"Choose their Sex? Gasp!"
By Sophia Siedlberg, OII-United Kingdom
This article is a response to the following commentary written by ROBERT TYLER
I have to admit the latest “whinge” fest from some commentators is amusing. You can see these commentators doing the sack cloth and ashes routine across the media wailing about the moral degradation and general threat to the survival of humanity if school children are encouraged to "Choose their sex". I am not entirely sure what choosing one's sex actually entails, but my reading of it would be something like: "If you are born intersexed, you would probably have the right not to be medically abused prior to the age of consent by surgeons looking for a quick fix".
I think it is fair to assume that whatever these laws the mongers of doom are screaming about, they would have one positive effect, which is protecting children from medical abuse. I also have a sneaky suspicion that these commentators are aware of this and would regard protecting intersex children from abuse to be irrelevant.
Of course the doom mongers will not exactly impress me if this is so. It is actually a debate that can affect some very tragic and painful situations, for good or for ill, but the hysterical ranting the doom mongers are coming out with is certainly almost as good as my own. But my hysterical "Oh where did that womb go" ranting is perhaps motivated by something a little more real than some whining moralist's idea of nature being neat and tidy.
Robert Tyler of The North County Times says:
"Forget everything you learned in kindergarten about the difference between boys and girls. According to Gov. Schwartzenegger and the California Legislature, schoolchildren can now choose their own sex. I'm not talking about choosing "sexual behavior or sexual
preferences." Kids are going to be taught that they have the right to completely ignore their physical anatomy and choose the status of being "male" or "female."
Ignore your common sense, ignore your chromosomes and ignore your anatomy. This is what your politicians want to teach your kids in school. After all, California's kids have mastered reading, writing and arithmetic, haven't they?"
Well Robert Tyler the good Californian needs to take a basic "ABC" Lesson in genetics. Sorry, Robert, chromosomes are not the sole determinants of sex. The sort of kids I am talking about get badly mutilated, denied legal rights and are forced to endure "Sex Changes" at the hands of a surgeon because some people ignore the biology of intersex children. And impose a sexed joke to keep the likes of Robert Tyler happy.
You see, as much as that the likes of Robert Tyler hate to admit it, they present the arguments about such laws and initiatives as the "Transgender agenda" trying to "Corrupt children" with notions of sex changes and ignoring the way they were born. But fail to mention the sex changes and ignoring status at birth that goes on when an intersex kid is born. The words "Nest of vipers and hypocrites" do tend to spring to mind when moralists like Robert Tyler go into full flow and hammer out their articles on a probably very worn out laptop.
Robert Tyler it would appear was writing on behalf of a faith based organization called Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which makes a little more sense, because the "Allowed to choose their sex? Gasp!" Headline is common among faith based groups. As a card carrying zealot myself (OK, that is Zealot in the biblical context, A follower of the Kanai tradition), I can sort of sympathize with their reactions about some of the anti religious law making that goes on. But on this one I just think these people are not really representing faith, well not the faith I belong to. If anything I consider them a whining, pale imitation who dare to worship a sex deity that would probably resemble a golden calf if they could get away with it.
You see this is my problem. I come from a culture where faith is important and I am not ashamed to say it. Faith or belief does get a bad press these days. What bothers me is when those who claim to have a faith and act on it by preaching fatalism (More on that later). They then have the tenacity to complain bitterly when it is clear they are just being awkward. This is what I am saying, "awkward". It is not as if there is a huge golden statue in the middle of California and they are being told to bow down to it. Then I would be in complete agreement with them. No, the problem is that they are asking me to do something not that unlike bowing down to statues as a person of faith. Agreed this will be rather complicated to explain, but they tell me to worship a Gd that is obsessed with sex.
My Gd is called El Shaddai, that means "The Gd of the Strong and Breasted one" (And we are talking mammary glands here). I am not sure when Abraham when confronted with Gd would have been fussing about the political correctness of a large and scary vision of Gd booming "I am El Shaddai" while having a pair of breasts that would put Dolly Parton to shame. And no that is not blasphemy. That is what El Shaddai means. As for the presence of Gd, that goes around zapping various cities. "My name is Shekinah" How Girly is that?
The point being they do not have a phallic third leg to stand on when screaming about "Gender ambiguty" because Gd (Eloh-Elohim) the "Undefinable" is basically undefinable. It is an important point. Culturally, it is not about trying to make a version of Gd that is politically correct or in the image of "Transgender" either. It is very much the opposite; it is preserving to the letter what the monotheistic tradition actually says. And it clearly says that gender or sex is not a part of the equation. And certainly not in the way Robert Tyler and a number of religious people in the US would have you believe.
This is where I part company with these people. They cannot use religion or more specifically monotheism to attack what they call "Gender confusion". To begin with, they scream blue murder when someone, anyone changes sex, and yet they are happy to see the same inflicted on a child who is born sexless. What if the parents called the kid El Shaddai? Would that remind said moralists what thin ice they are walking on biblically? I would not personally recommend calling a child by that name, but the fact remains that a child who is born intersexed, should be respected as being made "in the image of El Shaddai". But this is not just about intersex children, it is about the religious crying foul over some law that asks teachers to refer to children according to preferred gender pronouns. That covers kids with transgendered issues as well I guess.
Or is this really about that old Calvinist ethic that denies free will? Thinking about it for a moment, if someone is born one sex and "Chooses" to be the other, that is seen as an act of free will and not really something that rests easy with fatalistic belief. The fatalist can argue their way out of that one I suppose, stating that someone is born a given sex for a reason (Let's assume this is Gd then) and has to live as such. They can argue about Gd given body integrity and how surgery to achieve a reassignment of gender (In the case of transsexual folks for example) is simply not what Gd intended. But that argument falls flat when they claim that it is OK to "Assign a sex" in an arbitrary fashion to an intersex child. (Read Matthew 19 lateley?, sorry it got lost in translation, accidentally on purpose?). I am Sorry Mr Tyler. It is not OK. Far from it. Fatalists would argue that Gd intended there to be two sexes, citing Genesis 1:27 which says both men and women were made in Gd's image. (That is one singular entity called Gd answering to the name of El Shaddai. Later on remember). They claim that anything that is not fully male or female was a result of this "Fall". Yes, but before Eve did a little scrumping in a certain orchard called Eden, I seem to remember Genesis 1:27 clearly saying that men and women were made in Gd's (Singular) image. So, no it does not wash, not even with gallons of blood red wine and stale bread.
Let's face it. They are using an ancient narrative which some would say was irrational, (that is a matter of opinion) But my problem is. They don't even read the text properly. Like in a modern translation of the Bible (Let’s take the King James; they like the King James.) We read: "The Almighty" instead of "El Shaddai". The Hebrew original says what it says. I hate to repeat what the transgendered folks come out with sometimes, but yes I do know what it says and means. It is part of my culture. The word is "El Shaddai" meaning "The Gd of the Strong Breasted one" or "The Gd of Milky Breasts" and "Gd the All sufficient" (Yes I know, Transgendered pornographers would be a bit blasphemous defining Gd as a C.W.D. You are right to whine about that, but the root meaning is unchanged. It is El Shaddai and that is that).
This is where modern thinking is very evident in so called "Faith". El Shaddai means "The Almighty" instead of what it actually means because the real meaning would suggest something scary that appears in a porn pop-up. These people of "Faith" have one huge fatalistic hang up about sex.
To the fatalists sex is about conformity to norms, and that is their biggest mistake. The biblical definition of sexual sin usually involves either ritually prohibited acts or a sort of arrogant hedonism (Wait for it) that dictates people are reduced to meat for the purposes of sexual gratification. (That is like worshiping a gold plated calf-like thing that goes "moo" and demanding people conform to sex or "idolatry").
And what was the name Gd was using when talking to Abraham about zapping Sodom and Gomorrah? And what was the name Gd used while actually pouring the hellfire and brimstone?
I think the moralists are missing something. And this brings me neatly back to Mr Tyler.
Robert Tyler (In a fit of Religious indignation) Says:
"The Los Angeles Unified School District has already adopted policies allowing boys to use girls' restrooms and locker rooms ---- and vice versa! You can read LAUSD's Reference Guide 1557 on the district's Web site."
OK, Mr Tyler, if Gd suddenly appeared over Los Angeles (City of Angels? Are angels not Androgynous in tradition and also the names of Gd) and said, "Let’s do some baptisms and I need a nice clean restroom." I can just see Robert Tyler at that scene. "You cannot use the women's restroom, nor the men's, you are undefinable and called El Shaddai. Not allowed! You made Men and Women as men and women. You say it yourself in Genesis 1:27."
Images of lightning, a small pile of salt and a pair of smoking shoes enter my mind along with the words: "Learn to read, you Jerk" booming from the sky. The commentary from Tyler then continues:
"It even tells teachers they need to refer to students using the student's preferred pronoun. And of course, it prohibits the teachers from disclosing a student's chosen gender to the student's parents. Since LAUSD has such a strong academic record, don't you think all school districts should duplicate this program?"
I can imagine this for amusement, Robert Tyler the teacher meeting a new pupil.
Robert Tyler: "And your name is".
Intersex Kid: "El Shaddai, Sir".
Robert Tyler: "Are you a boy or a girl child".
Intersex Kid: "I am in the image of Gd".
Robert Tyler: "Gd made man and Woman"
Intersex Kid: "Oh, right! You are going to whinge about the new laws in California then?"
Robert Tyler: "You bet sonny, it is against religion and against Gd. It is an abomination in the eyes of Gd."
Intersex Kid: "Really, I don't find it offensive and I am called El Shaddai and am sexless just like Gd."
Robert Tyler: "Now children - how to protect yourself in a thunder storm".
Putting sarcasm (About t Robert Tyler's lack of common sense) aside. The religious argument does not stand up regarding these laws. The religious argument about "Not choosing ones sex' certainly does not stand up. And it falls because the arguments are about a misguided reading of the concept of divinity. This leads to injustice and the injustice bit is where it gets very interesting. Mention justice to these people and it is "political correctness gone mad". I seem to remember Paul (Saul of Tarsus) Saying "There will be neither male nor female, etc" - (Galatians 3: 28). Even Paul admitted it.
What is the real objection on the part of Robert Tyler (and others of "Faith"|) to this notion of "choice of gender"? And I am a blood and thunder "old testament" style zealot, not some sandal wearing social working "Socially aware" Christian asking this. Political correctness does not enter into my thinking. What is the objection? I relish pushing sex idolators (Gender Police) out of the Microsoft Window. (2 Kings 9: 30- 37). The problem is that I regard those of "Faith" who lie about the biblical narratives in order to impose fatalism and injustice as the idolaters.
And this really brings me back to the fundamental question about why these commentators like Tyler have to say "Choosing ones sex is evil". I can accept the argument about protecting children from certain political agendas. I mean, yes, there are political movements who want to "brainwash" children, but for me it is a bit difficult looking at this from the perspective of someone who as a child had my "sex" forced on me surgically. And my agenda is simply protecting children from such medical abuse, nothing more. My faith comes into it because it is being made into a matter of faith. I can even accept the argument that in some quarters there are people with a clear cut hatred of religion. (Not that I can blame them given the way some so called "monotheists" behave). But this does not seem to be the real issue. The argument against these laws being passed in California is presented as another attack on religion and is a bit weak because it does not seem to be about banning someone wearing a cross or carrying a Bible or making it clear that they are following (I assume) the Christian faith. The argument about corrupting children's minds holds a little more weight if, we are talking about the more politically active element of the LGBT community trying to convert children to that "cause". It is possible but I tend to think that there is something else to these objections to these laws that we are not being told about. And no, I am not going to come out with the usual line advocates of such laws come out with. "It is hate crime and bigotry". I am going to suggest it is motivated by a badly misguided understanding of the Bible (And yes, I will claim to know better, at present, if any of you Evangelicals want to argue the Bible with me, I will either stand my ground, and be corrected. Where I am wrong, I am open to discussion). The question is whether that is a genuine misunderstanding of the Bible or a selective reading of it to suit a fatalistic agenda. I have my suspicion that the latter is more probable because the punitive fatalism is glaring, to put it mildly.
On the issue of gender and sex, I am sorry the objections are way too inconsistent, both in practice. They cannot expect to go on a moral crusade against transgendered folks in every sense, and then force a sex on a child actually born intersexed. Biblically speaking, it is not a good idea to describe Gd as something like a sex deity, or a harsh master (A Ba'al anyone? ).
I am afraid the "YH-H luvs his Asherah" line of reasoning from the family values brigade is out of order. The whole thing about go fourth and multiply has been take a tad too far. That is not the underpinning narrative of the Bible. It never has been and never will be. In Exodus, a golden calf was fashioned and rather stupidly named YH-H. I bet you didn't know that, historically the bull/Calf deity from Jbiel whose wife and mother were called "Asherah" was called "YH-H" and when said calf was moulded, Gd went totally ballistic. They got the wrong YH-H. Be careful. Gd is a bit tetchy about how Gd is portrayed, and laws or no laws, those pronouns and names have to be correct.
The Great FGM-IGM Debate
By Sophia Siedlberg.
I recently found myself involved in a debate as to whether or not there is a comparison between FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) And IGM (Intersex Genital Mutilation). One contributor to this debate seemed to think that the two do not compare because FGM is somehow more harmful.
Perhaps mentioning the unmentionable may help clarify my position not only in the debate itself but in the wider debate. To begin with, mutilating children to fit social "norms" when seen for what it is, happens to be little more than socially sanctioned child abuse. It makes no difference how it is framed, whether it be for "religious reasons" in non-western cultures or for "socio-medical reasons" in western cultures. It is the physical mutilation of a child's genitalia being undertaken to suite social "norms" that are tied into the unreasonable reverence shown towards sex dimorphism.
It would seem that making this statement is somehow "eluding" some as of yet un-clarified significance of female genital mutilation. Apparently this disgusting practice has an additional significance which makes it more important to confront than intersex genital mutilation.
Let's say it bluntly then. Young girls deserve protection from these disgusting practices while intersex children do not deserve such protection. Because being born female confers a higher intrinsic value than being born intersexed. As an intersexed person who was mutilated myself, I tend not to tolerate such norm born prejudices. All forms of infant genital mutilation are repugnant and that is that.
Well my stating the obvious will be confronted with: "Where is your evidence?" Well, believe it or not it has been the past activities of anti FGM activists who "bothered" to get involved with opposing IGM as well who serve as the evidence.
When in the early 1990's the Intersex Society of North America was formed to confront intersex genital mutilation it became clear, for a number of reasons, that ISNA were only opposed to surgeries that were intended to re enforce a female status on the child. There were two reasons for this which are actually quite disturbing. The first which I have covered as some length involves the fear on the part of a number of surgeons that were the truth about the messy nature of masculinising surgeries to come out, and the victims of it were able to speak out, the surgeons would be facing financial ruin in the courts. The second, which until now I have avoided discussing too openly (because there are sacred cows involved) has been the "also happen to be FGM activists" in the feminist lobby who when they as good as took over ISNA decided to be very specific about which types of IGM they would fight to stop. Clitoral reduction and any other form of IGM that resembles FGM. The patriarchal medical profession and the matriarchal "Also fight against FGM feminists" (That is representatives of male and female) had decided between themselves that there was a pecking order as to which mutilated children get access to justice later on in life. Those who were denied justice to this day suffer at the hands of people who, as good as advocate mutilation in the name of sex dimorphism.
The first attempt by intersex people to defend their right to not be mutilated as children were basically told that they can only do this on certain (Sexist) terms. and I am supposed to simply sit back and accept this? Well no, Organisation Intersex International, unlike ISNA has a clear policy of opposing all normalizing surgeries that are undertaken without consent. I am a member of OII so I am going by the policies of OII. However personally I actually find the arrogance of those FGM activists who as good as took over ISNA and said that only certain types of infant mutilation were going to be confronted, were doing what exactly? Well, how about defining who does and who does not get mutilated on the basis of "Accepted social norms". And given the patriarchal involvement in this, it become very clear what was going on. The FGM activists (Representing female self interest) and the doctors (Representing male self interest) were only moving the battle of the sexes on to the bodies of those children they can still get away with mutilating, intersex children.
Oh admitted they opposed feminizing procedures but then that proves my point, why only feminizing procedures? Because on the patriarchal side "it is better to be a boy" and the Feminist side it is "Wrong to violate woman and only woman".
So let's simply say this as it really is. The FGM activists who decided to "lower themselves" to include IGM in their agenda did more harm than good and at the same time did the very thing they claimed to be opposed to, propped up the social norms that give unreasonable reverence to sex dimorphism. Which in effect implies that their opposition to FGM is driven more by the interests of people relative to sex dimorphism (that is the interests of certain "Social norms") than the actual harm all this does to children themselves.
I am very clear about my position, as a victim of childhood genital mutilation myself, I am opposed to all forms of infant genital mutilation and do not, will not and cannot accept any notion of a pecking order that decrees that some children are worthy of being protected from being mutilated while others are not. That is bigotry against intersex people, plain and simple.
FGM, IGM and even male circumcision (which is still a part of the culture I belong to, sadly) are all manifestations of the same revolting thing, undue reverence being given to sex dimorphism. Applying rules like "Oh well it is wrong to mutilate this child but not wrong to mutilate that child" is simply giving credence to the dimorphic dictatorship and allowing the disgusting practices of surgical child abuse to continue with impunity. This is not an issue of the self interest of one or the other sex, this is an issue of humanity recognizing a child for what it is, a child, a human being, and not a bit of meat to be moulded by the self interests of the two sexes.
Having now spoken the unspeakable can people simply agree that mutilating children is simply wrong, without prioritizing one above the other or giving one child a lower intrinsic value as compared to another?
The Der Eigene Rugger Blogger:
By Sophia Siedlberg.
Another “Der Eigene Rugger” Blogger called Mike Adams (You could not make it up could you) has spoken.
A Criminology Professor (Really?) at the TownHall Blog, has now joined the minions of "commentators" having a good old Tranny bash. It is the usual affair: some "Expert" (Take note a Criminal Psychologist; this is relevant). And the usual "The world will end if these perverts get their way" lines of argument. I am sure Mike Addams must have this rather bizarre "Family" of loyal followers who are, basically insane. Yes the "Adams Family".
Here is a juicy example
"I agree with you that young boys experiencing gender identity confusion have special needs. I have given the matter considerable thought. I think a young boy who thinks he's a girl needs a serious a@@ whipping. Parents who hear a child whining that he feels like a girl trapped in a boy's body should attend to his needs by whipping his a@@ immediately."
I take it Mike Addams has no objection to a child-beating paedophile re-enacting the story of Buffalo Bill as a child in Silence of the lambs then. (Remember we are talking about Mike Adams the great Criminal Psychologist presumably agreeing with that?).
Lets Read another:
"Those who have "gender perception" issues should be given genetic testing. Once they have discovered what sex they actually are they should be treated medically and psychologically so that they can accept the truth about their sex according to their chromosomes."
AIS, Swyers, 5 alpha. Yawn! Obviously an ill informed idiot who Mike Addams is happy to allow to quote this as being scientifically valid. Do Criminal Psychologists have any understanding of even forensic genetics? Clearly not.
It gets better:
"The infinitesimally small number of people who are true, biological hermaphrodites and the nearly as small number of people whose genotype does not match their phenotype should be treated with compassion, but in such a way that encourages them to fit into normal society – just as other people with unusual challenges such as dwarfism and gigantism do."
I assume compassion involves a gas chamber. Because it is clearly evident that this commentator on Mike Adam's blog has very strict ideas about normal, Blond haired, blue eyed, wearing jackboots, etc.
In fact this article does not even merit more wasted time on the keyboard. It is clear that our "Criminal Psychologist" gives voice to some pretty deranged child abusers, psychopaths and lunatics. Perhaps I am missing something. Oh no, I will be called a "Wet liberal" by these people, (Actually I am a religious zealot and hardly liberal). But then when you listen to a serial killer or a psychopath with an agenda, I am sure as Mike Addams would have to point out, some of the comments on his blog "Questioning the delusions of transsexuals" are similarly the deranged rantings of lunatics.
Lunatics who I hate with an equal level of pathological rage. As I was one of the infinitesimally small number of "True hermaphrodites" scum like these commentators mutilated as a child. Thing is I have a valid reason to hate these deranged lunatics, who cry about a transsexual getting their bits cut off but say nothing of forcing the same on a non consenting child. .And yet, paradoxically I am in the wrong, because the deranged lunatics were born normal and are thus always right.
Now let’s see the great criminal psychologist shrink that. "Did the lambs go silent?"
The Adams Family Values
By Sophia Siedlberg.
According to Dr. Adams, a gun totin rootin tootin criminologist who is known for his right wing views. Like a few of his ilk you can visit his website and see his photos of his gun collection and read his views. anyway he has this interesting theory about "Three types of People" In this scheme there are "Sheep" who are the general and innocent population of America. there are the "Sheepdogs", who are sort of people who "Stand up" for the rights of the sheep and protect them from the wolves, by killing if needed. Then there are the "Wolves" who are your communists and Muslim extremists and feminists and LGBT lobby.
Putting the usual arguments and terms that would be aimed at the likes of Dr. Adams (Bigot, Redneck etc) and those he does not like (Liberals, Reds etc). I actually find his theory a little interesting, his schema which is actually quite elegant in its simplicity. Especially the bit about Sheepdogs and Wolves. But there is a flaw. You see here there is an old adage that says one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Now a debate recently that blew up on his blog about Transgender laws was interesting because he regarded some of the liberal laws that allow transgender folks to be treated as their adopted gender as evil and saw transgender folks as "Wolves" Presumably Dr. Adams the criminologist is thinking of a wolf (man) in sheep's (Woman's) clothing. It is clear how this schema works. It is elegant in it's simplicity as I say but a bit odd. When on his blog we read him and his little band of followers talking about "Killing transgenders who use female restrooms" because "they make the ladies uncomfortable".
Well it gets a bit weird really. I sort of don't mind this so much because it does not affect me (I know this sounds cynical but I am using the Adams way of thinking here, that is I am using his logic).
I am intersexed and not transgender, I tend to avoid restrooms or toilets (in the UK) that are segregated into male and female like the plague. The reason being that thanks to childhood surgery I still have to use a catheter so emptying the bag down a drain is not an issue, it keeps me from entering the rather ironic "Temples of normal sacredness where normborns dump bodily waste". I mean I just consider myself sexless, it is just a biological fact, I was born that way, and despite surgery that was forced on me as a child, I am still sexless, that's life. But I get the distinct feeling that when Adams talks about "Transgender" he is talking about "intersex" as well. And he would still regard me as a threat to women in restrooms. In fact in his universe the surgery that was inflicted was basically society making sure women have the freedom to piss and shit in comfort. Here is the logic, my being born with ambiguous genitalia, was a "problem" so having been hacked, chopped, sliced and diced, left with a physically agonizing prospect when it comes to pissing in particular thanks to repeated bladder and kidney infections, despite yet more surgery to reduce this risk later on in life, all the horror I endured and endure is so norm born females can piss and shit painlessly. I never actually had a penis, and externally I appear female, it was the best that could be done when trying to undo years of careless hacking and slicing on the part of mad surgeons. so I could hardly be described as a "man in a dress" (The basic image Adams presents when describing his version of "Transgender") I was never phenotypically male, and never really female either, just, intersexed.
But According to Adams, I, someone who has to date only fought for the rights of intersex children to be protected from surgical intervention that can clearly cause harm am a "Wolf" and I should have my brains blown out. and this is would seem have little to do with my wanting to simply protect a few children, but my having been born in the first place. How else can I see it? Unless Dr. Adams would wish to enlighten me about this and tell me I am not reading his opinions correctly. But then I suspect he hasn't got the balls to do that.
In his commentary about transgender folks he did say that surgery does not make a man into a woman, (Or presumably a woman into a man). But hang on by the self same logic that would not make an intersex child into either sex right? Ah no it does not work like that, it does not happen, in Adams land such a child when born is a fully grown man in a dress out to terrorize women with his 20 foot penis. In fact this just born fully grown male who had a dress on when he was born was terrorizing the female only maternity ward so needs to be eliminated straight away. (We are applying the Adams logic remember) Of course the obvious question would be "Yes but what about the surgery being carried out on an intersexed child, (Child not adult), does it make them a boy or a girl or does it change nothing" Well the answer would I suspect be the same speech about men in dresses. (This is the real issue, isn't it, avoid the question and focus on men in dresses, Adams has no balls if that is the case.)
You see I read a lot about "The delusional thinking of men who think they are women or women who think they are men" But nothing abut the implied barking mad thinking that suggests that it is physically possible for a foetus to develop into a fully grown adult in utero, and also for a wardrobe of slinky little numbers to develop in utero as well and then to be born as an evil transvestite with a penis that is also a machine gun to terrorize the maternity ward. While Adams has not actually said this, logically this is what he says by shifting the focus back to men in dresses and avoiding the real questions about how sex differentiation is not quite as he would tell you it is. But to illustrate his lack of consistency despite the elegant simplicity of his ideas, read the following (It is a corker).
"I think a young boy who thinks he's a girl needs a serious a@@ whipping. Parents who hear a child whining that he feels like a girl trapped in a boy's body should attend to his needs by whipping his a@@ immediately."
Now Adams has a real problem with "Deviancy" and "Perversion" and as a criminologist he knows his stuff. Like on the face of it, it is not perverted to fantasize about whipping a boy who so much as picks up his sisters Barbie doll. Oh yes whipping a child to within an inch of his life is not downright perverted child abuse, (The use of a whip seems to suggest a few strange sexual thought processes going on) No you see that child transitioned from a sheep to a wolf and is no longer a child but a fully grown man in a dress with a penis that also fires 7.62mm High velocity rounds.
Now I am a liberal if I question this and "Transgendered" because I was born intersexed. What a load of bollocks.
The Adams Family (His Minions) are even stranger, like "mother of 4" who is the resident expert on "Gender confusion" who is allegedly the big expert on intersex. Presumably because she gave birth to four normal children. (???). She says XX for girls XY for boys and XY girls and XX boys are "Gender confused". And "Such rare individuals should be treated with compassion" (Strangled at birth perhaps? because that is the only option she has when using Adams logic). Then some other poster congratulates her on her caring and compassionate posting (Don't make me laugh). No the reality is more brutal, she is clearly some breeding mare and proud of it, "Mother of 4" like yes her identity is being a breeder "Mother of 4" and she can sit, Salome-Esther style with the the Antipas hit squad of strong young men, waiting to slaughter any newborn baby who's genitals do not fit the standard, Well she must be able to piss in comfort. We are using this logic that Adams seems to use, you see "Sheepdogs" and "Wolves" are relative terms that can be applied at will to redefine a helpless child as some sort of gender terrorist.
We have people who would be regarded as "inbred trailer trash" by the liberals. I find that incredibly disturbing. What if there is a grain of truth in it and it is not another form of logic similar to that of Adams. My intersex condition is a "Double recessive genetic condition", technically that makes me an inbred. So logically that would mean that "Inbred trailer trash and rednecks" would spawn a higher number of children with 5 alpha reductase deficiency than the general population, and I dread what would happen to a child born to such people. I really hope the left wing propaganda is as off base as that of the Adams family. I mean it seems clear that one of them would empty a Mac10 magazine into the head of a baby born like this.
This is my problem with Mike Adams, it is not that he is some bigot, redneck or whatever, it is the plain and simple fact that by birth I am a threat to something that he wants to preserve. but what? His "Family Values". Aside from writing a few choice words about people of his ilk which again have not focused on bigotry but the plain lack of logic and (This is the real killer) the lack of human decency? Like these people are "Anti abortion" but would drop that when tests reveal that the child may be born intersexed, or even gay (To them this is one in the same thing) then that "fully grown pervert" (Actually a fetus) in the womb is ripped out and cast in the hospital furnace hopefully still gasping for breath according to Adams logic.
If Mike Adams thinks I am making a caricature of his views a little or reading something evil into his writings. I would argue that I am simply applying his known logic to the wider debate about sex and gender. (Not that I am interested in sex and gender, just self
preservation and stopping children suffering).
Of course I am damned by this Adams logic for having some protective instinct when it comes to children, that is a "woman thang" and I am intersexed not a fully fledged female. I should be whipped to death for even showing the slightest bit of concern for the safety of children.
Is this conservative values? I don't think so. Apply the logic that Adams comes out with and all you get are bizarre, infanticidal, psychotic and deranged ideas that seem to describe some community of Americans that are so paranoid they would probably kill each other out within two generations. I always thought conservative values were about human decency but not pandering to social whims. I actually agree with some of the core logic about things like restrooms, and I avoid them myself, not because I am one sex or the other going into the opposite sex space, I am biologically neither sex, so for me it is either disabled toilets/restrooms or squatting behind a tree if the catheter is not being used. Personally I would not want to go into any restroom because they are one of the cited reasons I was butchered in the first place, it is not some objection to "Gender oppression" either, I just do not want anything to do with impractical stupidity.
To me conservative values are about things like preventing legislators from doing stupid things like banning the ten commandments from schools or infant classes being made to stuffy "Social skills" by being brainwashed by some parts of the LGBT lobby. (I can see some of the conservative objections there, I get grief from some quarters of the LGBT lobby myself). Conservative values are NOT about taking paranoia to ridiculous extremes where things like beating children to death or defining everything as the enemy. I mean the delusional quality that can be found in the Adams logic is as barmy as some of the logic from the people they clearly despise.
I am an ethic Zealot and I cannot figure out where this stuff is coming from, the only thing I can suggest is that Adams explains himself on all this. He does not have to denounce some of his minions and their opinions or renounce his beliefs, just answer the few questions about some things he comes out with that make Fred Phelps look like a screaming LGBT liberal.
I also suspect that one day he will pick on the wrong people, OK this is my stock warning to paranoid creeds, but Adams' thinking when taken to it's logical conclusion will inevitably result in a very violent backlash from somewhere. Take:
"I think a young boy who thinks he's a girl needs a serious a@@ whipping. Parents who hear a child whining that he feels like a girl trapped in a boy's body should attend to his needs by whipping his a@@ immediately."
Dr. Adams is a professor of criminology and here we find him talking about the cause of some very nasty situations. Let's face it, Thomas Harris describes this sort of thing really well, I have said it before and will say it again. What happens if the kid grows up feeling an intense rage about this, (If the kid survives). Do we get the fictional Buffalo Bill or real life Ed Gein? Well Dr. Adams should know being a professional criminologist. It is like watching a vulcanologist standing naked in front of pyroplastic surge knowing full well what is going to happen next. "Barking mad" is an appropriate term.
I think Dr. Adams needs to explain himself before he ends up looking like a deranged lunatic. It is not his politics either but his logic, is he a Sheepdog or a Wolf?
The Embittering Truth:
Feb. 6, 2008
By Sophia Siedlberg
When I was a child I remember seeing some story in the local newspaper. Now like most local kids I was interested in this page of cartoons and "Strange facts" they printed. It later mutated into a kid's supplement but then it was just a spread of two pages. Well, the time came for me to see what was in the rest of the paper and out of curiosity I read one or two of the long blocks of plain text. One was about a car crash where the car had run into someone's garden. Another was about some woman who had set up some shop in the town center and was selling "Upmarket" cakes. It seemed dull but one story caught my eye. It was about a "pony club". It was a strange affair. Basically someone, a farmer, had decided to set a field aside for ponies and made it into a sort of riding school. It was before the days of licensing, health and safety, and so on. It was just a small family affair where kids from the local area who did not have rich parents could occupy their time learning to ride ponies. As time passed the farmer had a small play area put in. It became a bit of a community focus really. Then one day the farmer had to sell up, and the story was about what had happened next. This company brought the farm and decided to keep the "pony club" and the play area and they put a huge fence around it.
Then the company made it so the children of employees were only allowed to use these things. A swimming pool appeared. Then an adventure playground and still the local kids were shut out. What had happened was some local kids had broken in and were playing. When the new owners threw them out, one of the children was injured. And the parents were none too pleased about it.
I thought it was very unfair but the story appeared again a few weeks later and it was, well to put it mildly, getting surreal. The company had pinned up notices on the fences explaining why the local children were not allowed in. "This land is private property and reserved for children of company employees only. We regret this policy but local children can be a disruptive influence."
Then the company hired "representatives" (fearing a backlash) and they "spoke for the local parents and children". Five weeks later there was a meeting in the town hall. It was so local parents could say what they felt about all this. But local parents when trying to speak were told to sit down and let their representative speak. The representative (the daughter of the company boss) started talking about the lack of luxuries in the farm. In fact it seemed like she had comprehension of what the debate was about. All she kept saying was that the farm was lacking a barbecue area and a small fairground. She talked as if this was a real injustice against those who used this farm. When one local parent asked, "Isn't this about whether or not our kids can use the farm, they have nowhere to go really"; the answer was interesting. "I am talking on your behalf, because I am your representative. Now please be quiet. Besides, you local parents have all the town to yourselves. And the children who use the farm are from inner cities and need a retreat; your children broke in."
Basically it was the company looking after the interests of the company. The "inner cities" were basically in the suburbs, all leaves and trees and parks. Very much in contrast to what the local kids lived in, which was not exactly a nice place. "But we are not living in luxury here," said a local parent. "And we have to look after proper children," said the company rep. Another five weeks later, there was another meeting and this time the locals were banned altogether. While it was "Advertised" as a "Local consultation", it actually consisted of the company bringing in some developers to evict the locals and rename the town. Within a few months most of the locals were gone. And let’s call it "Newtown" was being built. When "Newtown" was built it was a really nice place to live, with parks and trees and a local swimming pool. And the people living in it kept claiming they were unhappy about the color of the fences. I think you get the picture.
I was reminded of this odd story when recently I was asked by someone to join an emailing list for women's rights because they were discussing intersex issues. I joined. I noticed how strict some of the posting rules were but thought, "Well, that's how these lists run". It became apparent that this list had been talking about intersex people for years, about the "Cultural and sociopolitical landscape of broken identities invading normal space." I did notice that some of the posters (Alice Dreger, etc.) had already "co-opted" the intersex community in the name of "The DSD Consortium" and they were "representing us". Well, they were saying that parents of intersex children have rights, doctors have rights, and the core issue for intersex people (infant genital mutilation) was just incidental to the practices of the "DSD Consortium". The DSD consortium was more concerned about the rights of the doctors to cause harm and avoid getting sued over it. Meanwhile on the same list a post about female genital mutilation appeared. When someone pointed out that it was a bit hypocritical to go on about FGM while the self same were supportive of IGM (Intersex genital mutilation), then the "moderating" (banning) started. This was not known about. It just happened mysteriously. Then one day someone called Elizabeth Reis posted something about a conference about "Genital cutting" which would be about all forms of genital mutilation. It was in truth a DSD conference and the message is simple. "FGM is wrong because females are normal and precious. Cut the intersex freaks up because that is the best the scum deserve." Meanwhile on the list there were other posts about the "Symbolic meaning of broken fingernails" and "The social construction of men and women in the marketplace". I could not comment on the list because I am intersex and thus banned. The moderator was kind enough to forward my concerns to Elizabeth Reiss and there was no response of course. In a sense I have been evicted from my human rights. There was another post on another subject. "The significance of my little pony in stereotyping girls, a study of the idea that girls ride ponies and boys play football"….. I had a flashback
I think you get the picture?
Treestumps and Broomsticks
By Sophia Siedlberg.
Copyright 2008 - February 16, 2008
Alice Dreger, love her or loathe her, makes an impression wherever she goes. She is like that. Either she or references to her just “crop up” from nowhere. Like one day I was going through the OII website and found one page discussing OII business in general, mission statements, views on clinical protocols and so on. And at the foot of the page, out of the blue: “Alice Dreger Have you no shame!”
(This links to an account of her recent antics involving the now infamous “Slicing, dicing, carving and rotating intersex on a spit” speech at the Kinsey institute) (1)
Dreger seems to have this profoundly annoying effect on people. Well, today I am very curious about a friend of hers called Denise Tree, Kiira Treia, Tux Treestump and Kira Tree. (This lady has many pseudonyms and aliases). Who seems to cause similar levels of hostility to Dreger in some people, most notably Andrea James, who, legally speaking has published quite a lot about Denise Tree, which could be construed as libel.
But the thing is the only comments that come from Tree or Dreger on the subject of Andrea’s lengthy discussion about Denise Tree is from Alice Dreger, essentially “putting the record straight,” while claiming that Denise Tree has made an important contribution to intersex activism. (2)
Two questions came up in my mind. Firstly, given the somewhat strident tone of Andrea James’ writings about Denise Tree, we are talking enough material for a serious libel case. Unless of course what Andrea says about Tree is true. Why has Tree not even bothered to issue any legal threats? I mean, considering how offended Tree gets when anyone even questions her. I know this having endured the sharp end of her wrath myself on a few occasions. (Yes, like I am really bothered.) You would think Andrea James’ website was a dead site walking. Not so.
Is Tree exactly what Andrea James says, a liar and a fraud?
The next question is perhaps the one that bothers me. You see, Dreger says “Denise Tree is a cornerstone of intersex activism”. Well yes, Denise Tree was a cornerstone of intersex activism, but was the so called “intersex activism” she represents a fraud? This is where the problem lies. When Alice Dreger talks of intersex activism, it is always this weird sort of activism that usually demeans those it is purported to represent and invariably seems to lead back to J Michael Bailey. (3)
A few years ago Dreger was claiming that someone called Dr. Anne Lawrence was a “Transgender Scholar” who “Has contributed so much to transgender activism”. (4) Dr. Anne Lawrence happens to be a rather prominent hate figure in transsexual circles. If you ever see the term “BBL” being used in discussions about transsexual folks, you will find it refers to the school of thought that describes transsexualism as two distinct types, “Homosexual Transsexual” and “Autogynephilic Transsexual”. The three authors of this theory that most transsexual folks love to hate? “Bailey, Blanchard and Lawrence” and hence “BBL”.
Today we have Alice Dreger describing an intersex activist who a lot of intersex people love to hate. And wait for this, Denise Tree is a big friend of J Michael Bailey. Denise Tree was also the intersex activist who often maintained that intersex was a feminist-lesbian issue not an intersex issue. Yes I admit myself that this seems a little odd. Like would gay issues be issues about saving the rainforest and not about gay folks?
In the debate involving Dreger who is now defending Tree from various accusations, it is Tree’s medical history that is open to question. We read the following from Dreger:
"Not only do historical records (including ISNA's own archives, now housed at the Kinsey Institute) confirm Kiira's history, a few years
ago a clinician associated with John Money and the Hopkins gender clinic confirmed for me Kiira's medical history as an intersex patient at the PRU. (He didn't do it on purpose, since it violated patient confidentiality, but he confirmed her diagnosis and status as a
patient there anyway, during a discussion on another topic.) To state the obvious, one shouldn't believe everything one reads on the Web. Look at the evidence, and consider the trustworthiness of the source." http://www.alicedreger.com/kiira_triea.html
As far as I am concerned Denise Tree’s medical history is irrelevant. She appeared as an intersex activist, claimed she was intersexed, provided some degree of documentary evidence to that effect (Though many are questioning it). But I accepted that on face value. What is relevant is this line of hers: “Intersex is a radical feminist issue”. And then there are the years of watching Tree on various emailing lists bullying people into submission to the cause of J Michael Bailey. That is what is relevant to me. Why does everything go back to Bailey? Given Bailey’s earlier writings which are, to put it bluntly, about eliminating the “unfit”, I would like to know what interest Bailey has in intersex people. And until Dreger and Tree are honest enough to say what that interest is and until Bailey comes from under the floorboards and says openly what his real agenda is, I am going to consider that the problem and not be distracted by whether or not Tree has an intersex history or “DSD”.
Now given that Professor J Michael Bailey would, if given the chance, have all sexual minorities shoved into gas chambers. (5) Very obvious questions seem to arise about the legitimacy of the “Intersex Activism” Denise Tree represents, as well as the “Transgender activism” Anne Lawrence represents. And then Alice Dreger, who is a “Huge defender of the great Mike” comes along praising all these “Activists” that in truth all seem to be members of J Michael Bailey's fan club.
Of course to point out this glaring and obvious pattern where all roads seem to lead to Bailey is, I quote “Paranoid and libelous”. How about we just say it as it is for a change. Bailey wants a lot of minorities he does not like eliminated and so he is instrumental in some way or another in the so-called “Activism” that simply has people in these minority groups walking into his “Gas me, Gas me” cult of imposed self hatred.
And while I sit here contemplating things like “How many shootings have there been on university campuses since the V Tech Massacre” (Told you so!) and contemplating things like “Oh look, sociobiology says that the dominant male who cannot get it up often abuses the people he cannot get it up with, if you see what I mean”. (6) I sort of watch the increasingly obvious (And predictable) antics of J Michael Bailey and little Miss Lebensfrau Dreger. And wonder how “In your face” this praising of puppet activists and some dictatorial quack is going to get before people say something like “Oh errm, this isn’t quite right, is it?”
I suppose Dreger will try to insult my intelligence by claiming that I am seeing things that are not there, or I am misconstruing these antics as something more sinister than they really are. I am really interested to see what her next confessional, sorry blog is going to say. There is no way now she could deny everything she has said, or what her so called activists have said and the ISNA movement have said. “Bailey wants you to cease to exist. Please comply, you have nothing to fear. Just stop existing”. This has been the message loud and clear for about 14 years now. The somewhat lame methods she has employed to hide this are insulting at best.
This is an example of how lame Dreger gets.
In her slicing, dicing and rotating intersex on a spit speech she said:
“A couple of people at my Kinsey talk pressed me about the terminology and asked me to work more on trying to find a new, better term. What about, for example, "variations of sex development," as some have suggested? Honestly, I don't see that term flying in the medical system; I've asked about it, and it doesn't go anywhere. Part of the reasonable fear among medical professionals is over-de-pathologizing sex anomalies. . .”
Reasonable fear of de-pathologizing sex anomalies? Like what is that supposed to mean? That doctors are upset because some people object to terminology that in law allows the doctors to slice, dice and rotate children on a spit or something?
My personal opinion on that would be that as far as I am concerned the doctors can shove their pathologization where the sun does not shine, and such doctors deserve to be scratched off the medical registers they are on. The truth is I do not take too kindly to the notion that I can only expect a “little bit of depathologization”. But still hold the status of a lab rat.
It is nothing new. Look at the disgusting spectacle of Bailey when confronted with his saying transsexual folks were best suited for prostitution and Bailey defends himself with “I said especially suited to prostitution”. Then he digs himself into a deeper hole by saying “More so than genetic women”.
Meanwhile back to the latest gaffe, from Alice Dreger:
“Honestly, I don't see that term flying in the medical system; I've asked about it, and it doesn't go anywhere. Part of the reasonable fear among medical professionals is over-de-pathologizing sex anomalies. . .”
It would be interesting to see how Dreger could have that interpreted in any other way. Doctors like to regard people with sex anomalies as pathological (or scum?) and this is somehow to remain unquestioned. “Uh Duh” is the term that springs to mind. I mean does Alice Dreger really think that any of us are going to take her or Denise Tree seriously anymore?
You may think I am saying a few harsh words but to be perfectly honest, Alice Dreger is beginning to look like a big joke, making out that some of Bailey’s pet bullies are heroines and heroes of minority activism. While along with Bailey and others clocking up so many juicy gaffes it is unreal. The fact is that “Team Bailey” cannot hide their hatred, loathing and disgust towards various minority groups. Perhaps it would be a good idea to list all of their gaffes and see how they worm out of them, one by one, and see how much deeper they can dig the hole they are already in. You could in theory publish a reasonably sized book consisting of nothing more than the gaffes from Team Bailey, from Bailey’s classic “Would we force parents to have Jewish children” to Dreger’s pissing in the snow jokes at the Kinsey institute.
The truth is, it should not need some huge website like the one Andrea James has set up to see just how deranged the hatred towards different minority groups is on the part of Team Bailey. Nor is it particularly difficult to trace the tentacles of Team Bailey through so called activism. I suspect if Bailey conveniently dropped dead tomorrow the whole disgusting edifice would collapse. It is just so obvious, it does not need spelling out.
Footnotes:
(1) Here is the official announcement for the lecture in question: "No Matter How You Slice It? Parsing Intersex"
Nov. 12, 12 p.m.-1:15 p.m., Kinsey Institute Conference Room, Morrison Hall 2nd Floor, Bloomington -- Alice Dreger, Ph.D., associate professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University, will present "No Matter How You Slice It? Parsing Intersex." Is "intersex" a biological description or a political identity? A pathology, a variation, a human rights issue? And who belongs in and out of the category? This lecture will consider the many ways "intersex" has been constructed and deconstructed -- historically, medically, politically -- and will end with a suggestion of what makes the most sense today. For more information, contact jbass@indiana.edu.
Also see: Alice Dreger's blog states:
"Invited lecture, “No Matter How You Slice It? Parsing Intersex,” The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction, Bloomington, November 12, 2007."
(2) Dreger's blog entry about Kiira Triea is found at:
Andrea James' response:
See also: Defending Freedom of Academic Discourse and Denouncing the Abuse of Research Subjects/Case Studies
(4) Quote from Dreger's blog: "clinician and scholar Anne Lawrence, M.D., Ph.D. whose work has focused on improving healthcare for transgender women like herself"
(5) J Michael Bailey's Gay Eugenics Paper:
An analysis of this paper:
(6) 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.]
Double Standards and semi famous names Download pdf version: Click here
By Sophia Siedlberg
Copyright 2008 - February 19, 2008
One question worth asking about ISNA, the Intersex Society of North America, and the main players within it has been the issue of Medical History. To simplify this, two of the stated founders Cheryl Chase (1) and Kiira Trea (Denise Tree) have often been very strict about membership policies; in particular, they excluded anyone they considered may have a male to female transsexual history. At the same time there are often allegations aimed at these two in particular about whether or not they themselves have such a history. The responses have been vague at best. (2)
It is not so much the history as the hypocrisy. To draw a few examples, Ted Haggard a well known Evangelist spent years denouncing homosexuality only to get caught with his pants down with a rent boy. To a lot of people it is not so much what he got up to when no one was looking but his public face of blustering hellfire and damnation at gays while it turns out he was gay himself. I know there are complex debates like LGBT activists saying all Evangelists are really closet gays and the Evangelists just see what happened to Haggard as an opportunity for the LGBT crowd to stick the knife in and twist it.
To most reasonably unbiased people it is the hypocrisy that is often hard to swallow. In the UK the whole political system seems to be dogged with many cases of politicians getting caught doing something they should not be doing, but those who resign, put their hands up and say “I did it” and had no notable history of condemning what they did, tend to fare a lot better in public opinion. In the mid 1990’s the UK’s conservative party went on a huge “Back to Basics” campaign where they were planning to instill the message of “Family values” into the wayward population. Within months of this there were scandals appearing in the media that were so strange and numerous the Tory government of John Major suffered what could be described as the biggest landslide defeat in the history of UK politics.
This brings us back to ISNA as a political entity really. The point is, were ISNA more in the mainstream public eye and subjected to the same kind of public opinion that Evangelists and Politicians are, ISNA would have never gained the level of control it did over the intersex community.
With Tree and Chase there have often been conflicting stories about their history, often following the same pattern. “Assigned female after suffering bad surgery but were XX women” Followed with “Assigned male, but were really XX Women who were wrongly assigned male” to “XY women with something like AIS who were politically active lesbians”. And in Tree’s case “A Male to Female Transsexual who became a lesbian but was an Homosexual (Male) transsexual who must deal with older transsexuals who are not transsexuals”. Confused? You would not be alone. The list of names gets interesting as well, like Chase was Charlie Sullivan, then something else and eventually Cheryl Sullivan etc., etc. Tree is perhaps even more notorious for name changing.(2)
This point being that to be accepted into the ISNA “intersex club” one had to have been assigned female, preferably have been born female with an enlarged clitoris that was chopped up a bit, and not have chosen to become male, because all this was a lesbian and feminist issue. They were very narrow in defining what intersex is supposed to be. They even published statements like: “Anyone who is not within this tight category is really a transsexual seeking legitimacy”. It turned out that this was a Bailey Quote.(3) (Interesting)
This is the issue, if they acted like that in the public eye while being politicians or religious leaders, they would be in big trouble.
Why am I saying this? Well, it is Alice Dreger’s rather interesting way of documenting all this over time. For me the problem is that Alice Dreger points at the critics (mainly of Bailey) and constantly accuses them of lying. Lynn Conway and Andrea James who have over time also been documenting the antics of Bailey’s gang of control freaks are always accused of misrepresenting the facts and lying. But even Dreger has a very difficult time trying to keep the story consistent from where she is telling it. Andrea James and Conway, if they are out to “destroy Bailey” and the various plans of others involved, they really do not need to invest much effort in this. Because the interesting thing about this is that with Andrea James and Lynn Conway you tend to find that opinion takes the form of commenting on discussions between them and Team Bailey. The rest consists of what are now clearly documented events and facts. While some of the remarks could be seen as libelous or provocative, they are very clearly backed up with evidence. I said in Treestumps and Broomsticks that Andrea James had been quite brutal about Denise Tree, but the thing is there is still a lot of well documented evidence presented by Andrea James and Lynn Conway to back it up. Contrast this to Alice Dreger’s Blog. It is all opinion. In fact much of it is not so easy to verify.
With the TSRoadmap site you get the discussion, and then the opinion, and then the meticulously compiled proof which is often irrefutable. With Lynn Conway's site you get constant and again well documented updates to the ongoing debate about Team Bailey. Dreger on the other hand offers little or nothing to counter this. Her usual response is “I am an expert in intersex and the history of minorities and ethics, so I am right.” But even that is a bit lame, because while Alice Dreger loves to “Pull Rank” (As demonstrated in her arguments with Joelle Ruby Ryan), it is fair to say that Lynn Conway is a far more substantial academic than Dreger. And when you take a look at what Andrea James has been documenting, in clear and well organized detail, it makes Dreger’s responses look sloppy at best.
It is interesting to note that the work of the critics of Team Bailey looks more like an academic paper that is well researched and documented, while Alice Dreger’s Paper (About the reaction to Bailey’s writing) looks like a mix between Bailey defense and a rant.
I will admit now, that often when I myself write for the OII blogs and so on, I am not writing as an academic. I am just expressing my opinion and posing a lot of awkward questions. But in the last two or three years a pattern has been emerging. I find some evidence to question Team Bailey and then they refuse to respond or even become abusive. And then I go to the sites run by Andrea James or Lynn Conway and either the information is there, or there is something I can add to this body of information.
When about two years ago I started to look into this for myself, I did feel that it was six of one half dozen of the other. But when I did have questions to ask Alice Dreger (Who was the main face of Team Bailey) I would either get confusing responses or nothing at all. I even had to resort to a small degree of social engineering to get answers. Nothing. When I approached the other side of the debate, with Lynn Conway and Andrea James, they were much more open about things.
I decided to look into Alice Dreger’s claims in her blog entry “The Bog I write in fear” since I first commented on it when it first appeared. I have found that most of Alice Dreger’s comments about Andrea James were more or less fabricated. Aside from the angry email exchanges, there is little evidence to support Dreger’s claims. Interestingly Andrea James had published these email exchanges, in their entirety, warts and all. Even the now infamous “Womb Turd” quote appears on Andrea James’ site.
Dreger has not and probably will not publish the same because what is on Andrea James’ site is pretty much all there is to see of it. Dreger could not fabricate a few extra emails to make herself look good because that would be too obvious, even for her.
We are into double standards here. Dreger and Bailey and their little hive of bullies are always harping on about integrity and truth. They are always talking about being open as well. But all I ever get from Team Bailey is threats, lies, accusation, spin and fudge. On the other side of the coin, I don’t even have to talk to James or Conway, the information is there, warts and all and in the open.
So I am going to come to a conclusion that may upset Dreger quite badly. I do not see it as six of one and half dozen the other anymore. I approached this with an open mind. I admit I had my nagging doubt about