Alice Dreger seems more concerned about pro-choice rights than intersex rights. Conflating the right of a woman to choose with intersex as a genetic birth defect can result in not just the choice to have a baby but the choice of which babies are worth having at all. This can eventually become a form of eugenics because some groups are considered as more valuable than other groups and modern methods are used to screen them out of the population. We in OII are going to resist this. We look forward to a real debate and to real freedom of speech. Would it not be reasonable to let intersex people speak about these issues instead of a woman who is not intersex, Alice Dreger, who is more interested in abortion rights than our rights?
To briefly understand Dreger's close association with DSD as a birth defect:
He states very clearly what the focus is on:
"Ultimately individuals who are intersex will each have their diagnosis with a GENETIC name."
From the Scientific American article:
Q. "At a recent international meeting to discuss management of people with genital and gonadal abnormalities, you successfully pushed for a change in nomenclature. Instead of using terms such as "hermaphrodite" or even "intersex," you recommended that the field use specific diagnoses under the term, "disorders of sex development." Why did you and other geneticists feel a nomenclature change was necessary?
A. For the past 15 to 16 years now, there really has been an explosion in the genetic knowledge of sex determination. And the question being, how can we translate this genetic knowledge into clinical practice? So we said maybe we should have a fresh approach to this.
The initial agenda was to have a nomenclature that was robust but flexible enough to incorporate new genetic knowledge. Then we realized there were other problems that were in fact not really genetic, but that genetics could actually answer them. Ultimately individuals who are intersex will each have their diagnosis with a genetic name. It's not going to be some big, all-encompassing category, like "male hermaphrodites." And that's much more scientific, it's much more individualized, if you will. It's much more medical.
Source:
Bailey was one of the original presenters when this terminology was first ressurected at the Penn State group which is researching psychosexual differentiation in intersex and gender variant people. The whole disorder concept with Eric Vilain and Bailey and others was resurrected in this network funded by the NICHD. This group which is funded by United States taxpayers has now made most all of their documents password protected.
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."
Right now CAH and XXY and other intersex variations are on brith defect registries and they are there precisely because the genetic screening can find them. The Consensus statement makes it very clear that the intent of the new DSD model is to determine the GENETIC origins of all these conditions just as Vilain has stated clearly in his recent interview with the Scientific American. The DSD Guidelines and Consensus Statement are firmly planted in the genetic and eugenic model of intersex as a birth defect.
NOMENCLATURE AND DEFINITIONS (From the Consensus)
Advances in identification of molecular genetic causes of abnormal sex with heightened awareness of ethical issues and patient advocacy concerns necessitate a reexamination of nomenclature.1 Terms such as "intersex," "pseudohermaphroditism," "hermaphroditism," "sex reversal," and gender-based diagnostic labels are particularly controversial. These terms are perceived as potentially pejorative by patients and can be confusing to practitioners and parents alike. We propose the term "disorders of sex development" (DSD), as defined by congenital conditions in which development of chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomic sex is atypical. The proposed changes in terminology are summarized in Table 1. A modern lexicon is needed to integrate progress in MOLECULAR GENETIC aspects of sex development. Because outcome data in individuals with DSD are limited, it is essential to use precision when applying definitions and diagnostic labels.3,4 It is also appropriate to use terminology that is sensitive to the concerns of patients. The ideal nomenclature should be sufficiently flexible to incorporate new information yet robust enough to maintain a consistent framework. Terms should be descriptive and reflect GENETIC ETIOLOGY when available and accommodate the spectrum of phenotypic variation. Clinicians and scientists must value the nomenclature's use, and it must be understandable to patients and their families. An example of how the proposed nomenclature could be applied in a classification of DSD is shown in Table 2.
Consensus Statement on Management of Intersex Disorders
PEDIATRICS Volume 118, Number 2, August 2006
Why would anyone defend Bailey and these people?
Bibliography:
Queer Science
An 'elite' cadre of scientists and journalists tries to turn back the clock on sex, gender and race
By Heidi Beirich and Bob Moser
Human Biodiversity Discussion Group (HBDG)
A discussion group of the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI)
Steve Sailer, Founder and President
Is this the way to treat a research subject?
(I worry about the young intersex children that are in his projects) Read the following:
Northwestern prof's book under scrutiny
Northwestern U. Psychologist Is Accused of Having Sex With Research Subject
By ROBIN WILSON
The Underexposure of Racism, Sexism and Homophobia in Alice Dreger's Commentary on the Bailey Controversy:
A feminist analysis on behalf of Organisation Intersex International
Curtis E. Hinkle, United States.
Michelle O’Brien, United Kingdom.
Social Science Researcher, Roehampton University.
Background:
J. Michael Bailey is a psychologist best known for this work on biology and sexual orientation and for having written a paper justifying the right of parents to select against having gay children should the technology for screening homosexuality in utero make selection possible. In 2003, he published The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. This book deals with many issues related to homosexuality and transgender topics. The most controversial aspect of the book is his division of all transsexuals into only two categories based on their sexual orientation and not gender identity. Autogynephilia is described as a fetish associated with masturbation in which the man is sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a woman. Homosexual transsexuals, the second category, are described as “prettier” gay men who change sex so they can enjoy a lot of promiscuous sex with heterosexual men.
In 2003, critics of Bailey’s book brought charges against him for research misconduct. However, Northwestern University did its own internal investigation which was never made public. Alice Dreger, a professor at the same university which did the investigation recently released an article on this controversy which is to be published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Dreger concludes in her article that Bailey was harassed and intimidated by his critics who wanted to silence him and ruin his career. Critics of the book maintain that Bailey defamed transsexuals and people portrayed in the book allege that he misled them into cooperating with him and that they were not aware their private information would be made public. Many also adamantly reject his description of them as being an autgynephilic transsexual.
After reading Alice Dreger's paper about the Bailey controversy, some of us were surprised that someone who sees herself as a feminist is repeating what can be read as a racist, misogynist, heterosexist, sexualized white male narrative.
The persistent references to a group of people in the book written by Bailey that were almost exclusively made up of Latina woman as prostitutes appear racist, as did the repetition by Dreger; it informed us more about Bailey and Dreger than the Latina women they were talking about. It is disturbing this small sample of “homosexual” transsexuals Bailey chose were almost exclusively Latina women. The characterization of these Latina women as “especially suited for prostitution” (1) seemed to us to be a glaring racist interpretation of research data by Bailey; this appears to have been endorsed by Dreger, who did not deal with the privilege that Bailey held over these very vulnerable, poor women needing his assistance to get letters that would allow them to get on with their lives as women.
Latina women living in the United States are in a much worse situation than most women there. For that never to enter into the analysis of a "feminist" historian appears to be a grave injustice to Latina women. It is hard for Latina women to find any jobs in the United States other than very menial labor because of institutionalized and socially sanctioned bigotry against them.
Another problem is the sexualization of research subjects by the researcher:
“There is no way to say this as sensitively as I would prefer, so I will just go ahead. Most homosexual transsexuals are much better looking than most autogynephilic transsexuals” (Bailey, 2003, p.180).
Bailey confirms this opinion when he describes his own sexual response to homosexual transsexuals:
“It is difficult to avoid viewing Kim from two perspectives: as a researcher but also as a single, heterosexual man” (ibid, p. 141).
Later we read:
“When [Kim] came to my laboratory, my initial impression was reconfirmed. She was stunning. (Afterwards my avowedly heterosexual male research assistant told me he would gladly have had sex with her, even knowing that Kim still possessed a penis.)” (Dreger, 2007, p.19)
The characterization that “homosexual” transsexuals (in this case almost exclusively Latina women) as “especially well suited to prostitution” (Bailey, 2003, p.185) was justified on account of their male homosexual promiscuous nature.
The problem about characterizing Latinos as being prominent in this group, and opening up whether there was a genetic basis (2) for this has been dismissed by his supporters engaged in on-line discussion by saying that Bailey simply quoted what one of his subjects said on this matter and did not make the statement himself. It is interesting that out of the hours of data he must have collected, he selected that comment – yet ignores those things his subjects have said that might account for why they were as they were and countering his assertion they were either homosexual or autogynephilic or lying.
Another obfuscation that is targeted at those who suggest that this indicates a prejudicial attitude when criticizing his characterizing a group of people being ‘especially well suited to prostitution’ is a 'what is your problem with hookers' type defense. This relocates the source of bigotry away from the author to the critic. It underlines a misconceived attitude underpinning Bailey's ideas about what he calls “homosexual transsexuals”:
Most prostitutes do not actually enjoy sex with punters; it is business. That is why street prostitutes in the United Kingdom say to passing men 'got business, luv?' Generally prostitutes do what they do out of necessity, not pleasure - to generate money for a number of reasons; these include paying for food and clothing for their children, supporting their partners or pimps, to pay for narcotics they are addicted to, or (specific to transsexual prostitutes) to pay for the cross-sex hormones, cosmetic surgeries, electrolysis, breast augmentation and reassignment surgeries to aid being fully accepted as a woman.
Bailey is subject to a false belief that many men hold (but one that is surprising for a social scientist) - that prostitutes enjoy the sex they have with their clients. It is understandable why men, particularly those who use prostitutes, might hold such a belief; sex with somebody who is not enjoying sex with them would for most men be a turn-off. Granted there are those who would enjoy sex more if they knew the other person did not enjoy it, and those who would gain pleasure just at the thought of their power in making someone do something they don't enjoy purely for money - but I am convinced these would be a minority of men who visit prostitutes. For most it is a fantasy that they are having sex with someone for pleasure.
Bailey holding this false belief says a lot about him, and says more about him than anything he says about the clients he deals with; no doubt, like many prostitutes, they are good actors when it comes to pretending to enjoy sex for the benefit of their clients. There may be some HSTS prostitutes who do enjoy what they do, just as for other women who are prostitutes; but, people I have known who were 'on the game' tended not to think about it in terms of pleasure, but as 'work', a necessary routine.
It assumes that promiscuity amongst this type of transsexuals is in some way innate and stereotypical; in characterizing these transsexuals as homosexual is effectively homophobic because it relies on a stereotype that homosexuals are necessarily promiscuous
This analysis of Latina women who happened to be assigned male at birth is phallocentric and racist in our opinion.
In supporting the thinking described above, most feminists would be expected to question Alice Dreger’s bias in the analysis of Bailey as a victim of political correctness and it has to be asked why she did not consider such important issues as:
1) Why, with few exceptions, Bailey limited his examples of transsexuals to a small group of Latinas.
2) Why after such an unrepresentative sample would he write that this group is “especially suited for prostitution”
3) Why a professional psychologist would openly express his heterosexual desires about these women and also express that his own heterosexual male research assistant also expressed the same desire to have sex with one of these women.
4) Why there is no serious attempt to analyze the power that Bailey held over these women both economically and professionally and including that in her analysis of why they went along with his “research”. Instead, she gives a favorable analysis of this by showing how kind he was to grant them letters to get access to treatment.
From a feminist perspective, this analysis by Dreger appears to us to be biased in favor of the man who seems to us to have exploited some very poor Latina women and in so doing continues to make them the victims while Dreger’s article appears to make Bailey the victim. We don’t agree.
Footnotes:
(1) In referring to a group comprised almost exclusively of Latina women:
“In this sense, homosexual transsexuals might be especially well suited to prostitution.” From, Bailey, The Man Who Would Be Queen, p.185
“As for shoplifting, homosexual transsexuals are not especially well suited as much as especially motivated.” From, Bailey, The Man Who Would Be Queen, p.185
(2) “Alma has also noticed, as I have, the large number of Latina transsexuals. In Chicago, there are several bars that cater to Latina transsexuals. About 60 percent of the homosexual transsexuals and drag queens we studied were Latina or black. The proportion of nonwhite subjects in our studies of ordinary gay men is typically only about 20 percent. Alma says she thinks that Hispanic people might have more transsexual genes than other ethnic groups do. Another transsexual, remarking on the same phenomenon, attributed it to ethnic gender roles: ‘My culture is very macho and intolerant of female behavior in men. It is easier just to become a woman.’” From, Bailey, The Man Who Would Be Queen, pp.183-184
Further Reading:
For more information about the man that Dreger is defending in the recent article she wrote:
Queer Science:An 'elite' cadre of scientists and journalists tries to turn back the clock on sex, gender and race
By Heidi Beirich and Bob Moser
Human Biodiversity Discussion Group (HBDG): A discussion group of the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI)
Steve Sailer, Founder and President
Is this the way to treat a research subject?
Northwestern prof's book under scrutiny
Northwestern U. Psychologist Is Accused of Having Sex With Research Subject By ROBIN WILSON
Homosexual eugenics article written by Bailey
Bailey is a Liar: abuse of an intersex research subject
References:
Bailey, J. M., 2003, ‘The Man Who Would Be Queen’
Dreger, A. D., 2007, ‘The Controversy Surrounding Bailey’s ‘The Man Who Would Be Queen’.
The Bailey Smokescreen, Ignoring Science and playing to the Gallery.
By Sophia Siedlberg.
Satirical commentary from Michelle O'Brien, OII-UK, Researcher: socio-cultural aspects of the medicalisation of gender
Autobibliophilia and Sexual Orientation Disorder
Researchers have realized that a new taxonomy needs to be developed which explains the drive of certain academics to publish articles which present their ideas as being 'the truth'. This paraphilia is found in those obsessed not only in seeing their own writing in academic journals, but seeking to avoid peer review and discussion with their research subjects. By publishing their work in book form, or by inviting peer commentary, peer review is bypassed completely in a way that their writing can be placed in the public domain and published uncritically - thus bestowing upon their work a 'truth' status without all the lengthy procedures of theory development, proposal and testing.
In the latest development of autobibliophilia, three of these researchers who have formerly not acknowledged a mutual dependence, have teamed up to work on a ground-breaking new study. One researcher developed Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia and homosexual transsexualism and generated a storm with his book 'the Queer Who Would be a Queen'; another stunned the intersex community with her replacing the term 'intersex' with 'Developmental Sex Disease'; the third person in this triune group showed that queers could be straightened out using reparation therapy. Despite criticisms that a sample of half-a-dozen people does not a general theory make, or that trawling the US for two years to find a response of 200 individuals hardly shows us anything about long-term success of reorientation (nor its desirability as a therapeutic approach), or that failing to consult a community about re-branding them as diseased, these three have moved on from what were in their own minds 'successes' of their fast-track approach of forcing ideas into the public domain as a means of establishing their theories as 'the truth'.
Their new project draws in sex researchers from all over the world (i.e. North America) to unveil the next big idea that will become 'truth':
'Sexual Orientation Disorder', or SOD for short.
This new theory, the team explains, helps to fill the cracks in the medical approach to homosexuality left open through the decriminalization and depathologization of homosexuality back in the late 1960's to early 1970's.
"We fully support and accept homosexual people - some of my best friends are gay", said Robert, "Alice's hairdresser is gay, and I know Mike uses a lesbian plumber whenever his toilet gets blocked. We just feel that people have the right to choose whether to be fully accepted members of society, or live with the prejudice that SOD sufferers often experience'. Alice then explained: 'This is not about identity, or genetics, this is about recognizing that some people have a disorder that is explained by something having gone wrong with their sexual development early in life, usually because of some genetic defect, and we are simply offering parents and doctors the opportunity to make the best possible choices for their children - no responsible adult would wish the life of stigma homosexuality brings upon their child'. Mike then continued, 'this is not about eugenics, it is about the parent's right to choose the best for their children - if they want to terminate a gay pregnancy, that is up to them, but if not, we are developing the science that can prevent their child growing up gay'.
Gay rights groups around the world have condemned this development, mainly through personal attacks like saying 'Mike is a tranny chasing wanker', and 'Robert completely missed the point about fisting when he stuck his head up his own arse', and 'Alice, go back to Wonderland and stay with the caterpillar on his mushroom'. The team responded by saying that was what they have come to expect whenever they try to help sexual psychopaths and deviants.
All men are self-deceptive AG's or HSTS's
All quotes from Bailey's book TMWWBQ:
Bend Over Boyfriend, an instructional sex videotape showing straight couples how women can (with appropriate equipment) anally penetrate their male partners, was a bestseller. (p 83)
Perhaps being penetrated anally is one of the perks of being a gay man. (p 84)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, this is what is really interesting.
These are all descriptions of one of the autogynephiles in the book:
Increasingly, he began to fantasize about having a vagina, and about being penetrated by a man. He enjoyed the fantasy of being physically dominated, as well as vaginally penetrated, by a man.
During the time between [her] birth and her full transition, she had sex with several men, always involving their penetrating her anally.
... now the dildo penetrates her vagina rather than her anus.
To many autogynephiles, the act of being penetrated by a penis is the ultimate statement that one is a woman...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The ultimate statement that one is a woman" is being penetrated with a penis - that is part of being an autogynephile?
In other chapters, Bailey stresses that autogynephiles are non-homosexual.
I am concluding from the success of the video Bend over Boyfriend, that all men might be autogynephiles or homosexual transsexuals. These
definitions are really elastic.
I am more and more convinced of the serious faulty logic at the foundation of Bailey's (not necessarily Blanchard's) definition of autogynephilia and homosexual transsexuality
Here is why. I think that all men are self-deceptive about their sexuality and I think that I could prove it because the very definition hinges of not being falsifiable.
I don't agree with Bailey when he says that one of the perks of being gay is enjoying anal sex. I have met many straight men who would never admit this to a clinician but who in fact love anal sex. I therefore concluded that the prostate and the pleasure from stimulation of the prostate is a perk of being a man, period, not of being a gay or straight man.
Why are men self-deceptive about their sexuality. Well, there are a lot of reasons.
1) Fear of being perceived as gay
2) Stigma attached to certain sex practices involving masturbation
etc. etc.
Transsexuality according to Bailey is not about gender so much as sexuality. Also, since the other great theorist of autogynephilia (Lawrence) once described these people as "men trapped in men's bodies" (something I feel applies to all men), it is logical to conclude that all men could be self-deceptive transsexuals or
homosexual transsexuals.
The test that Bailey proposes to determine if someone is an AG or a homosexual transsexual could be given to just about any man in the world and they would come up as AG or HSTS. Since deception is central to the diagnosis, they could never prove they were not.
Curtis E. Hinkle
Founder, OII
http://www.intersexualite.org/
Sophia Siedlberg
A couple of days ago I was challenged by someone about my medical history. They said:
"1. I don't think you're intersex. I think you're an autogynephile in denial.
2. That is b*llshit about someone kiling themselves with a meat cleaver.
Have a nice day!"
Actually they were wrong, but they were not making a statement as much as making an accusation. I admit, my giving them a day or so of utter gibberish and playing mind games was perhaps not entirely the right thing to do. But we are talking about one of Professor J Michael Bailey's defenders in action. They were not out to confront me or even ask they were out to intimidate and hurt. So I thought "What the hell play games".
Then when I mentioned this things started to come to light. The emailer called themselves "James Mead" which happens to be the former name of one of the transsexual folks J Michael Bailey has issues with. It is telling that someone who "Stands for the truth" calls themselves by such a name. Further checking out revealed that this "James Mead" had been doing this before, in June 2007 the self same individual had a go at other members of OII claiming they were in league with the transsexual folks confronting bailey. Again denial of such involvement was met with. "No you are you lie" and "You are deluding yourself into believing you are not involved".
This little only line harassment technique is nothing new. About 3 years ago I saw another one of "Bailey's HSTS Ladyboys" (As they are called) Trolling an emailing list frequented by a lot of transsexual folks. With exactly the same methods. Of course when J Michael Bailey or any of his supporters are confronted about this we get "Oh it is all in your mind you are smearing us". Well the problem is that "James Mead" slipped up. To begin with they said:
"1. I don't think you're intersex. I think you're an autogynephile in denial."
The truth is I do not care whether or not I am regarded as "intersex" or "AGP" in Bailey's pecking order of minorities. They also confronted me in a later post to provide my medical records. Which is daft because my medical history is widely known. The basis of my campaign has been open on this right from the start. Because I am trying to get the surgical mutilation of intersex children stopped, and that means universally not just assignation to female (Which is relevant to this as you will see).
However Bullies playing "Herod Principle" annoy me. Now lets spill the beans shall we. And see what "James Mead" does about that. Again I state clearly that in the 1990's the Intersex Society of North America were quite blatant about what they meant when discussing surgery, only those with a right to complain were those who were surgically feminized as children. If someone was assigned to surgical or social masculinization, and they complained about it, they were
branded "Liars". This is all very well documented and at OII we are fully aware of Chery Chase "Doing a deal" with the surgeons where masculinization was not to be mentioned because complications with that sort of surgery (Again well known) carried out on so many people would result in serious compensation payouts were anyone able to take legal action over the surgery in question.
Well where does Professor Bailey fit into all this. Well he serves a very clear purpose, much of his interest is in discussing "Male sexuality" he is an "Andro-sexologist" it is as simple as that. Anyone who objects to having being assigned "male" or even just complains about the surgery is stitched up by the use of Bailey in this context. He treats them as "Deviant males" and pronounces this, he then gets the legal definition of any victim of childhood surgical masculinization re-defined as "Transgender". And then the Herod Principle appears. "You are a man, pain is good it is manly suffer". You know "innocent women and children first guilty men" is translated to "innocent victims of surgical feminization first guilty victims of masculinization" sort of thing.
Bailey then works in some very not so mysterious ways. To begin with that expression "Bailey's HSTS Ladyboys" What does it mean? Well it is not about the Ladyboys in the far east that's for sure. It is about a small handful of transsexual folks who say they fit the HSTS model. And support Bailey's theory. Given some of the allegations leveled at Bailey like "Bailey likes to have sex with them" and "One of Bailey's assistants, and avowed heterosexual said he would bhave sex with one patient even knowing she still had a penis". Well it is hardly quantum Mechanics in Hilbert space to work out where Bailey is coming from. Bailey is this Jabba the hut like figure presiding over his followers and pretty harem. Anyone points this out And we are told "You are a lying AGP who is smearing his good name and the truth". Well given the "Truth" has now moved on from taking the piss out of transsexual folks to covering the backs of pediatric surgeons who are terrified of being sued. It is plainly obvious why any critic especially a critic who is a victim of childhood masculinizing surgery would get "branded" as "AGP".
This "James Mead" is we are led to understand most probably a certain student studying physics who is very inconsistent about their own personal history. And we will name names if they continue. Does this matter, well yes because we are talking about another one of "Bailey's HSTS ladyboys" (A member of his little "Harem" let's say) policing who says what and deciding to bully people who do not tow Bailey's "Truth" well yes, but if it is such a truth, why would Bailey need to resort to these increasingly surreal tactics to ensure that "truth" is accepted?
The answer is simple, it is not a truth, it is what may turn out to be a medical scandal on par with the Shipman case, or Alder Hay cases in the UK. The question is why would Bailey do all this, the answer is simple money, and protecting the backs of unethical surgeons and hospitals. "James Mead" who had only gibberish in response to their posts deserves little more than gibberish. And if they are equipped to pick a fight, then fine, I am able to fight back. Because I am driven by the conviction that this whole joke that Bailey p[erpetuated missed a fundamental truth. You play herod principle on people who were victims of masculinizing surgery, You are playing "Punish someone for them being punished for them being punished for them being punished for them being mutilated because they were born". That builds up into a lot of resentment. If Bailey thinks the response from transsexual people was scary. Picking on what I have described as "autandrophobes" is a bad idea. As I have said before he may end up with a bullet through his head. Not from me but from someone he just may push over the edge. If there is a Vtech or Columbine style shooting at the Northwestern, he will have only himself to blame.
And I will conclude with this blunt warning, when people were asking "Why" over the Vtech massacre, no one ever looked at the video the killer posted beforehand. That was someone describing a list of very deep seated grievances. (This is something that "James Mead" needs to consider carefully considering). It was driven by resentment. Bailey and his pretty little things are constantly feeding that sort of resentment. Bailey may as well be walking around with a huge target painted on his back. I would say that Bailey, his pretty things and his supporters are not just deluded but totally blind to the dangers they are exposing themselves and potentially exposing innocent people to as well.
If history records "Columbine, Vtech, Northwestern" don't say that I didn't warn you. And while I know of no one planning it and I am certainly not planning that myself, I know it will happen, and as it stands it is when not if. All because of some stupid people who simply do not realize the anger they are messing with. And yes it is wise for "James Meade" to remain anonymous. (I have avoided naming names). Because I know someone will be out to get them if I do.
Get real folks!
Sophia Siedlberg.
