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.]
For a list of articles by Sophia Siedlberg: Click here
