Tag: Alice Dreger

  • A huge intellectual dead-end

    Meghan Murphy has thoughts on Everyday Feminism’s ridiculous withdrawal of Alice Dreger’s article, calling it news from the modern day witch hunt.

    I don’t use the term “witch” lightly here. The McCarthyist campaign against women, particularly, who fail to toe the party line when it comes to feminism and gender is very much comparable to the witch hunts that extended throughout much of the 20th century. Women are quite literally being silenced and persecuted for speaking out against a kind of dogma that naturalizes the idea that innate gender identity exists from birth, as well as for the crime of understanding that, historically, women’s oppression has been directly attached to their female biology.

    As feminists and as critical thinkers, it is our responsibility to push back against the silencing and censorship of women’s voices. It is neither wrong, nor dangerous, to question the idea of innate gender identity or the existence of a gender binary, created and enforced through patriarchy. It is unacceptable that a purportedly feminist publication would buy into and support this kind of smearing, which only serves to further entrench a culture of fear, effectively discouraging their young readers from thinking for themselves and exploring ideas critically.

    Damn right.

    I think the culture of fear is starting to erode though. There are too many of us pushing back now for it to continue to thrive.

    Emily Nussbaum for one:

    This is ridiculous & infuriating & a huge intellectual dead-end.

    Helen Lewis:

    Women still have to fight so hard to be heard. I hate the idea that one controversial opinion gets you cast out.
    It’s BS. It’s wrong but it’s also harmful: it makes journalism & debate & feminism itself more paranoid & narrower.

    @evrydayfeminism is so wrong! A movement without room for @alicedreger is so much the poorer. @helenlewis

    Mind you, there is a school of thought that says Everyday Feminism is just a long-form parody.

  • Everday Patriarchalism

    Hoo-boy – it’s Alice Dreger’s turn again. Everyday Feminism asked her if they could republish a popular article of hers, she let them, they posted it – and then they unposted it. I bet you can guess why – no that’s silly, guessing has nothing to do with it. We know how things go right now, without guessing. Alice tells the story:

    A few months ago, the blog site Everyday Feminism contacted me because they wanted to reprint my wildly popular essay, “What If We Admitted to Children that Sex is Primarily about Pleasure?”

    I wrote back with some terms. They had to credit Pacific Standard for making the essay go viral. They had to mention my two most recent books. And they had to pay me a little something.

    I should have known this was going to be a bad experience when the editor contacting me told me that “we may also make changes to the content, particularly changing the wording to be inclusive.” Really—I was going to be policed for inclusivity, huh? In response to this, I required that they get my permission before changing anything. . . .

    Frankly that would make me want to tell them oh no you won’t, you can’t republish it after all. But Alice is much nicer than I am.

    So they republished it, and then whammo, it disappeared. Alice guessed the reason, and she was right.

    Today by email, from Josette Sousa, Program Coordinator for Everyday Feminism, when I wrote to ask “wtf”:

    What happened was that we decided to pull the article from circulation shortly after it went up. When we asked permission from it we weren’t aware of some of the articles you’ve published on trans issues and after a reader brought it to our attention and we looked into them. We then realized that while we very much valued the information in the article on teaching children that sex is about pleasure, the views expressed in several of your other articles directly conflicts with the work we’re trying to do in Everyday Feminism. For that reason, we decided to pull the article.

    So supposedly something I’ve written about trans issues is so terribly offensive, Everyday Feminism doesn’t dare publish a piece by me on talking to your kids about sex!

    Censorship atomic bomb style.

    Everyday Feminism is a bad joke.

    A number of my fellow feminists have pointed out that today, women like me can subject to silencing simply on the basis that they have supposedly said something that is anti-trans rights, even if they have not. Anyone so labeled also gets labeled a “TERF”: trans-exclusionary radical feminist.

    I’ve pointed out repeatedly that I’m no such thing. Take this article, for example (from a decade ago!). Take this report I helped author. Take this book I co-edited.

    But it does no good. Because as soon as you assert anything that someone with the trans identity card claims is anti-trans, you are stripped of your rights to be a sex-positive feminist talking about sex ed at a feminist website. At least in the case of “Everyday Feminism.”

    Well, once they tell you, you know.

  • So many stand on the sidelines

    Alice Dreger on Twitter:

    This is not a healthy intellectual climate. A political movement that can demonize and lie about an academic of Alice Dreger’s caliber is not going to lead us to a better world.

  • “This formidable group of advocates”

    Dana Beyer rejoices at destroying academic careers.

    Twelve years ago the Lambda Literary Foundation (LLF), which awards prizes to the best in LGBT writing, fiction and non-fiction, nominated the most scurrilous work of pseudo-scientific transphobic trash ever printed, The Man Who Would be Queen, by Professor J. Michael Bailey. I’ve written extensively about this book, as have many of my trans colleagues. The publication of the volume by the Institute of Medicine created a backlash and led to the formation of a coalition of activists which managed to get its views known at a time when we were not being heard. Led by Professor Lynn Conway, this formidable group of advocates not only tarnished the book and its supporters, but also forced the removal of the book from consideration by the LLF and derailed the academic career of Dr. Bailey.

    Boast boast boast.

    Unfortunately, a form of dementia appeared to have settled on the LLF now in 2016. The current group of judges nominated a book that defends a book that its predecessors had decided was transphobic more than a decade ago.

    Today the sycophant in question is Alice Dreger, author of Galileo’s Middle Finger. I critiqued this book when it was first published last spring, yet the judges of the LLF seems not to have read either my column or any of the others published in the same time frame.

    The self-importance is almost as staggering as the malice. Why should the LLF have read Beyer’s column? But it gets worse. It gets stomach-turning.

    Given the degree of progress made by the trans community in the past decade, this choice of the Dreger book seems all the more spiteful. Or, in the service of not ascribing malice when ignorance or laziness is just as likely, I will accuse the panel of laziness. It is, however, hard to believe that in the context of the Foundation’s recognition of the explosive growth in trans-related literature, that such a dubious text could get past their first line of defense.

    It’s a brilliant book. It’s also responsible, sourced, carefully argued – it’s a book by an academic who knows how to write an intellectually respectable book. It’s not “dubious” just because Dana Beyer dislikes it.

    However – and here is the good news – institutions, like people, can recognize their mistakes, and communities, like the trans community, can mobilize and persuadethose in error to rectify their mistakes. It can even be done behind the scenes in a professional manner.

    Today, the board of Lambda Literary sent out an email to the coalition of trans advocates and allies who had united in opposition to the Dreger nomination:

    After thoughtful, serious, and full consideration, Lambda Literary has rescinded the nomination of Galileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science from the LGBT Nonfiction category of the 2016 Lammys.

    The nomination process did not include full vetting of all works to be certain that each work is consistent with the mission of affirming LGBTQ lives.

    Lambda Literary will strive to improve the nomination process and work to maintain the highest standards in the awards nominations, recognizing literature that contributes to the preservation and affirmation of LGBTQ culture, and which honors LGBTQ lives.

    That is completely disgusting. Beyer’s jeering is even more so:

    There will, of course, be a backlash. Alice Dreger, with her long-time supporter at the LLF, Victoria Brownworth, and their allies in the trans-hating radical lesbian community (aka the TERFs), will explode. They’ve had a bad year, with reparative therapy being condemned by everyone from the White House to the Province of Ontario, home of the notorious gender clinic of Dr. Ken Zucker.

    There is one important thing to note. While Dreger has every right to write what she wants, and to get it published by finding a publisher that provides no scientific oversight, she has no constitutional right to receive an award.

    This isn’t “progressive” in any sense. This is a reactionary mafia, and it’s foul.

  • Stuck on the belief that truth will save you

    Alice Dreger has, with effort, learned to accept that historians are always too late with advice; people don’t listen until after it’s all over.

    A group of transgender activists has achieved a major victory—the shutting down of the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). Even better from their point of view, they got the head of it, psychologist Ken Zucker, fired.

    The activists didn’t like Zucker because he never did subscribe to the “true transgender” model of identity, wherein you simply accept what any child (no matter how young) says about his or her gender. The transgender activists who called for his ouster insisted that Zucker was doing “reparative therapy,” trying to talk children out of being transgender when they “really” were.

    I don’t doubt that these particular transgender adults look back and see that, from very early on, they had been assigned a gender that didn’t make sense for them. The mistake they make is then to assume that every child who expresses doubt about his or her birth gender assignment should simply be “affirmed” by parents and clinicians in their “new” gender.

    It’s the other minds problem, as always. You can’t ever know that other people are thinking exactly what you thought in what you take to be the same situation. You just can’t. It’s all guesswork and extrapolation, and it’s inherently fallible.

    This is an unbelievably simplistic understanding of what’s going on with these children. Yes, some of them will grow up to be transgender; Zucker and others have documented that, over and over again. But if history is a guide, the majority will not. Trying to make sure they all get the best care they need is the goal of clinics like Zucker’s, as well as the clinics run by other good folks at the children’s hospitals of UCLA, Northwestern, Seattle, and on and on.

    Why not just go ahead and transition everyone who expresses doubt about his or her birth gender assignment? Because physical transition is a big deal. On the other hand starting early with kids who won’t later regret it is much better than waiting. There are reasons both ways. That’s why it’s important to get it right.

    For many years, there was pretty heavy medical gatekeeping around sex reassignment. This had some to do with homophobia, heterosexism, and so on, and some to do with defensive medicine (fear of being sued if a patient later regretted transitioning). Today, the pendulum has swung really hard in the other direction. It is now much, much easier for children, adolescents, and adults who signal that they are transgender to gain access to social gender changes, hormone therapies, and sex changing surgeries. This has a lot to do with political rejection of homophobia, heterosexism, transphobia and so on, and some to do with defensive medicine (fear of being attacked as anti-transgender).

    In other words, it’s still pretty damned political. Whereas before, some people who would have benefitted from transition were denied it, today some people who might benefit from alternative clinical help (alternative to transition) are effectively denied that help and are instead being “treated” with transition.

    Dreger links to people who have later changed their minds about transitioning.

    There are more and more of these, and they are typically not written by people who are anti-transgender by any means. They are written by people who realize transition isn’t what they needed after all. They are written by people who urge caution.

    Many people today are afraid to urge caution, because when you do, you get labeled anti-trans, and sometimes coopted by genuinely anti-trans people. But some people are willing to talk in private or to speak pseudonymously. So, earlier this year for WIRED magazine, I interviewed a thirty-something woman I called Jess. She had been a gender nonconforming female child and was skeptical about sending children too quickly down the road of transition.

    Today, in the clinics presumably the transgender activists want, a gender nonconforming, gender-questioning child like Jess would simply be transitioned over and sent out into the world. But Jess told me that, today, “I’m very happy having the body I have, with just some changes in how I express it.” She identifies as a genderqueer gay person with a female body (the body type she was born with), and works on LGBT rights issues professionally. She’s not anti-trans.

    Not a bad outcome, is it?

    The transgender activists who demanded and ultimately achieved the shut-down of Zucker’s CAMH clinic said that Zucker’s approach was full of stigma. That’s because he didn’t simply “gender affirm” every child that came by. He worked with them to figure out what they needed psychologically. For some, that was transition. For others, it was coming to see that you could be gender nonconforming without changing your sex, or dealing with depression or bi-polar disorder, or dealing with the mental health needs of parents who were not well enough to really care for their children as their children deserved. It was a pretty idiosyncratic approach, designed to help each individual child be the most healthy in the long run, no matter which label she or he came to inhabit. Again, for some children, that meant transition (becoming “T”), and for those children, Zucker arranged puberty-blocking hormones and then hormonal and surgical transition.

    The trouble is, Zucker didn’t do the community education and outreach that was needed.

    I so wish Zucker had done the “community education” that this review called for. Now it is too late. For years, I and others advised Zucker to be far more proactive in terms of the politics in which he was caught—to reach out to the public to directly engage them in conversation about the methods and reasoning of his clinic’s approach, the same approach used in many top clinics around the world. As late as this summer, I gave him a lot of the advice I also recently gave to the International Society for Intelligence Research about how to work to protect yourself in politically difficult fields (see video).

    But Ken seemed to believe that he didn’t need to deal with the activists coming after him. He disregarded my repeated advice. As a consequence, what has happened to him reminds me very much of what happened to Napoleon Chagnon, as recounted in chapters five and six of Galileo’s Middle Finger. It’s the Galilean personality, stuck on the belief that truth will save you. Wrong. The Church of True Gender doesn’t give a crap what science shows.

    But people don’t listen to historians until it’s too late.

  • Just because a colleague is engulfed in smoke

    In Galileo’s Middle Finger, one of Alice Dreger’s subjects is the stitch-up of the anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon and the geneticist James Neel by Patrick Tierney in his book Darkness in El Dorado and then by the American Anthropological Association which held a special session at its annual meeting with an open mic at which people were invited to trash Chagnon and they obliged. Dreger found overwhelming evidence that “the leaders of the AAA had to have known early on that Tierney’s book was riddled with errors” [p 175]. She quotes an email from one of the people in charge of the stitch-up, Jane Hill, to the primatologist Sarah Hrdy, who was invited to participate but declined:

    Burn this message. The book is just a piece of sleaze, that’s all there is to it (some cosmetic language will be used in the report, but we all agree on that). But I think the AAA had to do something because I really think that the future of work by anthropologists with indigenous peoples in Latin America – with a high potential to do good – was put seriously at risk by its accusations, and silence on the part of the AAA would have been interpreted as either assent or cowardice. Whether we’re doing the right thing will have to be judged by posterity. [p 177]

    Wow. They knew the accusations were bullshit, but they backed and amplified them anyway, for the good of Anthropology.

    Dreger gave a presentation on the whole mess to a group of evolutionary psychologists and evolutionary anthropologists. One of the things she told them sounded familiar to me:

    I suggested they support one another when baseless charges were thrown about, and not assume that just because a colleague is engulfed in smoke, that he or she has actually set a fire. [p 181]

    Good advice.