When I was South Carolina Coordinator for Lesbian Issues in NOW many years ago, I introduced a resolution at the state level in the National Organization for Women. That resolution which included trangender women made it clear that all women were to be part of the organization's membership and that all legislation that NOW would endorse must include all women. That resolution made it all the way to the National level and was passed. It is sad that some women still have less right to speak freely and lack equal protection under the law.
I received this e-mail from a woman who simply made a call for a paper. I wish to share this with all parties who support the right of all women to be heard. - Curtis E. Hinkle, Founder: Organisation Intersex International
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
My name is Joelle Ruby Ryan and I am currently a Ph.D. Student at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio. On Monday, September 17, 2007, I sent out my Call for Proposals to the Women’s Studies Listserv (WMST-L) looking for participants for my proposed panel “The Bailey Brouhaha: Community Members Speak Out on Resisting Transphobia and Sexism in Academia and Beyond.” You can read the full CFP as I have included it as an attachment. The panel, if accepted, will include community responses to the work of J. Michael Bailey and Alice Dreger at the National Women's Studies Association Conference on June 19- 22, 2008 in Cincinnati, Ohio. On September 19, Alice Dreger sent out an email to WMST-L plugging her upcoming appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show. I have been on the list for two years and never seen her post to the list before. She then sent out a second post to WMST-L on 9/19 in which she attacked me and my work. She said that my CFP was “laden with factual errors and misrepresentations about the history of the Bailey controversy and my work.” She proceeded to send readers to the pre-print of her article and to The New York Times piece about this case. She then had an exchange with intersex activist Emi Koyama. While they initially seemed to disagree, they ultimately came to a place of agreement on the following: “that she [Joelle Ruby Ryan] was putting herself at risk as a scholar working within a controversial field (trans issues) by tolerating tactics that breed fear and stifle academic freedom. [Presumably they mean the tactics of people like Conway, James and McCloskey.] I would add that one is not acting like a scholar when one repeatedly misrepresents facts and the work of other scholars, as Ms. Ryan did in her CFP.”
Needless to say, this whole ordeal has been upsetting and frightening. I am a junior scholar, an "out" and politically active transgender woman, from a relatively unknown academic institution. In one to two years, I will be on the job market attempting to secure an academic position, preferably in women’s/gender studies. This public trashing, by a senior scholar with a prestigious appointment at Northwestern University, clearly indicates the level of Dr. Dreger’s vituperative, spiteful and mean-spirited agenda. I was shocked to receive such ad hominem attacks against me and my work. While I certainly knew I was stepping into a controversial arena by proposing this panel, I certainly did not expect that my CFP would receive such hateful attacks by Dreger, nor that I would be warned by Dreger and Koyama about my proposed scholarship and told by Dreger that I was not “acting” like a
scholar because of my opposition to her one-sided hatchet job. At this time, I have not responded to the WMST-L exchange.
I am thankful for several people, including Mr. Curtis Hinkle and Dr. Lynn Conway, for their supportive emails and words of
encouragement. I considered withdrawing the CFP, but I realize now that having the panel is more important than ever. While
Dreger stresses the importance of academic freedom, why does she not extend that very freedom to me? Why does she use her
considerable power to trash an emerging trans scholar and graduate student who dares to disagree with her findings?
Dreger considers herself a friend/ally to the transgender/intersex communities. How does writing this biased article and impugning my CFP lend to the notion of her as a friend to our communities? In addition, Dreger seems to have no understanding of power differentials and how these operate in academia. Enough is enough! We must all speak back to the great damage she (and Bailey et. Al.) are inflicting against our community.
I encourage each of you to publicize this in any way that you can. Please consider adding a report of this latest outrage to your website. Speak about it in the trans/intersex/allied communities and speak about it on your radio program. Join
WMST-L and post to the list that you do not appreciate Dreger’s threatening activities. (To learn how to join WMST-L, see:
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/user-guide.html ) I would be happy to be interviewed or speak further with you
about this matter. And let’s make the panel be amazing! I envision myself as moderator and four panelists. I will look
into having the session videotaped and to having a large room so we can have a lot of attendees. After being pushed to the
ground by academic pit-bull Dreger, I feel like I am now getting up, dusting myself off, and looking for ways to fight for justice. I thank you all in advance for creative ways to address this continually-evolving case.
Sincerely,
Joelle Ruby Ryan
Email: joeller@bgsu.edu
Documentation follows:
CFP: Bailey Controversy (10/29/07; NWSA, 6/19/08-6/22/08)
The Bailey Brouhaha: Community Members Speak Out on Resisting Transphobia and Sexism in Academia and Beyond
For this panel, I invite individuals to submit abstracts who are interested in presenting papers about the controversy surrounding J. Michael Bailey and his theories regarding the lives and identities of transgender/transsexual women. While Bailey’s book The Man Who Would be Queen was released in 2003 to overwhelmingly negative reviews, the book caused a stir for its assertion that trans women can be split into two groupings: “homosexual transsexuals” and “autogynephilics.” Trans activists and allies mobilized and took Bailey to task for his bogus claims and helped to document a compelling case against him. Many considered it an open-and-shut case until the 2007 appearance of an article by Bailey colleague and intersex researcher Alice Dreger, who published a lengthy apologia for Bailey in the Archives of Sexual Behavior and castigated trans women activists for their attempts at “ruining” Bailey.
Possible paper topics may include (but are not limited to):
•
The colonization of trans bodies and identities by non-trans academics
The colonization of trans bodies and identities by non-trans academics •The invisibility of transpeople in academia
The invisibility of transpeople in academia •The vital importance of resisting “Master Narratives” like those produced by Bailey, Dreger et. Al.
The vital importance of resisting “Master Narratives” like those produced by Bailey, Dreger et. Al. •The role of “Science” in perpetuating transphobia and sexism
The role of “Science” in perpetuating transphobia and sexism •The mobilization by the trans community post-publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen as a unique liberatory project in the history of transgender activism, including the Internet and the blogosphere
The mobilization by the trans community post-publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen as a unique liberatory project in the history of transgender activism, including the Internet and the blogosphere •An analysis of the work performed by specific trans advocates in the wake of the Bailey fiasco, such as Andrea James, Lynn Conway and Deirdre McCloskey
An analysis of the work performed by specific trans advocates in the wake of the Bailey fiasco, such as Andrea James, Lynn Conway and Deirdre McCloskey •(dis)similarities between The Man Who would be Queen and Janice Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire
(dis)similarities between The Man Who would be Queen and Janice Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire •How the discourse of Bailey, Dreger et. Al. helps to further a chilly climate for transpeople in academia and in society as a whole
How the discourse of Bailey, Dreger et. Al. helps to further a chilly climate for transpeople in academia and in society as a whole •The sexism in J. Michael Bailey’s book The Man Who Would Be Queen
The sexism in J. Michael Bailey’s book The Man Who Would Be Queen •The interrelationship between misogyny, heterosexism and transphobia
The interrelationship between misogyny, heterosexism and transphobia •Bailey’s connection to eugenics and reparative therapy and its impact on trans communities
Bailey’s connection to eugenics and reparative therapy and its impact on trans communities •Bailey’s alleged research misconduct, including sex with a trans woman research subject
Bailey’s alleged research misconduct, including sex with a trans woman research subject Proposals should be submitted via e-mail to Joelle Ruby Ryan (joeller@bgsu.edu) no later than Monday, October 29, 2007. Please include a 250-500 word proposal description, a brief bio and a 50-100 word abstract and the following info:
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Address
Phone
Email
Email Exchange from WMST-L: For the facts about this erroneous history: Click here
First Email to WMSTL by Alice Dreger: Sept. 19, 2007:
On Monday, Joelle Ruby Ryan posted a CFP for the NWSA meeting for a session called "The Bailey Brouhaha: Community Members Speak Out on Resisting Transphobia and Sexism in Academia and Beyond." Ms. Ryan's call contains a number of interesting questions, but is, unfortunately, laden with factual errors and misrepresentations about the history of the Bailey controversy and my work. Those who wish to read my scholarly history of the matter can find a preprint at:
http://bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/work/dreger/controversy_tmwwbq.pdf
I also encourage interested women's studies scholars to consider the call for commentaries on the work:
http://bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/work/dreger/controversy_tmwwbq_cfc.pdf
Archives of Sexual Behavior will publish my paper, commentaries, and my response to the commentaries in mid 2008. I'm gratified that over 60 scholars from diverse fields have already expressed interest in providing commentaries on it. I hope Women's Studies scholars will be represented among them. In this work, I trace what happened to Bailey, a sex researcher who said some politically unpopular things.. What happened to Bailey was shocking and important enough that my findings were covered in the
New York Times a few weeks ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/ health/psychology/21gender.html I encourage scholars in Women's Studies to read my paper because I think they are in danger of similar things happening to them, since they often say politically unpopular things.
Alice Dreger, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics
Feinberg School of Medicine
Northwestern University
personal website: www.alicedreger.com
program website: www.bioethics.northwestern.edu
a-dreger@northwestern.edu
Response to Dreger by Emi Koyama: Sept. 20, 2007:
Alice,
On Sep 19, 2007, at 6:40 PM, Alice Dreger, Ph.D. wrote:
> In this work, I trace what happened to Bailey, a sex researcher who said some politically unpopular things..
[snip]
> I encourage scholars in Women's Studies to read my paper because I think they are in danger of similar things happening to
> them, since they often say politically unpopular things.
As someone who has been wrongly associated with Bailey and received some of the nasty attacks due to my supposedly unpopular position (see <http://eminism.org/archive/2007/05/10-8.html>, <http://eminism.org/archive/2007/04/25-5.html>), I would still caution this equation of attacks against Bailey with those often faced by Women's Studies scholars.
There is definitely a difference between members of a marginalised group (transsexual people) overreacting (however excessively) to an "expert" whose publications about them are perceived to reinforce the oppression against them and therefore as a threat to their lives, and the sort of backlash from the dominant group often experienced by Women's Studies scholars for exposing and confronting oppressive institutions.
Emi Koyama <emi@eminism.org>
http://eminism.org/
Response by Alice Dreger: Sept. 20, 2007
I respectfully disagree, Emi, both as a feminist scholar who is now being attacked (in truly weird ways, I must say) for her scholarship on this and as someone who believes there are, in fact, key similarities between what happened to Bailey and what sometimes happens to Women's Studies scholars who expose and confront oppressive institutions. In both cases, there are profound misrepresentations by "critics" about the work of the scholar and, in both cases, claims about identity are taken as being more important than indisputable facts. In both cases, "critics" have tried to get the scholars' institutions to censure and censor them. I do think that Women's Studies scholars are more likely than, say, straight white male scientists, to be attacked via these methods, and that's why urge them to be aware.
To state the obvious, marginalization doesn't make you right, any more than being in power makes you right. – Alice Dreger
Response by Emi Koyama: Sept. 20, 2007
Alice,
I don't think we disagree, or at least what you wrote below doesn't contradict anything I've said. I stated that they are similar but not the same, and you are saying that they are similar, which I am not disputing.
Being marginalised doesn't make one's behaviours right--and I've never suggested that it did--but it does call for some empathy, especially when the person doing the judging isn't part of that marginalised group.
Just so you know, I challenged Joelle's characterisation of your work when it came up on another list (trans-academics), and told her that she was putting herself at risk as a scholar working within a controversial field (trans issues) by tolerating tactics that breed fear and stifle academic freedom. I don't disagree with you at all here. I'm just concerned that you do not seem to recognise the important difference between a marginalised group overreacting to outside "experts" and the dominant group silencing inconvenient scholarship.
- Emi Koyama emi@eminism.org
Final response by Alice Dreger: Sept. 21, 2007
Emi,
You're right -- we agree. (I.e., there is certainly a difference between a marginalized group and a dominant group in these situations.) Below is a relevant excerpt from my article, evidencing our agreement.
I also appreciate your advising Joelle Ruby Ryan " that she was putting herself at risk as a scholar working within a controversial
field (trans issues) by tolerating tactics that breed fear and stifle academic freedom." I would add that one is not acting like a scholar when one repeatedly misrepresents facts and the work of other scholars, as Ms. Ryan did in her CFP.
Thanks very much, Emi.
Alice
Academic Attack Against Transwoman by Alice Dreger
Response from the Organisation Intersex International - United Kingdom
I have gone through Dreger's post and Joelle's CFP, and here is a draft response:
Dreger:
> In her CFP posted to this list (which I'll attach below), Ms. Ryan explicitly accuses me of producing "a lengthy apologia for Bailey"; this claim (that what I've produced is an apology for or defense of Bailey) is not true.
Joelle:
> Many considered it an open-and-shut case until the 2007 appearance of an article by Bailey colleague and intersex researcher Alice Dreger, who published a lengthy apologia for Bailey in the Archives of Sexual Behavior and castigated trans women activists for their attempts at "ruining" Bailey.
Whether it is an apologia or not is a matter of dispute, not truth. It certainly reads like an apologia, focussing on the 'sins' of Bailey's critics, and virtually ignoring Bailey's own part in the drama.
Dreger:
> but it matters very much to my reputation, especially because her CFP accuses Bailey of having a "connection" to eugenics and reparative therapy for gay people.
Joelle:
> Bailey's connection to eugenics and reparative therapy and its impact on trans communities
Bailey:
> Is the enterprise of, say, prenatal genetic selection to determine children's characteristics (whatever they might be) morally wrong? It is difficult to see why.
> That the mechanism involved happens to be of a newer, more "technological," or more physically invasive nature, such as prenatal genetic selection by means of abortion, has no apparent moral import.
Wikipedia:
> Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.
> Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering.
What is normally understood by eugenics as ‘genetic selection’ is eugenics used as shorthand for state eugenics, popular in the USA and parts of Europe before the mid 20th Century, and some parts of Europe into the late 20th Century. Bailey in discussing genetic selection is discussing eugenics, because that is what eugenics is, but a particular instance of individual eugenics – rather than the more familiar generalised state eugenics.
If his doing this is harmful to Dreger, it is not the fault of those who point this out, but is due to her association with him. That is her responsibility, not that of her critics.
The connection to reparative therapy is clear, regardless of any intention for this or not, because people motivated by religion such as Paul McHugh have already argued the case for prevention of treating transsexuals using reassignment utilising very similar arguments to those of Blanchard and Bailey. Bailey’s writing in this area may well encourage an approach that places religious arguments above those of science in determining treatment for people with transsexual issues. Such approaches usually entail substituting reassignment with reparative therapy, despite a legacy of failure dating back to the 1950’s. Bailey himself might not state that he would wish this, but that has no bearing on whether people might use his work that way. I am certain that a eugenicist would not wish his ideas to be associated with the irrationality of a religious approach like reparative therapy; however, that not does not prevent such people using his ideas to support their views.
Dreger:
> of "allegedly" committing research misconduct, and of having had sex with a trans woman research subject.
Joelle:
> Bailey's alleged research misconduct, including sex with a trans woman research subject.
Dreger:
> (None of that about Bailey is true, by the way, as I show in my article, with documentation. But it continues to damage his reputation, and now mine by the equation of my reputation with this straw man.)
Whether it is true or not is not determined by whether Dreger thinks it is true, nor even whether she thinks she has proven it to be true. She has merely published a paper arguing it is not true, using evidence she has selected and attributed weight to (or not) at her discretion. The whole point is that whether it is ‘true’ or not is itself contested, by her; it’s being true or untrue remains contested, however much she might wish she could have the final say on the matter. The paper is as yet unpublished, un-reviewed, un-commented-on, and even then will probably still be contested. Hence, what Joelle said is correct: alleged misconduct (in terms of research ethics and sexual ethics) accurately describes the situation.
What damages her reputation is not the challenge to her engagement with this debate, but her selection of material and whom she believes – the word of an academic over that of a transsexual witness; the slippage over timings and dates on the part of the one she appears to defend (if she is not defending, why take his word over that of a transsexual witness?); the presentation of comments in ways that do not accurately reflect testimony; the pursuit of one agent for interview to the point of being accused of stalking when ‘no’ was not taken as an answer; failing to try and interview another agent, so that when a business card with an invitation to interview her was left at Dreger’s place of work this was met with an accusation of ‘stalking’ by herself. It all suggests a very selective approach to this whole affair, and one in which the central figure comes out appearing cleaner than anybody else. Thus, it reads like a whitewash. That may open her up to criticisms about professional conduct herself, but that would be because of how she has gone about this, not because people wish to defame her.
Dreger:
> She also claims that I am guilty of "creating Master Narratives" that harm trans people.
Joelle:
> The vital importance of resisting "Master Narratives" like those produced by Bailey, Dreger et. Al.
Well, Bailey is about this “master narrative”; this is simply because it is about his telling transsexuals what they are, regardless of what they think about themselves. He is dictating their identities regardless of how they conceive their own identies; their constructions of identity are dismissed as not worth considering. Dissent is met by accusations of being lairs and autogynephiles, usually by his cronies hanging around blogs and lists. These are very dirty tactics, very political; if trans trans people step out of line, the all-masculine bullyboys arrive to straighten them out (or the hyper-feminine HSTS ‘types’). By defending Bailey’s right to pursue his "master narrative" discourse (he knowing the truth about transsexuals better than lying transsexuals know the truth about themselves) then Dreger is defending the "master narrative" discourse.
Dreger, has produced her own "master narrative", but not for transsexual people; she has done this for intersex people, by helping redefine intersex as “disorders of sex development”; the "master narrative" discourse has been operationalised in exactly the same way there as it has since she became involved in the Bailey affair: cronies silencing opponents, calling them names (usually ‘transsexual’, which has been used as a term of abuse by some intersex people against intersex people with the wrong type of intersex history for some years now). That is all about Dreger knowing intersex people (and what is good for them) better than intersex people know themselves; in the process she has claimed to be an intersex activist (and from this comes her ‘authority’ in the Bailey affair), however, she has actually operated as an intersex counter-activist, and in the process ripped the intersex movement apart.
> These libelous (false and damaging) claims clearly have potential to damage my reputation.
They are clearly not libelous, as they are all either sustainable or address contested points (not facts); what damages her reputation is the fact that she has opened herself up to these claims by her own activity and associations.
What I find the most interesting comment of all follows, because this appeal to reason has appeared before. Despite so little actual reason (in terms of rational argument and logic) being used, Dreger is keen to stop people talking to people who disagree with her because they are ‘unreasonable’ (I know of at least one intersex activist was warned not to speak to anybody in OII opposing 'DSD' because of their being unreasonable). Just as Bailey and Dreger appear to have a tenuous grip on facts (that is, facts equate to that which fits in with their way of thinking), a selective approach to truth (that is Bailey’s ‘truth’ and Dreger’s ‘truth’ being all important, but not their critic’s ‘truth’, which has to be silenced), so too this is applied to reason:
> Reason has not worked to bring many of Bailey's critics around to facts.
Strange, if this were about reason and fact, you would expect people to have accepted this; however, this is not about facts, but interpretation of facts, nor about reason, but Dreger and Bailey’s views on what is reasonable.
> Many of the same critics are now mine, and I have tried reason.
Well, no, she has tried to get people to believe her, and failed, this has been backed up with people on various lists and blogs attempting to bully people into submission, all of whom have remained civil to the point of receiving abuse (in stark contrast to the way people have been portrayed by Dreger herself); that is not reason. If reason had been applied, then there might have been a different outcome, but it is the distinct lack of reason; the threats and intimidation, the barring of some academics from lists like Sexnet, curtailing access to the listserve these comments were made on if people challenged Dreger... all this leads some of us to persist and maintain this challenge all the more. If it seems ‘bad form’ to take a discussion of a listserve like this – how much worse is it for a closed group to discuss the issues of a minority they do not represent, and maintain exclusion and silencing of the group under discussion? Nothing good can come out of such discussions for the minorities concerned when they are excluded from those discussions. That is how the lies perpetuated on Sexnet by some intersex activists can find their way into Bailey’s book cited yet never critically scrutinized.
If this were about reason, Dreger would not need to threaten a junior academic’s career, then threaten a libel case where there is clearly no libel, simply because she did not roll over when threatened.
We are not the same critics she refers to as Bailey’s critics; we are only interested in Bailey because she became involved. Initially our challenge was over 'DSD', but was ignored, so now we focus on her latest project, bringing the trans community into line with regard to Bailey. If she herself had been willing to engage her own critics in rational discourse, then reason might have applied and prevailed; but she did not do that, instead she locked them out of discussion in the same way Bailey did with Sexnet and with critics of his book. Reason, like truth and fact, becomes a rhetorical device with which to attack her opponents, it becomes shorthand for what she has to say; rejection of what she has to say becomes 'unreason'.
Dreger equates reason with accepting her point of view - these are not the same thing, and it is a very bizarre use of the word 'reason'. It politicizes reason to be what conforms to Dreger’s ideology.
> A lot of scholars (including several ethicists I saw at ASBH this past weekend) have outright begged me to move on to lawsuits, not so much for myself as to protect other scholars from similar future smear campaigns like the one I document in my article. I am tempted to follow their advice and donate all the resultant funds to the AAUP and the ACLU, both of which have done excellent work to protect academic freedom.
If she does, and part of me wishes she would do this instead of making threats, then she will wind up looking pretty foolish and creating publicity that will damage her, Bailey, the academic, trans as well as intersex communities, because her paper reads somewhere between a 'he said - she said' TV reality talk show and a trashy conspiracy novel. There was no conspiracy, people simply did not like Bailey’s book because it was wrong. Some of the reaction to that was unacceptable, but so is maintaining the focus on what one person said as if that was the whole matter; if somebody says stuff they know is going to be controversial and upset people, being an academic is not going to get them off the hook for that. Look at James Watson, who last week said Africans were genetically mentally disadvantaged, and had to cancel his UK book-launch tour because of the outrage. This was justified, because he was wrong, not simply for saying it, but because it was scientifically wrong. There are consequences in life, and if you say something is scientifically true when it is contested, and popularise this, shit happens. Being an academic does not make somebody invulnerable to criticism in very robust ways, especially when they get it wrong.
> throughout this whole experience so many people seem to agree with what I'm saying but are afraid to say anything publicly.
Really? I have yet to meet a single person in my country who is trans and agrees with Bailey; but I have met academics who are alarmed by what happened to Bailey, and the possible repercussions for their own careers. My own position is that I have seen this process applied unjustly against my former supervisor (now deceased) because of something she wrote many years ago about transsexuals; I defended her against her accusers successfully. So, I am a card-carrying defender of writer of a paper alleged to be transphobic. In her case, in my view, the criticism was unfair - but there are times when the criticism is right (Bailey, Raymond, Chilland, etc.). We hear about these invisible people who support Bailey (and now Dreger); usually from Dreger, Bailey, Treia, Lawrence and Arune. I would love to figure a way we could ‘prove’ this.
So far, I have only found 10% of all intersex people I’ve surveyed agree with the DSD consensus – so I guess I could say I have far more people who tell me that they agree that what Dreger did to the intersex movement was wrong, and support our opposition to it. No way to prove or disprove either contention. But, Dreger ignores opposition to ‘DSD’ as something to with being unreasonable – so I’ll just do the same with her allegation that there are a few people who support what she is saying about Bailey, I’ll dismiss it as irrelevant.
> I understand why -- you'll immediately be labeled anti-trans and have a webpage devoted to you on Andrea James's site. Still, this system of intimidation seems to be working at a level that is very disconcerting.
While the alternative is? Being labelled 'transsexual' by intersex activists like Kiira Treia, so that transphobic people in the intersex community shun you? Or being labelled 'autogynephilic liars' by the likes of Willow Arune so that anything you say is deemed not worth listening to? It is six of one and half a dozen of the other from where I am standing. That is the nature of intersex/trans politics - I don't like it, but it is the reality; it is no good her getting involved in intersex counter-activism and then shifting across to trans counter-activism and when she gets responded to in the robust ways people tend to respond crying 'academic freedom'. It just doesn't work like that, she can't expect to get her hands grubby in intersex and trans politics and come out smelling of roses simply because her only authority for being there is a PhD, a visiting lecturing post, a couple of books and a handful of papers to her name.
I don’t care about James myself: I don’t know her, and she doesn’t know me; I’m not bothered by her one bit, and she has no bearing on what I do or do not say. I think Dreger invests her with a power beyond credibility, verging on paranoia. But, clearly she is concerned with what James writes; so why does Dreger not deal with her, rather than picking on junior academics who dare to criticise her?
The answer may be one she won’t like – it could be because she hoped that a junior academic would just roll over in the same way so many in the intersex community seemed to; James has already shown she fights back (and fights dirty too). That speaks to me of a bully, not a defender of academic freedom.
> Incidentally, Emi, I would advise you not give into the language of "Bailey Brouhaha." It trivializes the very real harm done to many people -- including many people of sexual minorities -- in this matter. (I explain this in my article.)
Then finishing off with a warning to Emi to fall into line. I agree this matter should not be trivialized, but I am not sure we would agree who has done the harming, and what that harm is. I don’t think that pretending Bailey was innocent of any wrongdoing in this helps to clarify the seriousness of it at all. The defence of freedom to speak scientific truth while dismissing criticism of his being unprofessional because what he published was not science so that it did not come under scientific research protocols in a way that meant he could ride roughshod over his participants confidentiality and wishes – that is hardly a serious argument, now is it? Either it was academic science, and he fucked up, or it was not, and academic freedom doesn’t enter into it. Reason suggests it has to be one or the other – or does Dreger reason mean reason needs to be bent to make it fit for purpose? Would that be a queer approach to reason she is using? Bending reason to suit her needs?
There is an extreme hypocriticality in this discussion - the defence of some freedom of speech (Dreger’s, Bailey’s) on the one hand, but the curtailing of the freedom of others to speak. The way this is exercised substantiates the allegation that what is being engaged in is a “master narrative”. Dreger is allowed to speak, and so is Bailey, but not those who lack power yet presume to speak - they will be silenced. This is the same justification used for the enforced acceptance of “DSD” upon the intersex community: intersex people lacked power, medical practitioners were all powerful, so intersex people had to bend to the power discourse of medical practice - which is of course the ultimate master narrative in intersex people's lives, a relationship of complete domination and subjection.
What we witness in this discussion is not reason, not even the queering of reason, bending truth to Dreger’s purpose – the “master narrative” comes close, but is an exercise in the discourse of power. Dreger speaks this power discourse at every point – in bending the intersex movement to the will of medical experts in ‘DSD’, and now she engages in pwer discourse with threats and intimidation against junior trans academics in the same ways we have seen this power discourse directed against more established trans academics on other lists and blogs. This whole debate is about power, in a very Foucauldian sense, who has it, who lacks it, who should have it, and who shouldn’t have it. Those who believe it is rightfully theirs began to lose that power, now they are claiming it back. Unfortunately, there are those whose power is not derived from position, wealth or status – and our power can not be taken from us as easily as theirs. The power of wisdom, knowledge and understanding always overcome the necessities of temporal power.
How Dreger can defend the way Bailey has treated these women is beyond me – and why people on a women’s studies list-serve would want to support Dreger defending a man who considers people’s suitability as a type of transsexuality by whether he and his male assistant would fancy them is beyond me completely; this is a man who considers some types of women as being ‘especially well suited for prostitution’. Dreger should be ashamed of herself, and wake up while she still has a career left, rather than digging herself ever deeper. To those who encourage her, all I can say is look at these women as women, and not as transsexuals, and see how you would feel if Bailey was writing this stuff about you - about determining whether you are good enough to be categorized as a certain type of woman by how sexy you look, and whether you are more likely to want to have sex with a man or a woman. Because that is what it boils down to.
If you are happy about that, then when he or somebody else starts writing papers defending sex based selection for male foetuses, categorising women according to how useful they are in terms of servicing men, or whatever other sexist, racist, homophobic nonsense gets thought up next, those of us still around might just shrug and say - so what do we care? Nobody cared when Dreger brought in a terminology that would scare most parents into aborting intersex foetuses, nobody cared when Bailey promoted the ethics of individualist eugenic selection against homosexuality, nobody cared when transsexual women were cast as being exclusively either homosexual or autogynephilic men to the delight of rednecks.
That is the rhetorical part of my piece, but it finishes with this: given what these two people have achieved in terms of counter-activism in the intersex, gay and trans communities to date, while stating they advocate for those communities, why would I believe what either of them says about the affair covered in Dreger's paper?
