre-programmed proto control freaks, All playing the game of "lurve" according to the rules of the rut. Over millions of years you would probably find that the genetically pre programmed control freaks would in evolutionary terms end up as......
Sexologists and ethics history professors, and they are nice to those who conform to the rut (The rutting monkeys) and mock those who don't, (Those who consider the rut to be a boring repetitive joke and break from it, by changing sex for example).
Life is for living not rutting Willow. So what if the same people have a go at Bailey, perhaps the rules of the rut are finally outdated. Perhaps sexologists and ethics historians are little more than an evolutionary mistake and their time is up.
There you go I never said a single word against Professor Bailey. I don't have to. His antics speak for him. Perhaps these ethics charges are another evolutionary process. I mean evolution does move on from one state to another. And the inferior and pointless fall by the wayside. Sexologists and Ethic Historians are an evolutionary mistake.
There you go, you are witnessing evolution, control freak genes as carried by and expressed in sexologists are going to die out. Welcome to utopia :)
All the best wishes to you :)
(And lighten up, you appear as often as Bailey's critics do)
Sophia
Sophia
posted 3/01/08 @ 8:28 PM CST
I have to admit finding an Ethics Historian (Alice Dreger) having complaints about her ethics filed, really ironic. It is such a cosmic joke.
Sophia
Dreger Sousa Dynamics: (DSD)
A New Science?
By Sophia Siedlberg.
© 2008
March 2, 2008
There is nothing like some male member of Team Bailey defending his wife from the attacks of those who accuse his wife of unethical behavior.
Let’s put this into context. Both J Michael Bailey and Dreger are in the dock again. It has something to do with Bailey not being able to get it up with some of his research subjects, and Alice Dreger defending him, by saying that she has sex with her husband (Aron Sousa M.D.) and apparently her marital habits are so much the stuff of legend they have now become a new science. Dreger Sousa Dynamics or “DSD”.
When the Daily Northwestern covered the story of Robin Mathy filing ethics complaints against Dreger and Bailey. Aron Sousa M.D. had to play knight error and defend his wife.
He wrote: “I have been referenced in Mr. Gsovski's article as a research subject with whom Dr. Dreger had sex. Let me say that I think both the research and the sex were/are excellent”
I suppose this makes Dr Aron Sousa, M.D. the great heterosexual regular guy reporting from the Northwestern front about his exploratory antics with his wife, Dreger. I have no doubt there were times the torturing of a dwarf was involved, or perhaps a few strange experiments on “gender variant” children. But until this new science is fully accepted in the public domain, we will be left to speculate what horrors the sexual activities in the Dreger household will mean when translated into scientific theory.
I mean what next, the sight of Alice Dreger’s pussy adorning the top shelves of most newsagents with “Reader’s wives Special”. I suspect one of the porno mags will publish a new book and call it serious science. “Dreger Sousa Dynamics Spice up your sex life!”
DSD will become a household name like the Atkins diet. It will be published week by week in a set of Marshall Cavendish or De Agostini magazines that build up into a set of volumes in those wonderfully made book binders.
I can just see it now; the barbecue set in their back gardens will be planning their next DSD Party. And DSD will be in all the textbooks of how to hump. Where will it end?
Great scientific discoveries, Quantum Mechanics, Plate Tectonics (One for Rabbi Benizri there), the Human Genome and… Dreger Sousa Dynamics or the sex life of a very irritating couple from Chicago. It sort of explains Dreger’s mentality really well. (More on that in a moment). I mean spammers will be falling over each other to include Dr. Sousa’s statement in every spam. Imagine the variations:
“Hey check this out. I have been referenced in Mr. Gsovski's article as a research subject with whom Dr. Dreger had sex. Let me say that I think both the research and the sex were/are excellent. Join in if you are transgendered, intersex or a dwarf”.
I have the distinct feeling that Dr Sousa’s statement in itself would have a lot of difficulty getting round a spam filter. So what would this new science really involve? The science of swinging (from trees?) and lurve?
How egotistical can this get? Like what Dreger and her hubby get up to in bed will somehow rewrite the ethical code of scientific research and produce a new set of scientific insights into human sexuality. Will Dreger Sousa Dynamics really storm the world, in their delusions? I wonder if the adherence to “DSD” when talking about “Disorders of Sex Development” is some sort of pathological egotism being expressed in a very subtle way. Yes “Dreger” and “Sousa” clearly make the first two initials. I assume the last word must stand for “Dynamics” (Well, I need to assume this because anything could be obscene).
Like in the middle of a scientific debate in the media, some bloke posts about his sex life and how sex with his wife is wonderful. Now is Alice Dreger going to switch into “Protectorut” mode? “Oh now you are bringing my family into this you evil person”. I hope she does because I have already considered that. Let’s see who is on the ISNA medical board:
“Dr. Aron Sousa M.D.”
Obviously it is a family affair then and who came up with this need for some new “Taxonomy” and “DSD” of intersex? Now let’s look at that.
“Dreger AD, Chase C, Sousa A, Gruppuso PA, Frader, J (2005). Changing the nomenclature/taxonomy for intersex: a scientific and clinical rationale. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism”
So as an intersexed individual myself, I am being told my life has to be dictated by the sexual antics of some irritating couple from Chicago? Will I have to find out next time, next week on the bat channel? Now one thing that always irritates me is when breeders get protective of each other. Especially when one or both of said breeders want to interfere with my life. So if either of them dares to complain that my mocking them is getting a bit too personal, tough!
I mean the screaming egotism of a couple who in the middle of a scientific argument in the media, feel the need to make statements about their sex life, to defend a quack who needs to resort to a bit of Viagra to “Get it up” with one of his “research subjects”. I can sense the smell of triethylamine. No it is best to just add this to the now growing list of Team Bailey gaffes. You could not make this stuff up.
Alice Dreger: Disorders of Sex Development (DSD)
Report compiled by Curtis E. Hinkle, founder of OII
Background information
The intersex community has been severely duped and manipulated. The reason there was practically NO intersex participation in this DSD scandal that has been ongoing for quite a while now was because they most likely did not want any participation from people who might figure out what was going on and who was involved.
1) J Michael Bailey is a central figure in the Network on Psychosexual Differentiation at Penn State which resurrected the Disorder terminology in a psychosexual context. He spoke on different occasions at their meetings specifically on intersex and helped formulate their mission which includes the following:
“Develop or refine animal paradigms that model and help to explain the genetic, neuroendocrine, and social processes underlying both normal sex-typed behaviors and pathological behaviors observed in individuals with intersex conditions or gender-atypical behavior.”
2) Dreger and Chase then went about popularizing this terminology of disorders to the medical community outside the "psychology" and "psychiatric" community. We were told that medical doctors preferred the term "disorder". Well, they "prefer" it because that is what Dreger and Chase actually sold to them by publishing articles specifically on the reasons medical doctors should change to the term "disorder" as the preferred terminology long before most of us got wind of what they were doing.
3) Then Network members at Penn State and Northwestern "researchers" where Dreger and Bailey are located get all this funding that conflates the two issues - disorders of sex and disorders of psychosexual development.
4) Bailey is in BOTH groups and a CLOSE associate of Dreger and someone she has been defending. (Please note: I wrote "someone she has been defending", not that she was defending his ideas. However, she does defend a lot of his ideas also, many of which are quite repulsive to some intersex people - like surgical sex fetishes which is what Anne Lawrence appears to some of us to be into.)
Alice Dreger: Disorders of Sex Development, the history
Alice Dreger recently announced that she is resigning from the Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development (“The DSD Consortium”), and is trying to distance herself from the pathologizing terminology being used by that Consortium – as if she never had anything to do with it.
In a letter dated September 15, 2006 and addressed to "Dear handbook contributor", Dreger said:
"I am writing to let you know that I am resigning from the DSD Consortium and to make a few suggestions about avenues that might be pursued to further the work we did together. . ."
". . . Work on ways to ensure that the language of "disorders of sex development" does not result in negative experiences for people with DSDs and their families (Even while this language has allowed productive dialog, we have already seen that some affected individuals find this language to be stigmatizing and unnecessarily pathologizing). . ." – Alice Dreger
However, Ms. Dreger cannot rewrite history and escape her record as a major champion of the use of "disorders of sex development" (DSD) as the umbrella term for intersex variations.
Dreger is the editor-in-chief of the new ISNA handbooks which heavily promote that terminology, and it was to the contributors to those handbooks that she sent her recent letter:
Dreger is even credited by ISNA as being the prime mover who brought those handbooks forward:
“Perhaps most importantly, Alice acted as project manager and editor-in-chief for the DSD Consortium’s clinical guidelines and parents’ handbook. These groundbreaking consensus documents would not have happened without her extraordinary talents and efforts. She is continuing her work as Project Coordinator for the DSD Consortium.” – ISNA Website
Furthermore, Dreger’s job title at Northwestern University includes that very terminology:
Alice Dreger . . . serves as the project coordinator for publications of the Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development.
Perhaps most significantly, Dreger, as a new hire at Northwestern University, was the principal author of a journal article that began the Consortium’s process of popularizing their terminology as a replacement for intersex, both within and outside the medical community:
“Changing the Nomenclature/Taxonomy for Intersex: A Scientific and Clinical Rationale”, Alice Dreger et al, Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism, 18. (729-733 (2005).
Dreger’s disorders paper promotes the use of the old-time medical phrase “disorders of sexual differentiation" (later changed to “development”) – using the straw man of “hermaphroditism” as if it were the word being replaced (instead of intersex being the word they wanted to replace):
In conclusion, we suggest the language of ‘hermaphroditism’ and ‘pseudohermaphroditism’ be abandoned. One possible alternative . . . is to use instead . . . the umbrella term “disorders of sexual differentiation”. Such an approach would have the salutary effects of improving patient and physician understanding and reducing the biases that are inherent in the use of the current language of ‘hermaphroditism’. – Dreger et al.
That old medical terminology had been adopted in 2003 in the mission statement of "The Network on Psychosexual Differentiation". It was that NICHD group of researchers, funded by NIH, who are behind the Northwestern/Penn State DSD Consortium that had hired Dreger:
As lead author of the “disorders paper” and as a spokesperson for the Consortium, Dreger became a staunch defender of that terminology, even as the early backlash developed (although using somewhat obscure logic in her defenses), as seen in a March 2006 ISNA blog entry:
We realize, of course, that any terminology including the word “disorder” can be construed as pejorative. We’d also like to emphasize that we use the abbreviated form of DSD whenever possible. Explaining why this is important, Alice Dreger writes, “we find that, when accompanied by an explanation of what we mean, DSD isn’t terribly stigmatizing. And an important point: the acronym DSD is very useful—and thus, the acronym should be favored over the spelled-out term— because as an abbreviation we don’t focus on ‘disorder’.” We explain what we mean, and then use the term “DSDs.” Thus, we recognize that this is not a perfect term, but we hope ISNA’s supporters and allies will understand that it’s helping us enact real change in medical care. – ISNA Website
Note: That entry has recently been removed from the ISNA blog page.
To counter the escalating backlash, Dreger and ISNA ramped up their efforts to promote the terminology on behalf of the DSD Consortium during 2006 – including helping with widespread dissemination of a so-called “medical consensus statement” published on May 4, 2006 and again in August 2006. However, contrary to all appearances, that “consensus” involved many medical DSD supporters but had almost no intersex representation.
“Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders”, by I A Hughes, et al; Archives of Disease in Childhood ac98319 Module 2 5/4/06:
“Summary of Consensus Statement on Intersex Disorders and Their Management”, Christopher P. Houk, et al; PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 2 August 2006, pp. 753-757
“DSDs and the Chicago Consensus Meeting/Statement”, AISSG-UK
The terminology was then positioned for major national exposure, in a glowing article about Cheryl Chase in the New York Times on September 24, 2006:
However, those efforts have clearly failed, because of the huge backlash that has developed in the intersex community against such terminology – and as prominent researchers such as Prof. Milton Diamond made eloquent pleas for the use of less pathologizing language:
“Variations of Sex Development Instead of Disorders of Sex Development”,
Milton Diamond, ADC-Online, 27 July 2006.
Just one month before she announced her resignation, and now under obvious pressure, Dreger posted an entry in her blog entitled “My Identity/Politics”, in which she said:
“Do I sometimes take crap from people in identity rights movements (like the intersex rights movement) for being a supposed interloper? Sure, sometimes. But most people figure out that it’s a good thing to have someone capable helping out.” – Alice Dreger, 14 August 2006
By then many intersex people were asking themselves: “With friends like that, who needs enemies?”
And now, in the midst of an unstoppable backlash, Dreger has suddenly announced that she is resigning from the DSD Consortium – and goes on to criticize others for using the very terminology she has so widely promoted.
Here we have yet another interloper (her own word) who intrudes into the lives of intersex people and does great harm against us, without getting to know us in large numbers and consulting us, and without giving us a real voice through her writings. Then, when the going gets rough and the harm she’d been doing is exposed, she is now simply walking away - leaving it to others to clean up the mess she created.
For follow-up: Click here
For more information on Alice Dreger:
However, we in OII remain hopeful: Read this excellent article by Michelle O'Brien, OII-United Kingdom
