Justus For All

J. Michael Bailey - Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege - New York Times

Earlier this month, members of the International Academy of Sex Research, gathering for their annual meeting in Vancouver, informally discussed one of the most contentious and personal social science controversies in recent memory.The central figure, J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University, has promoted a theory that his critics think is inaccurate, insulting and potentially damaging to transgender women. In the past few years, several prominent academics who are transgender have made a series of accusations against the psychologist, including that he committed ethics violations. A transgender woman he wrote about has accused him of a sexual impropriety, and Dr. Bailey has become a reviled figure for some in the gay and transgender communities.

The story is a pretty interesting one.  I have absolutely no opinions on whether Dr. Bailey’s theory, which in essence is that some people who become transgendered do so out of an erotic fascination with themselves as women.  This of course may be wrong.  However, I think it pretty safe to say that human sexuality and gender even in its more common forms of expspression is pretty poorly understood.  That of course means that Bailey might be right.  Further, it seems to me that it isn’t a crime, or even a moral failing for Dr. Bailey to be  ‘wrong’ unless it can be shown that shown that he is deliberately fabricating evidence or purposely twisting that evidence in some fashion.  Many very great scientists have been wrong, being wrong is part of the territory in doing science.

It is of course unarguable that any topic as personal as this one can be ‘damaging’ to people.  We all construct our mythical view of the world and our place in it, and anything that threatens those myths (and I don’t mean ‘myth’ as necessarily false) can indeed be painful.  There is no way to alter our basic paradigms of how the world works (and even less how we work) without causing pain, and altering those paradigms, destroying our personal myths as it were, is what science is all about.  It is extremely troubling when the fact of pain being caused is taken as proof that the science must be both incorrect and unethical.

The fallout of this controversy is also troubling.  The article talks about some pretty extreme forms of harassment including likely false charges of sexual misconduct and the posting of pictures of Dr. Baileys middle school aged children with sexually suggestive captions.   It seems that those that oppossed this research managed to very effectively create a climate of fear and intimidation amongst those who might otherwise support the integrity of the research, something that I think is very troubling.

To sum up, here is a quote from the article by Alice Dreger who conducted a lengthy review of Dr. Bailey’s actions:

If we’re going to have research at all, then we’re going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we’ve got problems not only for science but free expression itself.