[untitled]
14 comments
About why article was censored, from author: https://www.thefp.com/p/trans-activists-killed-my-scientific...
From your link:
> My research has been denounced by people of all political stripes because I have never prioritized a favored constituency over the truth.
The author is J. Michael Baily, a psychologist known for the controversy surrounding his book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism", promoting his -now discredited- theory of autogynephilia, that transsexual women are either feminine gay men, or straight men with a fetish for seeing themselves transformed into women.
I read "The Man who Would Be Queen" when it first appeared, being curious to find out what the controversy was all about. At some point, the author is carrying out some research to identify feminine traits in gay male dancers and asks his son what he thinks of the research:
> My son was 10 years old when we began our dance study. One day I explained what we were studying, and I asked him why I might expect to find a high rate of gay male dancers. He immediately answered, “Because dancing is feminine, and gay men tend to be feminine.” I was pleased by his answer, which was also mine. It seemed to me that if a 10-year-old boy could come up with the hypothesis, then scientific reviewers of our study would not find it far- fetched. (Indeed, some of my friends made fun of me for studying something they already considered to be an obvious fact.)
The book is here:
https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/TMWWBQ...
And the comment is on page 69, in the chapter titled "Gay femininity".
That passage is a good example of the level at which the whole book is written, clearly aimed square at causing controversy of some kind, and completely lacking any kind of integrity or respect for its research subjects.
If he's getting his work denounced "by people of all political stripes" that is most likely not because he has "prioritized the truth" but because he is constantly trying to kick up a shitstorm, and getting on everybody's tits, to keep his career going.
> My research has been denounced by people of all political stripes because I have never prioritized a favored constituency over the truth.
The author is J. Michael Baily, a psychologist known for the controversy surrounding his book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism", promoting his -now discredited- theory of autogynephilia, that transsexual women are either feminine gay men, or straight men with a fetish for seeing themselves transformed into women.
I read "The Man who Would Be Queen" when it first appeared, being curious to find out what the controversy was all about. At some point, the author is carrying out some research to identify feminine traits in gay male dancers and asks his son what he thinks of the research:
> My son was 10 years old when we began our dance study. One day I explained what we were studying, and I asked him why I might expect to find a high rate of gay male dancers. He immediately answered, “Because dancing is feminine, and gay men tend to be feminine.” I was pleased by his answer, which was also mine. It seemed to me that if a 10-year-old boy could come up with the hypothesis, then scientific reviewers of our study would not find it far- fetched. (Indeed, some of my friends made fun of me for studying something they already considered to be an obvious fact.)
The book is here:
https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/TMWWBQ...
And the comment is on page 69, in the chapter titled "Gay femininity".
That passage is a good example of the level at which the whole book is written, clearly aimed square at causing controversy of some kind, and completely lacking any kind of integrity or respect for its research subjects.
If he's getting his work denounced "by people of all political stripes" that is most likely not because he has "prioritized the truth" but because he is constantly trying to kick up a shitstorm, and getting on everybody's tits, to keep his career going.
- "not because he has "prioritized the truth" but because he is constantly trying to kick up a shitstorm, and getting on everybody's tits, to keep his career going."
By using your rethoric I could say that you lack respect for him.
By using your rethoric I could say that you lack respect for him.
[deleted]
More from your link:
> This explains why my coauthor, “Suzanna Diaz,” doesn’t go by her real name. I don’t even know it, despite having met her in person once and spoken with her many times. She uses a pseudonym to protect her family, especially her daughter, whom Suzanna believes has ROGD. Suzanna isn’t an academic. She is a mother who has become an activist to raise awareness about this phenomenon, including by creating an online survey for parents who believed their children had ROGD. The survey was hosted by the website ParentsOfROGDKids.com. I was impressed with her findings and we decided to collaborate.
The coauthor of the retracted paper and the source of the data that caused the retraction is a pseudonymous activist. This alone is enough to explain why the editors of the journal would want to take a second look at the paper they had just published.
> This explains why my coauthor, “Suzanna Diaz,” doesn’t go by her real name. I don’t even know it, despite having met her in person once and spoken with her many times. She uses a pseudonym to protect her family, especially her daughter, whom Suzanna believes has ROGD. Suzanna isn’t an academic. She is a mother who has become an activist to raise awareness about this phenomenon, including by creating an online survey for parents who believed their children had ROGD. The survey was hosted by the website ParentsOfROGDKids.com. I was impressed with her findings and we decided to collaborate.
The coauthor of the retracted paper and the source of the data that caused the retraction is a pseudonymous activist. This alone is enough to explain why the editors of the journal would want to take a second look at the paper they had just published.
This is probably not a first amendment issue, however it’s a reminder that scientific journals can be biased in what is published regardless of the merit and/or lack of bias of the underlying research that is submitted for publication.
cogforn(1)
cogforn(1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_c...