Book Nomination
Kristal
_The Man who Would be Queen_.
I and many people find this book transphobic. The nomination is
offensive to me on those grounds.
I also find the book homophobic, and offensive to women among
other people. The methodology seems flawed to the point of nonexistence
in some points.
A question the nomination raises with me is why would a gay
organization nominate a homophobic book for an award. It is like the
NAACP nominating _The Bell Curve_ for an award. I think the book was
discussed here previously. Also now that I think of it why would a
organization representing LGBT people nominate a transphobic book for an
award.
Here is the complete list of nominations for this year:
http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=9&id=2051
Here is the book itself:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309084180/html/R14.html#pagetop
Kristal
Scott Safier
> A question the nomination raises with me is why would a gay
> organization nominate a homophobic book for an award.
After reading the reviews on Amazon, the answer is obvious. While
some people do agree with you, others do not. Regardless of personal
views of this book, Bailey is a well known and respected researcher.
--
Scott http://www.pink-triangle.org/scott
AOL IM: CorwinScot YahooIM: CycleMuscle
"Stand firm for what you believe in until or unless logic or experience prove
you wrong. Remember, when the emperor looks naked the emperor is naked. The
truth and a lie are not sort of the same thing. And there's no aspect, no
facet, no moment of life that can't be improved with pizza." -- Daria
Kristal
triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
> Kristal:
> > A question the nomination raises with me is why would a gay
> > organization nominate a homophobic book for an award.
>
> After reading the reviews on Amazon, the answer is obvious. While
> some people do agree with you, others do not. Regardless of personal
> views of this book, Bailey is a well known and respected researcher.
You are missing the point. Whether he is well known or respected
or not if the subject matter is homophobic than a LGBT organization
should not give the book an award nomination. An advocacy organization
can make value judgements.
Transphobia and homophobia are not personal issues otherwise there
would be no LGBT organizations everything would be handled on an
individual level this is not the case.
So there are two questions is he well known and respected and is
he homophobic. A third is whether he is transphobic. Someone can be well
known and respected and be a bigot. I would have thought this is
obvious.
Kristal
Arnold Zwicky
kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> writes about the nomination, for
a lambda literary award, of The Man Who Would Be Queen:
> I and many people find this book transphobic. The nomination is
>offensive to me on those grounds.
joan roughgarden is appalled by it. to get into the roughgarden vs.
bailey/levay loop, google on roughgarden bailey or roughgarden levay,
and follow the links. quite a display of nasty scholarly invective on
all sides.
>... The methodology seems flawed to the point of nonexistence
>in some points.
it's mostly extended anecdotes, with heavy interpretation. the
research on the gay voice cannot be interpreted from the information
in the book and hasn't been published. (there's something of real
interest in there, but you can't tell from what bailey wrote in the
book.)
zotling
Scott Safier
> In article <slrnc4782j...@pong.telerama.com>, scott@pink-
> triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
>> Kristal:
>> > A question the nomination raises with me is why would a gay
>> > organization nominate a homophobic book for an award.
>>
>> After reading the reviews on Amazon, the answer is obvious. While
>> some people do agree with you, others do not. Regardless of personal
>> views of this book, Bailey is a well known and respected researcher.
>
> You are missing the point. Whether he is well known or respected
> or not if the subject matter is homophobic
in your opinion -- others opinions differ -- THAT is the point.
> than a LGBT organization
> should not give the book an award nomination. An advocacy organization
> can make value judgements.
I suggest you read the ethisist in this week's Time's magazine. He
answers this point quite well.
> Transphobia and homophobia are not personal issues otherwise there
> would be no LGBT organizations everything would be handled on an
> individual level this is not the case.
> So there are two questions is he well known and respected and is
> he homophobic.
His is homophobic IN YOUR OPINION. If memory serves, I believe he is
gay and openly so. His research has never been homophobic, although
I'm sure he does subscribe to a particular line of psychological
study.
> A third is whether he is transphobic. Someone can be well
> known and respected and be a bigot. I would have thought this is
> obvious.
Unless you have met him, all you can say for sure is that you view
this writing, which I assume you have read, is transphobic. Of
course, this is your opinion. As I have pointed out, others opinions
apparently differ. Just as you have your opinion, they are allowed to
have theirs.
Scott Safier
> it's mostly extended anecdotes, with heavy interpretation. the
> research on the gay voice cannot be interpreted from the information
> in the book and hasn't been published. (there's something of real
> interest in there, but you can't tell from what bailey wrote in the
> book.)
I haven't read the book, nor do I know if the book is published as a
scholarly work or whether it is geared toward a more untrained
audience. Your comment that there doesn't seem to be any footnootes
or references in the book does seem to true from the reviews I read.
Kristal
triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
> > than a LGBT organization
> > should not give the book an award nomination. An advocacy organization
> > can make value judgements.
>
> I suggest you read the ethisist in this week's Time's magazine. He
> answers this point quite well.
Answer the point yourself or give a URL.
> If memory serves, I believe he is
> gay and openly so.
As far as I can tell he is not. His website describes him as
married to a woman for 15 years and having two children and that is it.
> > A third is whether he is transphobic. Someone can be well
> > known and respected and be a bigot. I would have thought this is
> > obvious.
>
> Unless you have met him, all you can say for sure is that you view
> this writing, which I assume you have read, is transphobic.
If his writing is transphobic he is transphobic. He describes his
research as validating gay stereotypes. I would think it would be
obvious that a gay organization would not want to encourage stereotyping
gays. Would the NAACP encourage stereotyping blacks?
Kristal
Kristal
triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
> I haven't read the book, nor do I know if the book is published as a
> scholarly work or whether it is geared toward a more untrained
> audience. Your comment that there doesn't seem to be any footnootes
> or references in the book does seem to true from the reviews I read.
If your knowledge of the book is so limited that you are not aware
whether it has footnotes or references than why don't you actually look
at the book:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309084180/html/215.html#pagetop
This is a complete copy of the book.
Kristal
Brian Vogel
>
> If his writing is transphobic he is transphobic. He describes his
> research as validating gay stereotypes. I would think it would be
> obvious that a gay organization would not want to encourage stereotyping
> gays. Would the NAACP encourage stereotyping blacks?
Again we have on display the attitude that observable
phenomena should not be documented/discussed if it happens
to find some stereotype(s) to be true.
What rubbish.
Brian, who doesn't think that many (not all)
stereotypes remain in cultural currency
because there's "not a shred of truth to them"
Kristal
voge...@SPAMyahoo.CRAPcom says...
> Again we have on display the attitude that observable
> phenomena should not be documented/discussed if it happens
> to find some stereotype(s) to be true.
>
> What rubbish.
>
Fuck you. Among Bailey's ideas is that transsexuals do not have a
sexual orientation other than attraction to men. I know that is
bullshit. I know that is transphobic. Fuck your objectivity. I bet you
are not as tolerant with people who want to prove that no man is
attracted to other men and that gay men can be transformed into straight
men via therapy.
Kristal
Brian Vogel
> In article <1047qqq...@corp.supernews.com>,
> voge...@SPAMyahoo.CRAPcom says...
>
>> Again we have on display the attitude that observable
>>phenomena should not be documented/discussed if it happens
>>to find some stereotype(s) to be true.
>>
>> What rubbish.
>>
>
>
> Fuck you.
Ah, reasoned argument.
> Among Bailey's ideas is that transsexuals do not have a
> sexual orientation other than attraction to men. I know that is
> bullshit. I know that is transphobic. Fuck your objectivity.
While yours is so prominently on display.
> I bet you are not as tolerant with people who want to prove that no man is
> attracted to other men and that gay men can be transformed into straight
> men via therapy.
Actually, I simply dismiss them as wrong. Simple
observation confirms that.
I have no need to waste my time or energy on railing
against something so easily disproven by simply looking around.
Brian
Kristal
voge...@SPAMyahoo.CRAPcom says...
>
> Actually, I simply dismiss them as wrong. Simple
> observation confirms that.
>
> I have no need to waste my time or energy on railing
> against something so easily disproven by simply looking around.
If I am in a community that believes that I am not biologically
capable of feeling attraction to members of the same sex due to who I am
and that community is the GLBT community than I am effectively isolated
in dealing with my sexuality. I have to deal with those issues alone.
Right now I think I have to deal with those issues alone that I will
never experience that part of coming out and having people accept my
sexuality. Instead I will have to prove the contention that Bailey's
thesis is false that I am not capable of feeling attraction to females.
That will be added to the burden that I have to prove my legitimacy as a
female in the first place. That is added to other pressures including
society's hatred of gays and society's hatred of transsexuals and
society's hatred of women.
This is something I have to face that other people don't.
Kristal
Ellen Evans
Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> wrote:
[]
> If his writing is transphobic he is transphobic.
And I think the point Scott was making was that by putting it this way you
are begging the question of whether or not his "writing is transphobic".
This is not a given - it's the sort of assertion that you would have to a)
make, b) define in some meaningful way, and c) demonstrate that the
writing, in fact, fits that definition. And you would also have to be
able to deal, on the level of evidence and persuasion, with the fact that
other people, not idiots, do not agree with your evaluation.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Get your Ellenwear at http://www.cafeshops.com/ellexia
All the cool kids are doing it.
Michael Palmer
zwi...@Turing.Stanford.EDU (Arnold Zwicky) wrote:
>in article <MPG.1aad34bd3...@news.compuserve.com>,
>kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> writes about the nomination, for
>a lambda literary award, of The Man Who Would Be Queen:
>
> > I and many people find this book transphobic. The nomination is
> >offensive to me on those grounds.
>
>joan roughgarden is appalled by it. to get into the roughgarden vs.
>bailey/levay loop, google on roughgarden bailey or roughgarden levay,
>and follow the links. quite a display of nasty scholarly invective on
>all sides.
Oh my. They're even nastier than Classicists!
--
Michael Palmer
Claremont, California
mpa...@panix.com
Brian Vogel
> In article <10481av...@corp.supernews.com>,
> voge...@SPAMyahoo.CRAPcom says...
>
>> Actually, I simply dismiss them as wrong. Simple
>>observation confirms that.
>>
>> I have no need to waste my time or energy on railing
>>against something so easily disproven by simply looking around.
>
>
> If I am in a community that believes that I am not biologically
> capable of feeling attraction to members of the same sex due to who I am
> and that community is the GLBT community than I am effectively isolated
> in dealing with my sexuality.
You are making the mistake of generalizing the beliefs
stated in the writings of one person to "the community." Just
from the brief discussions that have occurred here it is clear
that this generalization is not a safe one to make.
> I have to deal with those issues alone.
This isn't meant as snide, but we all do. Support
can help, but ultimately this is something resolved within
the self. The recent dust-up in these parts regarding
how "out" a poster was/could be considered as being by
self and by others demonstrates this.
> Right now I think I have to deal with those issues alone that I will
> never experience that part of coming out and having people accept my
> sexuality.
A sad conclusion that I think you're premature to jump to.
> Instead I will have to prove the contention that Bailey's
> thesis is false that I am not capable of feeling attraction to females.
Do you really think that one man's writing, particularly
one as controversial as this one, is going to become "the
community standard" against which all are judged? I don't.
Your feelings and opinion are clear and you're entitled
to them. Others are free to differ about their feelings and
opinions. That doesn't mean that they "buy everything" that
either you or Bailey writes. I'd say most people live lives
that involve way more nuance and gray area than that.
Brian
Linda Yanney
>zwi...@Turing.Stanford.EDU (Arnold Zwicky) wrote:
>>kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> writes about the nomination, for
>>a lambda literary award, of The Man Who Would Be Queen:
>>
>> > I and many people find this book transphobic. The nomination is
>> >offensive to me on those grounds.
>>
>>joan roughgarden is appalled by it. to get into the roughgarden vs.
>>bailey/levay loop, google on roughgarden bailey or roughgarden levay,
>>and follow the links. quite a display of nasty scholarly invective on
>>all sides.
>
>Oh my. They're even nastier than Classicists!
The evil meanies are (drum roll): ``a smug elite of old-guard gay men and
lesbian-feminist book pundits.''
I'm shocked.
LJ
--
Scott Safier
> In article <slrnc47l4i...@pong.telerama.com>, scott@pink-
> triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
>> > than a LGBT organization
>> > should not give the book an award nomination. An advocacy organization
>> > can make value judgements.
>>
>> I suggest you read the ethisist in this week's Time's magazine. He
>> answers this point quite well.
>
> Answer the point yourself or give a URL.
You don't know the new york times's url? you can't search for a
weekly column in their magazine? what a shame.
> If his writing is transphobic he is transphobic. He describes his
> research as validating gay stereotypes. I would think it would be
> obvious that a gay organization would not want to encourage stereotyping
> gays.
He is a social psychologist. They study stereotypes and
sterotype-theory. He does not describe his research as "validating"
gay stereotypes. instead he says:
"Stereotypes about homosexual people include sex-atypical occupational
and recreational interests, superficial aspects of behavior such as
movement and speech, and in the case of lesbians, physical
appearance. My lab is examining the validity of these stereotypes. If
they are true, on average, it will then be important to determine
whether they represent innate or social causation (or both)."
Note the words "if they are true". "examining the validity" is
different than "validating". And note: I can find a URL ALL BY MY
SELF! Maybe you should learn that trick.
Scott Safier
> Fuck you. Among Bailey's ideas is that transsexuals do not have a
> sexual orientation other than attraction to men.
Gee, that's not the way I read what he says in this published paper...
http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/Publications/
Chivers%20et%20al%20(final).pdf
Scott Safier
> In article <slrnc47lb4...@pong.telerama.com>, scott@pink-
> triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
>> I haven't read the book, nor do I know if the book is published as a
>> scholarly work or whether it is geared toward a more untrained
>> audience. Your comment that there doesn't seem to be any footnootes
>> or references in the book does seem to true from the reviews I read.
>
> If your knowledge of the book is so limited that you are not aware
> whether it has footnotes or references
which part of "from the reviews I read" don't you understand?
Arnold's statement is echoed in those reviews.
Kristal
> And I think the point Scott was making was that by putting it this way you
> are begging the question of whether or not his "writing is transphobic".
> This is not a given
It has to be a given for transsexuals to be accepted in the LGBT
community. He has to realize that it is his obligation to deal with his
bigotry. Because I can't.
People have been arguing about this for decades. Everything
possible that could be done has been done.
I know that as a transsexual I am attracted to women. If anyone
has any doubts about this the research they could do is obvious.
Transsexuals have been lesbians and bisexuals for ever. And there has
been a reaction against them as lesbians forever.
If a methodology disregards the subjective feelings of a group of
people than what is required is not factual refutation but dealing with
underlying bias against those people that continually resurfaces.
Kristal
Kristal
voge...@SPAMyahoo.CRAPcom says...
> This isn't meant as snide, but we all do. Support
> can help, but ultimately this is something resolved within
> the self. The recent dust-up in these parts regarding
> how "out" a poster was/could be considered as being by
> self and by others demonstrates this.
You are wrong. If there is doubt here about whether I am attracted
to the same sex then my interactions here would be like yours in a
meeting of the family research council. To use your example about being
out in the view of a lot of people I have no business being out because
I am mistaken about my sexuality because by my very nature as a
transsexual I am incapable of being attracted to motss.
This book is going to be a bad thing for transsexuals it is going
to be a endless source of soundbytes reinforcing stereotypes denying our
common humanity with the rest of the human race. It is also going to be
a source of soundbytes denying the common humanity of gay men.
The transsexuals who object to this book aren't stupid. Those who
support the book are using it to validate their own feelings that people
who are different from them are subhuman.
Kristal
Scott Safier
> In article <c219ps$mo6$1...@panix2.panix.com>, je...@panix.com says...
>> And I think the point Scott was making was that by putting it this way you
>> are begging the question of whether or not his "writing is transphobic".
>> This is not a given
>
> It has to be a given for transsexuals to be accepted in the LGBT
> community. He has to realize that it is his obligation to deal with his
> bigotry. Because I can't.
Bailey has an obligation as a scientist to design studies that test
hypothesis and publish the results accurately and in a way that the
studies can be replicated and tested. He has no obligation to make
any group accepted in any other group.
> If a methodology disregards the subjective feelings
In his research, he is looking for objective measures.
Scott Safier
> The transsexuals who object to this book aren't stupid.
You have yet to answer the question of whether or not you yourself
have read the book.
Kristal
triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
>
> Bailey has an obligation as a scientist to design studies that test
> hypothesis and publish the results accurately and in a way that the
> studies can be replicated and tested. He has no obligation to make
> any group accepted in any other group.
But an advocacy organization for LGBT people does have an
obligation to make T people fit in an LGBT group or else it is not an
advocacy organization for LGBT people. The nomination of the book for an
award is failure to do this. That is a separate issue. You are focusing
one the issue of objectivity and I am focusing on the issue of advocacy.
Kristal
Scott Safier
> In article <slrnc49ceb...@pong.telerama.com>, scott@pink-
> triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
>>
>> Bailey has an obligation as a scientist to design studies that test
>> hypothesis and publish the results accurately and in a way that the
>> studies can be replicated and tested. He has no obligation to make
>> any group accepted in any other group.
>
> But an advocacy organization for LGBT people does have an
> obligation to make T people fit in an LGBT group or else it is not an
> advocacy organization for LGBT people.
Only if your position were accepted by everyone. It apparently is not.
Lambda Literary's mission is: "to support and further the creation and
dissemination of writings by, for, and about the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender community."
> The nomination of the book for an
> award is failure to do this.
In your opinion.
>That is a separate issue. You are focusing
> one the issue of objectivity and I am focusing on the issue of advocacy.
And after reading Bailey's site at
http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversy.htm
i see nothing blatantly transphobic in his writing. I do see him
following a particular line of research and testing particular ideas.
Simply because these ideas are controversial does not invalidate the
book nor the research.
I see nothing in Lambda Literary's mission that they should censor
their choice of book because some people disagree with the writings or
because those writings are controversial. In fact, I would commend
Lambda Literary for promoting the dialog about issues raised in this
book. Promoting dialog is a form of advocacy.
Jack Tar
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:35:42 +0000 (UTC), in soc.motss,
> zwi...@Turing.Stanford.EDU (Arnold Zwicky) wrote:
[snip]
> >joan roughgarden is appalled by it. to get into the roughgarden vs.
> >bailey/levay loop, google on roughgarden bailey or roughgarden levay,
> >and follow the links. quite a display of nasty scholarly invective on
> >all sides.
>
> Oh my. They're even nastier than Classicists!
Even nastier than rec.music.classical?
E J L
Ellen Evans
Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> wrote:
>In article <c219ps$mo6$1...@panix2.panix.com>, je...@panix.com says...
>> And I think the point Scott was making was that by putting it this way you
>> are begging the question of whether or not his "writing is transphobic".
>> This is not a given
>
> It has to be a given for transsexuals to be accepted in the LGBT
>community.
Well, it isn't a given that anybody is "accepted" anywhere, but that's not
the point here. What is not a given is whether or not "his writing is
transphobic". You have not established that as a fact, or even as a
well-argued proposition. Until you do, what you are writing is just
noise.
Brian Vogel
> In article <10490dg...@corp.supernews.com>,
> voge...@SPAMyahoo.CRAPcom says...
> > This isn't meant as snide, but we all do. Support
> > can help, but ultimately this is something resolved within
> > the self. The recent dust-up in these parts regarding
> > how "out" a poster was/could be considered as being by
> > self and by others demonstrates this.
>
> You are wrong.
No, you are incoherent. The context in which this reply
was made was (it followed the final line):
------------------------Context--------------------------------------
> If I am in a community that believes that I am not biologically
> capable of feeling attraction to members of the same sex due to who I am
> and that community is the GLBT community than I am effectively isolated
> in dealing with my sexuality.
You are making the mistake of generalizing the beliefs
stated in the writings of one person to "the community." Just
from the brief discussions that have occurred here it is clear
that this generalization is not a safe one to make.
> I have to deal with those issues alone.
-----------------------End Context------------------------------------
If you honestly think that anyone other than yourself
can ultimately bring you to some sort of internal sense of
peace, contentment, closure, pick your "state of resolution"
regarding *your* sexuality then you are very sadly mistaken.
Support *may* help (but it doesn't always) and it
certainly isn't what ultimately resolves things.
> If there is doubt here about whether I am attracted
> to the same sex then my interactions here would be like yours in a
> meeting of the family research council. To use your example about being
> out in the view of a lot of people I have no business being out because
> I am mistaken about my sexuality because by my very nature as a
> transsexual I am incapable of being attracted to motss.
*NON SEQUITER*. No one has told you anything about
your personal feelings. No one has said that Bailey is
right, right, right.
You've got your knickers in a knot because your experience
doesn't agree with what he says. As far as I know neither his
"fame" or influence is wide enough to matter much at all.
I reviewed some of the things that "Google" out from
the battles that Arnold Zwicky referred to in the context
of this thread. It appears to be a classic case of the
level of acrimony being so high because the stakes are so
damned small.
> This book is going to be a bad thing for transsexuals it is going
> to be a endless source of soundbytes reinforcing stereotypes denying our
> common humanity with the rest of the human race. It is also going to be
> a source of soundbytes denying the common humanity of gay men.
Odd, but it hasn't been. It's not as if this book is in
any sense new to publication. The reaction to it by the bulk of
the world has been, "Yaaaaaawwwwwn."
> The transsexuals who object to this book aren't stupid. Those who
> support the book are using it to validate their own feelings that people
> who are different from them are subhuman.
Uh huh.
Brian
Brian Vogel
I hate when I fail to make intended corrections.
I blame Mr. Coren's typist.
Scott Safier
> Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1aae475eb...@news.compuserve.com>...
>> In article <10490dg...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> voge...@SPAMyahoo.CRAPcom says...
>> > This isn't meant as snide, but we all do. Support
>> > can help, but ultimately this is something resolved within
>> > the self. The recent dust-up in these parts regarding
>> > how "out" a poster was/could be considered as being by
>> > self and by others demonstrates this.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>
> No, you are incoherent. The context in which this reply
> was made was (it followed the final line):
> ------------------------Context--------------------------------------
>> If I am in a community that believes that I am not biologically
>> capable of feeling attraction to members of the same sex due to who I am
>> and that community is the GLBT community than I am effectively isolated
>> in dealing with my sexuality.
>
> You are making the mistake of generalizing the beliefs
> stated in the writings of one person to "the community." Just
> from the brief discussions that have occurred here it is clear
> that this generalization is not a safe one to make.
Actually, from what I have read on Bailey's site, he hasn't said this at all.
>> If there is doubt here about whether I am attracted
>> to the same sex then my interactions here would be like yours in a
>> meeting of the family research council. To use your example about being
>> out in the view of a lot of people I have no business being out because
>> I am mistaken about my sexuality because by my very nature as a
>> transsexual I am incapable of being attracted to motss.
>
> *NON SEQUITER*. No one has told you anything about
> your personal feelings. No one has said that Bailey is
> right, right, right.
Bailey doesn't say this as near as I can tell. What Bailey does is
take the work of someone else, adopt that theory, develop experiements
to test the theory and then talk about the results (and that the
experimental results support the theory).
>> The transsexuals who object to this book aren't stupid. Those who
>> support the book are using it to validate their own feelings that people
>> who are different from them are subhuman.
>
> Uh huh.
And what about the transexuals who support this theory? Damn, what
happened to that monolith?
Ellen Evans
Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> wrote:
>In article <slrnc49ceb...@pong.telerama.com>, scott@pink-
>triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
>>
>> Bailey has an obligation as a scientist to design studies that test
>> hypothesis and publish the results accurately and in a way that the
>> studies can be replicated and tested. He has no obligation to make
>> any group accepted in any other group.
>
> But an advocacy organization for LGBT people does have an
>obligation to make T people fit in an LGBT group
FSVO "fit in".
>or else it is not an
>advocacy organization for LGBT people. The nomination of the book for an
>award is failure to do this.
Only if the book is "transphobic", something that you have a) yet to
define, b) yet to show that the writing demonstrates, and c) yet to
provide cogent responses to those not stupid people who disagree with your
evaluation.
You can declare all sorts of things. You might be right or you might be
wrong. But until you provide your readers with clear argument and useful
evidence, we have no reason in the world to assume the former rather than
the latter.
Leith Chu
> Kristal:
>>In article <slrnc47l4i...@pong.telerama.com>, scott@pink-
>>triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
>>>answers this point quite well.
>> Answer the point yourself or give a URL.
> You don't know the new york times's url? you can't search for a
> weekly column in their magazine? what a shame.
I don't think a reference to "Time's magazine" is sufficient information
for anybody participating in an international forum, such as soc.motss,
to be able to intuit that the specific reference is to the New York Times.
I have no opinion on the topic in question, however, since I know jack
shit about the book and author in question.
Leith
Mike McKinley
Everyone here is oppressing me!
Scott Safier
> Everyone here is oppressing me!
if you weren't so owrinkled, we wouldn't feel the need to oppress you.
Kristal
triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
Have you read the book in question? I have I want to make sure we
are really arguing about something.
Kristal
Kristal
vog...@yahoo.com says...
> *NON SEQUITER*. No one has told you anything about
> your personal feelings. No one has said that Bailey is
> right, right, right.
>
Have you read the book in question? I have. I think there is a lot
there that is offensive. I can't be a member of a community of motss
people who have fundamental doubts about my being able to be attracted
to members of the same sex. There is no problem with my sexuality but
with other people not being able to accept my sexuality. People have to
say Bailey is wrong, wrong, wrong or else my sexuality and hence my
right to be in the community is in doubt in their minds. They can
believe what they want but when they question my right to be part of
their community they will treat me differently and I have to acknowledge
that.
Kristal
Kristal
Kristal
triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
> Bailey doesn't say this as near as I can tell. What Bailey does is
> take the work of someone else, adopt that theory, develop experiements
> to test the theory and then talk about the results (and that the
> experimental results support the theory).
Have you read the entire book? In my opinion there is a lot there
that is offensive but I am not sure if I am disagreeing with people
simply because they have not seen it.
Kristal
Kristal
> You can declare all sorts of things. You might be right or you might be
> wrong. But until you provide your readers with clear argument and useful
> evidence, we have no reason in the world to assume the former rather than
> the latter.
Have you read the complete book. I have and as I have said there
is a lot there that is offensive.
One example of many: The author doubts the existence of male
bisexuals. Giving an award to a book that questions the existence of
male bisexuals is obviously making it difficult for male bisexuals to be
accepted in the LGBT community.
I could give a lot of examples like this.
Encouraging stereotypes is bad. People want to cling to them.
And you do not want people to cling to them.
You do not want to have people believe that gay men are incapable
of child raising and monogamy when you are trying to fight an amendment
to the constitution banning gay marriage. Stereotypes are not neutral in
this case and this is one of the stereotypes that the author of the book
supports in the book. When you nominate the book for an award you
validate the stereotype and you make it harder to fight legal sanctions
such as the ban on gay marriage.
Kristal
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> This book is going to be a bad thing for transsexuals it is going
> to be a endless source of soundbytes reinforcing stereotypes denying our
> common humanity with the rest of the human race. It is also going to be
> a source of soundbytes denying the common humanity of gay men.
I wouldn't worry too much, Kristal. This book has been being discussed since
it came out and most people find it sloppy and more or less without credible
methodology. Bailey may have done substantive work before but no one I've
talked to thought this was at all convincing. I don't know why it was
nominated for a Lambda Literary award.
Gwendolyn
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> This book is going to be a bad thing for transsexuals it is going
> to be a endless source of soundbytes reinforcing stereotypes denying our
> common humanity with the rest of the human race. It is also going to be
> a source of soundbytes denying the common humanity of gay men.
I wouldn't worry too much, Kristal. This book has been being discussed since
Kristal
I do not know why it was nominated. It has been important in my
life to separate sexual orientation and sexual identity. The book tends
to encourage the stereotype that all people who transition early are
attracted to men. The assumption may cause problems for those who are
young and considering transition when they encounter stereotypes
contrary to their actual experience. That said I am going to stop
discussion here for a while. I will be away from the keyboard soon and
will remain so until late next week so I will probably not be seeing
this thread for the next week or so.
Kristal
David W. Fenton
news:MPG.1aae99027...@news.compuserve.com:
> One example of many: The author doubts the existence of male
> bisexuals.
Would a scientist talk about "doubt" or, instead, about what has
been demonstrated scientifically in regard to the occurence of
bisexuality in males?
If you have a quibble with the science, then bring up the reasons
why the studies involved were invalid badly designed.
But just not liking the conclusion of the studies is not itself
worth mentioning.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
David W. Fenton
news:slrnc49rct...@pong.telerama.com:
> Mike McKinley:
>> Everyone here is oppressing me!
>
> if you weren't so owrinkled, we wouldn't feel the need to oppress
> you.
I thought NASA had fixed it's owrinkle problems.
David W. Fenton
news:MPG.1aae97407...@news.compuserve.com:
> Have you read the entire book? In my opinion there is a lot
> there
> that is offensive but I am not sure if I am disagreeing with
> people simply because they have not seen it.
Specific examples from the book, with an explanation of what you
find offensive and why, would help your argument immensely.
David W. Fenton
news:MPG.1aae96c3...@news.compuserve.com:
> Have you read the book in question? I have.
Maybe you have poor reading comprehension?
Absent quotations from the book and extended explication of your
criticisms of those quotations, how are we to know that you are
reacting to an accurate reading of the book in question?
Brian Vogel
> Bailey has an obligation as a scientist to design studies that test
> hypothesis and publish the results accurately and in a way that the
> studies can be replicated and tested.
And that's only if he's doing that kind of research.
Descriptive research has been discounted, and quite unfairly
in my opinion, by a substantial number of the academy.
Some things just can't be quantified, but they can
be carefully observed and documented. [And I'm making
no assertions of any sort regarding Bailey's research
with this comment.]
> He has no obligation to make
> any group accepted in any other group.
Bingo! This is exactly what was underlying
my initial comment about certain people raising holy
hell if someone dares say anything that doesn't
demolish some given stereotype. If stereotypes were
completely and utterly false they'd cease to exist.
Most thinking people (the unthinking are another
thing and another problem) realize that stereotypes
don't apply to each and every instance of "member
of group X." Add to that that humans are very
largely predisposed toward "pattern matching" as
a way of viewing the world. Distinct or salient
features are what become central in stereotypes
in many instances. This is hardly surprising.
>> If a methodology disregards the subjective feelings
>
> In his research, he is looking for objective measures.
As you said, a researcher's responsibility is not to
be continually sensitive to the pwecious feewings of the
world. What they find, they find.
If you think their research is flawed, then have a
coherent rationale for why you think so. The *last* thing
that's going to be persuasive in making a counterargument is
that "they shouldn't say *that*!"
Brian, who realizes that this is basically a "Me, Too"
Ellen Evans
Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> wrote:
[]
> Have you read the book in question? I have. I think there is a lot
>there that is offensive.
So this would be the place where you explain, being as concrete as you can
(quotes help) what you think is offensive and why.
Eric Bohlman
news:c235ft$rld$1...@panix3.panix.com:
> In article <MPG.1aae96c3...@news.compuserve.com>,
> Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> wrote:
>
> []
>
>> Have you read the book in question? I have. I think there is a
>> lot
>>there that is offensive.
>
> So this would be the place where you explain, being as concrete as you
> can (quotes help) what you think is offensive and why.
May I suggest Andrea James' site, <http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-
blanchard-lawrence.html> and particularly Lynn Conway's site which is
mentioned several times on it. Both sites contain detailed critiques of
specific arguments Bailey made in the book, complete with proper citations
to the original.
Linda Yanney
Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> wrote:
> I do not know why it was nominated. It has been important in my
>life to separate sexual orientation and sexual identity. The book tends
>to encourage the stereotype that all people who transition early are
>attracted to men. The assumption may cause problems for those who are
>young and considering transition when they encounter stereotypes
>contrary to their actual experience. That said I am going to stop
>discussion here for a while. I will be away from the keyboard soon and
>will remain so until late next week so I will probably not be seeing
>this thread for the next week or so.
No sterotypical queen behavior there, nosireebob.
lj
--
Michael Thomas
> In article <c22nsk$ks9$1...@panix1.panix.com>, je...@panix.com says...
> > You can declare all sorts of things. You might be right or you might be
> > wrong. But until you provide your readers with clear argument and useful
> > evidence, we have no reason in the world to assume the former rather than
> > the latter.
>
> Have you read the complete book. I have and as I have said there
> is a lot there that is offensive.
> One example of many: The author doubts the existence of male
> bisexuals.
Hurray!
> Giving an award to a book that questions the existence of
> male bisexuals is obviously making it difficult for male bisexuals to be
> accepted in the LGBT community.
Who you gunna call?
::Ghost Busters!::
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
Green: see "Bush Hugger"
Michael Thomas
Please be more specific: drama or pissy?
xym...@suds.com
<dXXXf...@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
>Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> wrote in
>news:MPG.1aae97407...@news.compuserve.com:
>
>> Have you read the entire book? In my opinion there is a lot
>> there
>> that is offensive but I am not sure if I am disagreeing with
>> people simply because they have not seen it.
>
>Specific examples from the book, with an explanation of what you
>find offensive and why, would help your argument immensely.
Not only that, but many of us (me included) are quite interested in
learning, but don't have the time to read entire books, so if you
would share specific examples of what enrages you and explained why
they are so offensive, we could participate in a fruitful discussion
and possibly even agree with you.
Katie, no man is an island
Katie Schmitz Rochester, New York, USA
klschmitz UpperCase2 frontiernet.net
Still into xymergy in spirit, if not action.
Flying Hero Sandwich
this:
>Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> writes:
>> One example of many: The author doubts the existence of male
>> bisexuals.
>
> Hurray!
<falls on sword>
B.
Eric Bohlman
news:MPG.1aad9a623...@news.compuserve.com:
> Fuck you. Among Bailey's ideas is that transsexuals do not have a
> sexual orientation other than attraction to men. I know that is
That's not correct. Bailey insists, following Ray Blanchard, that *all*
MTF transsexuals fall into two categories:
1) "Homosexual transsexuals": extremely feminine gay men who have trouble
finding sex partners because of their femininity (as confirmed by the
frequency with which "no fems" appears in gay personals) and therefore seek
SRS in order to get laid more.
2) "Autogynephiles": men who have masturbation fantasies in which they're
women and seek SRS in order to live out their fantasies. He puts any MTF
transsexual who claims to be attracted to women into this category and
regards the attraction as being heterosexual. He considers
"autogynephilia" to be a paraphilia, asserts that research shows that any
person with one paraphilia is likely to have others, runs down a list of
paraphilias, ending with pedophilia, and then mentions autoerotic
asphyxiation.
He claims that any transsexual who denies falling into either category is
simply lying. He asserts that individuals who transition early are
generally "homosexual transsexuals" and ones who transition later in life
are almost always "autogynephiles" (Economics professor Deirdre McCloskey,
who transitioned in her late fifties, had her lawyer send notice to Bailey
that he would be sued if he once more referred to her as an
"autogynephile"; note that Bailey considers "autogynephilia" to be a mental
illness, and that he's never met McCloskey in person). He also claims that
it's possible to determine someone's motive for transition by simply
looking at them; MTFs who "look feminine" are "homosexual transsexuals"
whereas those who "pass poorly" are "autogynephiles" (Lynn Conway has
pointed out that he's judging psychological motivation solely on the basis
of physical features in a form of what she calls "gender phrenology" and
that the existence of facial feminization surgery makes appearance
misleading).
Note that Blanchard's two-category typology is not well-accepted in the
scientific and medical community dealing with transsexuality. Conway,
Andrea James, and others have also documented that some statements of
Blanchard's that Bailey quoted in a manner as to make them seem to be about
MTFs were actually made about erotic crossdressers rather than
transsexuals.
So Bailey *does* acknowledge that an MTF can be attracted to women; he just
believes that lesbian MTFs are suffering from a mental disorder in the same
general category as pedophilia.
David W. Fenton
news:4aca405km32p8iv9i...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 22:47:54 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
><dXXXf...@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> wrote in
>>news:MPG.1aae97407...@news.compuserve.com:
>>
>>> Have you read the entire book? In my opinion there is a lot
>>> there
>>> that is offensive but I am not sure if I am disagreeing with
>>> people simply because they have not seen it.
>>
>>Specific examples from the book, with an explanation of what you
>>find offensive and why, would help your argument immensely.
>
> Not only that, but many of us (me included) are quite interested
> in learning, but don't have the time to read entire books, so if
> you would share specific examples of what enrages you and
> explained why they are so offensive, we could participate in a
> fruitful discussion and possibly even agree with you.
Indeed, pointers to web pages that do the criticizing for you would
suffice.
David W. Fenton
news:Xns94A0BF702A117...@130.133.1.4:
It would be great if Kristal were the one pointing these out.
In any event, I'm not likely to wade through a long critique absent
some explanation of what's in it.
Argument by URL, while preferable to argument by "I said so!", is
still not going to win any points around here.
In any event, it's the interpretation of the citations that matter.
Otherwise, Paul Cameron would be legitimate.
Eric Bohlman
news:Xns94A0D5FF7E29Edf...@24.168.128.78:
> In any event, I'm not likely to wade through a long critique absent
> some explanation of what's in it.
See my later response to Kristal.
>
> Argument by URL, while preferable to argument by "I said so!", is
> still not going to win any points around here.
>
> In any event, it's the interpretation of the citations that matter.
> Otherwise, Paul Cameron would be legitimate.
When I said "citations to the orginal" I meant citations to Bailey's book
(there's only *one* citation in the entire book, to one of Blanchard's
papers).
Scott Safier
> Indeed, pointers to web pages that do the criticizing for you would
> suffice.
What I appreciated about Bailey's site is that he links to some
criticism and to some proponents of the theory he advocates. He also
has made publically available the chapter that (he claims) most trans
folk find objectionable.
Personally, the objections are sounding more like the objections to
Kinsey's research than anything else.
Scott Safier
> In article <c22nsk$ks9$1...@panix1.panix.com>, je...@panix.com says...
>> You can declare all sorts of things. You might be right or you might be
>> wrong. But until you provide your readers with clear argument and useful
>> evidence, we have no reason in the world to assume the former rather than
>> the latter.
>
> Have you read the complete book. I have and as I have said there
> is a lot there that is offensive.
> One example of many: The author doubts the existence of male
> bisexuals. Giving an award to a book that questions the existence of
> male bisexuals is obviously making it difficult for male bisexuals to be
> accepted in the LGBT community.
er, no. "As expected based on prior research, men's responses were
category specific; that is, homosexual men were aroused by male
stimuli and heterosexual men were aroused by heterosexual
stimuli. Women had a very different, bisexual, pattern of arousal, on
average, no matter whether they were heterosexual or homosexual. This
probably means that men's and women's brains are organized quite
differently, and furthermore, that sexual arousal does not play as
important a role in women's sexual orientation development as it does
in men's."
This is a research result based upon a measure of physical arousal to
specific stimuli.
Psychologists, by their training, argue by citing studies and results.
> I could give a lot of examples like this.
> Encouraging stereotypes is bad.
The man is a psychologist, and I'd guess a social psychologist. HE
STUDIES STEREOTYPES.
>People want to cling to them.
People naturally form stereotypes. Stereotype theory is a theory in
social cognition. People study it!
> And you do not want people to cling to them.
Too bad. It is a simplification that people naturally do when they
are overwhelmed with information.
Red herring arguments from someone who obviously has no clue deleted.
Scott Safier
> If stereotypes were
> completely and utterly false they'd cease to exist.
er, maybe. stereotypes that are formed with no exposure to the actual
group, say, for examples, stereotypes of a group formed from
television, may be utterly false. When exposed to a member of the
group who does not conform, the person may be classified as an outlier
and the stereotype remain.
> Most thinking people (the unthinking are another
> thing and another problem) realize that stereotypes
> don't apply to each and every instance of "member
> of group X." Add to that that humans are very
> largely predisposed toward "pattern matching" as
> a way of viewing the world. Distinct or salient
> features are what become central in stereotypes
> in many instances. This is hardly surprising.
and not all stereotypes are negative.
> Brian, who realizes that this is basically a "Me, Too"
excuse me, but my stereotype of you says that you should be
disagreeing with me. STOP INVALIDATING MY FEELINGS!
Kristal
dXXXf...@bway.net.invalid says...
>
> If you have a quibble with the science, then bring up the reasons
> why the studies involved were invalid badly designed.
>
> But just not liking the conclusion of the studies is not itself
> worth mentioning.
What science, what studies? There is virtually no method in the
book. He states without proof that gays doubt the existence of
bisexuals. Many assertions are made without evidence, a clearly stated
hypothesis is rare. There are no references he mentions other
researchers but there are no footnotes and no bilbliography. There is a
lot of anecdotal evidence, and offensive material abounds as do obvious
errors. He believes that some popular stereotypes are true but when he
tries to codify him the end results are bizarre. I don't like the
conclusions, I think the methods are wrong, and I think some of the
conclusions are wrong to the point of being obviously wrong and at some
points his ideas are so bad that I do not know what he is saying. You
have to read the entire book to realize that it is offensive, wrong,
badly done, and badly researched. It should not have been nominated for
an award for a lot of reasons.
Kristal
Ellen Evans
Well, you're not Kristal, and Kristal is the person I was referring to
when I used the second person. Personally I don't find Bailey's arguments
particularly convincing, being full of what appear to me to be complex and
suspect rhetorical re-positionings of the significance of what can be seen
in the world (transexual women who are attracted to women are not *really*
attracted to women, they are attracted to themselves [what he calls
autogynephilia] *as* women) in an attempt to hold on to certain binary and
biological underpinnings that in general I also find highly suspect. But
that's not my point - my point is that if you (the general "you") are
going to be making rather broad assertions, you have a responsibility to
a) define your terms, b) demonstrate in some forceful way that the
situation you are addressing fits those terms, and c) be able cogently to
address those whose opinions differ from your own.
Frankly, much as I dislike Bailey's general drift, I find his rhetorical
practice to be perfectly reasonable, and that of his opponents often to be
shrill and unconvincing, relying on overstatement and selective quotation
rather than a simple, logically and rhetorically sound, deconstruction of
what strikes me as fairly weak position.
Kristal
says...
> No sterotypical queen behavior there, nosireebob.
>
I am actually going to be in a situation where I will probably not
have internet access. I had a trip planned. It had nothing to do with
this thread.
Kristal
Kristal
triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
> David W. Fenton:
> > Indeed, pointers to web pages that do the criticizing for you would
> > suffice.
>
> What I appreciated about Bailey's site is that he links to some
> criticism and to some proponents of the theory he advocates. He also
> has made publically available the chapter that (he claims) most trans
> folk find objectionable.
>
> Personally, the objections are sounding more like the objections to
> Kinsey's research than anything else.
The entire book is available on the web. I found other parts more
objectionable than the first chapter.
Kristal
Eric Bohlman
> Personally, the objections are sounding more like the objections to
> Kinsey's research than anything else.
Including the objection that *all* of his "research" on transsexuality that
was described in the book was done on a convenience sample of 8
transsexuals that he found hanging out in Chicago bars? Including the
objection that he omitted describing one of them because that person didn't
fit into either of Blanchard's categories? Including the objection that he
never informed them that he was doing research that would be published, and
that he described one in such detail that she was personally identifiable?
Including the objection that he didn't address competing theories of
transsexuality other than by claiming that the people who held them weren't
scholarly enough? Including the objection that many transsexual academics
in biology and psychology contacted him, provided him with information
about transsexuals who didn't fit Blanchard's categories, and asked typical
scholarly questions about the details of his reasearch, and that he made no
attempt to address the former, and refused to discuss the latter?
Including the objection that a book describing itself as a work of
scientific research had only one footnote, and no citations to experimental
data? Did Kinsey describe his study as "cutting-edge scientific research"
and then, when people questioned his research ethics, start describing it
as a "personal memoir" instead?
Are you aware that after a presentation Bailey made at a conference this
summer, Dr. John Bancroft, the head of the Kinsey Institute, said, before
the audience "I would caution you, Michael, against calling this book
science. I have read it and it is not science"?
Are you aware that Bailey has never been a member of the professional
association (the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association,
HBIGDA) that most researchers into transsexuality belong to?
Ellen Evans
Eric Bohlman <eboh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[]
>Including the objection that *all* of his "research" on transsexuality that
>was described in the book was done on a convenience sample of 8
>transsexuals that he found hanging out in Chicago bars? Including the
>objection that he omitted describing one of them because that person didn't
>fit into either of Blanchard's categories? Including the objection that he
>never informed them that he was doing research that would be published, and
>that he described one in such detail that she was personally identifiable?
See, this is the sort of thing that allows one to develop an argument.
Kristal
voge...@SPAMyahoo.CRAPcom says...
>If stereotypes were
> completely and utterly false they'd cease to exist.
At one time homosexuality was a mental illness. That was not just
a stereotype it was the general consensus. People were forcibly
incarcerated in mental institutions because of this. It didn't cease to
exist unless even though it was completely and utterly false.
Kristal
Brian Vogel
> Brian Vogel:
>
>>If stereotypes were
>>completely and utterly false they'd cease to exist.
>
>
> er, maybe. stereotypes that are formed with no exposure to the actual
> group, say, for examples, stereotypes of a group formed from
> television, may be utterly false. When exposed to a member of the
> group who does not conform, the person may be classified as an outlier
> and the stereotype remain.
This is true, and this sort of behavior does
fall into my "unthinking people" category. If exposure
to a "non-congruent example" (or examples) doesn't
pretty quickly weaken (or, ideally, break) the
"well they're *all* like that" mindset then a person
is not thinking (they're just rearranging their
prejudices).
> and not all stereotypes are negative.
Amen. But the games will certainly begin now.
Having played them before I won't really join in
heavily again.
>>Brian, who realizes that this is basically a "Me, Too"
>
>
> excuse me, but my stereotype of you says that you should be
> disagreeing with me. STOP INVALIDATING MY FEELINGS!
FUCK YOU! I'LL FUCKIN' AGREE WITH YOU WHENEVER
I DAMNED WELL PLEASE! INVALIDATING PWECIOUS FEEWINGS. . . SHIT!
Brian
Brian Vogel
What didn't cease to exist?
Homosexuals are not seen as mentally ill by mental health
professionals nor the majority of the general public, as far
as I can tell.
Homosexuals cannot be forcibly incarcerated in mental
institutions because they're homosexual [in the USA, I'm not
going to go into other places where we/they remain horribly
oppressed].
So what part of your own statement that includes
"at one time" doesn't prove my point. The stereotype and
the social attitudes were utterly false and have pretty
much ceased to exist. [There are always die-hard loons.
I hardly think they represent contemporary thought.]
Brian
Linda Yanney
> lya...@arthur.avalon.net says...
>> No sterotypical queen behavior there, nosireebob.
>>
> I am actually going to be in a situation where I will probably not
>have internet access. I had a trip planned. It had nothing to do with
>this thread.
So noted. Thanks for correcting the record.
LJ
--
Kristal
eboh...@earthlink.net says...
> So Bailey *does* acknowledge that an MTF can be attracted to women; he just
> believes that lesbian MTFs are suffering from a mental disorder in the same
> general category as pedophilia.
At one time homosexuality was according to the specialists a
mental illness.
The idea that lesbian MTF's are suffering from a mental disorder
is just as obvious a lie. The conclusions of the book are obvious
bigotry. And it is the obligation of bigots to educate themselves and do
their own work.
A lesbian MTF can not function on any social level in an
environment where she is presumed to be mentally ill.
The nomination of this work for an award helps promulgate this
sort of environment.
Transsexuals can not be integrated into a social environment where
the presumption that their sexual orientation is a mental illness is
acceptable.
Kristal
Kristal
voge...@SPAMyahoo.CRAPcom says...
> Kristal wrote:
>
> > In article <104a7q9...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > voge...@SPAMyahoo.CRAPcom says...
> >
> >>If stereotypes were
> >>completely and utterly false they'd cease to exist.
> >
> >
> > At one time homosexuality was a mental illness. That was not just
> > a stereotype it was the general consensus. People were forcibly
> > incarcerated in mental institutions because of this. It didn't cease to
> > exist unless even though it was completely and utterly false.
>
> What didn't cease to exist?
>
> Homosexuals are not seen as mentally ill by mental health
> professionals nor the majority of the general public, as far
> as I can tell.
>
> Homosexuals cannot be forcibly incarcerated in mental
> institutions because they're homosexual [in the USA, I'm not
> going to go into other places where we/they remain horribly
> oppressed].
It took political action based on the idea the stereotypes where
totally false to defeat these stereotypes.
They were pure baseless bigotry.
Kristal
Eric Bohlman
news:MPG.1aaefbe5e...@news.compuserve.com:
> In article <Xns94A0CB60DB343...@130.133.1.4>,
> eboh...@earthlink.net says...
>> So Bailey *does* acknowledge that an MTF can be attracted to women;
>> he just believes that lesbian MTFs are suffering from a mental
>> disorder in the same general category as pedophilia.
>
> At one time homosexuality was according to the specialists a
> mental illness.
> The idea that lesbian MTF's are suffering from a mental disorder
> is just as obvious a lie. The conclusions of the book are obvious
> bigotry. And it is the obligation of bigots to educate themselves and
> do their own work.
Well yes, but I think what the other posters are trying to say is that you
have to provide evidence, not just that Bailey's conclusions are harmful in
that they'd damage people's lives if they were believed, but that they're
factually wrong. I've made a number of posts pointing out serious flaws in
Bailey's research methodology. But you (without intending to, I think)
come across as arguing that Bailey's conclusions should be judged solely on
how they affect people like you rather than on their correspondence to
reality. You have to show, as Andrea James, Lynn Conway, and a host of
others have done, that he's attacking people like you with what Robert Park
calls "pathological science" rather than real science. Because otherwise
you're arguing that the truth should be suppressed if it hurts you. And
that way lies the path to madness.
Kristal
>transexual women who are attracted to women are not *really*
> attracted to women
This is where we are disagreeing. I am not treating this as a
starting point for an argument.
I am using it as a starting point for evaluating my relationship
with people.
If anyone says to me that transexuality renders me incapable of
being really attracted to women. They are revealing irrational prejudice
against transexuals and behind that prejudice is deep hatred.
Demolishing the argument doesn't deal with the hatred.
If I go to a anti-gay group I am not going to persuade them with
reason.
This book nomination is a political statment. That statement is
not just of fact. Stereotypes have an emotional component as well.
I am upset here. I am upset at a level of prejudice revealed and
what is reveals about the environments some very vulnerable, people some
young and facing many problems are going to have to deal with. I feel
upset that this crap isn't going away.
Still I probably should have followed your criticisms and things
would have been more effective. A lot of this was emotional reaction to
something that I wasn't prepared for and only had a short time to deal
with.
Kristal
Linda Yanney
>eboh...@earthlink.net says...
>> So Bailey *does* acknowledge that an MTF can be attracted to women; he just
>> believes that lesbian MTFs are suffering from a mental disorder in the same
>> general category as pedophilia.
I scanned big chunks of the book, and the third section in it's entirety.
I think a two-category model of just about any human behavior is unlikely
to be useful, and this one is especially silly, but I didn't see anything
that suggested that Bailey is homophobic or transphobic. As a matter of
fact, he seemed to me to be quite empathetic throughout the book and in
the comments on his web site. Where does he claim that any of this is a
mental disorder? Where, for that matter, does he claim that there's no
such thing as male bisexuality?
His theories are pretty dopey, but I'm not seeing the harm in them.
> At one time homosexuality was according to the specialists a
>mental illness.
Uh-huh.
> The idea that lesbian MTF's are suffering from a mental disorder
>is just as obvious a lie. The conclusions of the book are obvious
>bigotry. And it is the obligation of bigots to educate themselves and do
>their own work.
Where does he say that it's a disorder? Where does he say that anything
that he's writing about is bad?
At any rate, lecturing bigots on their obligations doesn't seem
terribly useful.
> A lesbian MTF can not function on any social level in an
>environment where she is presumed to be mentally ill.
What do you mean by "function on any social level"? What environment? Who
is presuming that anybody is mentally ill?
> The nomination of this work for an award helps promulgate this
>sort of environment.
> Transsexuals can not be integrated into a social environment where
>the presumption that their sexual orientation is a mental illness is
>acceptable.
What do you mean by "integration"?
I think a lot of socio-biology is crap, however, the language of
discussion regarding transexualism is often rooted in socio-biology,
essentialism, and biological determinism, making these very things rather
awkward.
I think a healtier approach to "mental illness" is to concede that many of
us experience it in one variety or another at some time in our lives, some
of us chronically, some of us better managed than others. Better we
should recognize that our brains are all differently-ordered to some
extent. Difference is not an inherently bad thing.
lj
--
Eric Bohlman
news:c23pi2$4gf$1...@narsil.avalon.net:
> I scanned big chunks of the book, and the third section in it's
> entirety. I think a two-category model of just about any human
> behavior is unlikely to be useful, and this one is especially silly,
> but I didn't see anything that suggested that Bailey is homophobic or
> transphobic. As a matter of fact, he seemed to me to be quite
See <http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-quotations.html> (all the
quotations contain links to the appropriate page in the online version of
the book). Selected ones that I consider transphobic:
"Homosexual transsexuals tend to have a short time horizon, with certain
pleasure in the present worth great risks for the future." p. 184
"Prostitution is the single most common occupation that homosexual
transsexuals in our study admitted to." p. 184
"Nearly all the homosexual transsexuals I know work as escorts after they
have their surgery." p. 210
"As for shoplifting, homosexual transsexuals are not especially well suited
as much as especially motivated. For many, their taste in clothing is much
more expensive than their income allows." p. 185
Brian Vogel
I absolutely agree. I didn't imply that time and
magic made them disappear. Almost any major social change,
whether in regard to stereotypes or not, requires political
action applied over an extended period of time.
> They were pure baseless bigotry.
Yes. And when revealed as such they ceased to
exist. Not every stereotype is baseless. Pretending
that they are is foolish.
Even those that are will require long periods
of time and concerted effort to eliminate. Human
beings at the singular and collective levels are
known just as much, if not more so, for clinging
to irrationality as to reason. Presenting unreasoned
and highly emotionally charged reactions to bigotry
often seems to me to reinforce it. (The, "Aha, got
them!" mechanism runs deep.)
Brian
Scott Safier
> What science, what studies?
Go to a library and do a lit search.
>There is virtually no method in the
> book.
The audience of the book is obviously not scientists, but lay people.
It is not a peer reviewed overview or a collection of articles, but a
high-level summary.
You are judging the book against something it is obviously not. If
you want the science to back it up, look up his peer-reviewed papers.
He states without proof that gays doubt the existence of
> bisexuals. Many assertions are made without evidence, a clearly stated
> hypothesis is rare. There are no references he mentions other
> researchers but there are no footnotes and no bilbliography. There is a
> lot of anecdotal evidence, and offensive material abounds as do obvious
> errors. He believes that some popular stereotypes are true but when he
> tries to codify him the end results are bizarre. I don't like the
> conclusions, I think the methods are wrong, and I think some of the
> conclusions are wrong to the point of being obviously wrong and at some
> points his ideas are so bad that I do not know what he is saying. You
> have to read the entire book to realize that it is offensive, wrong,
> badly done, and badly researched. It should not have been nominated for
> an award for a lot of reasons.
The award is not for science, but from a literary society.
Scott Safier
> Homosexuals cannot be forcibly incarcerated in mental
> institutions because they're homosexual [in the USA, I'm not
> going to go into other places where we/they remain horribly
> oppressed].
Actually, some of the reparative therapy places come damn close to
forcible incarceration.
Scott Safier
Learn history. It took scientists like Evelyn Hooker to challenge
existing theories, demonstrate their inaccuracies through
peer-reviewed research, then lay out logical arguments as to why they
were wrong.
Only homophobes view the 1972 vote as "political action".
Scott Safier
> In article <Xns94A0E0D7494E2...@130.133.1.4>,
> Eric Bohlman <eboh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> []
>
>>Including the objection that *all* of his "research" on transsexuality that
>>was described in the book was done on a convenience sample of 8
>>transsexuals that he found hanging out in Chicago bars? Including the
>>objection that he omitted describing one of them because that person didn't
>>fit into either of Blanchard's categories? Including the objection that he
>>never informed them that he was doing research that would be published, and
>>that he described one in such detail that she was personally identifiable?
>
> See, this is the sort of thing that allows one to develop an argument.
Which Bailey seems to be answering here:
http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversy.htm#ideas
I tend to agree with people that this research is a bit ill-conceived,
but that still does not preclude a literary society from nominating it
for an award.
Scott Safier
Yawn -- so predictable...
Bailey writes: "The first thing to emphasize is that the authors of
these websites have badly distorted my positions. ... It is a popular
science book aimed at a general audience, and so it can be consumed
without great effort."
> Eric Bohlman:
>
>>See <http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-quotations.html> (all
>>the quotations contain links to the appropriate page in the
>>online version of the book). Selected ones that I consider
>>transphobic:
Quotation out-of-context is such a fun game...
"I am not sure about the validity of Alma's observations, much less
her theories, but there is clearly something to the idea that
homosexual transexuals are used to living on the margins of society.
They have, in fact, learned to cope with rejuection and disapproval
since childhood because of their extreme femininity. And they have
not had the advantages that tend to instill respect in the social
order. The early chaotic backgrounds of so many homosexual
transsexuals might help explain why they do not defeminize the way
that most very feminine boys do. A feminine boy form a middle-class
or upper-middle-class family (such as Danny's) has more motivation to
"hang in there" until he normalizes his gender-role behavior, because
he has a good chance at a conventionally successful future.
Defeminization might also require more ambition and family support
than some homosexual transsexuals possess.
"Most homosexual transsexuals have also learned how to live on the
streets. At one time or another many of them have resored to
shoplifting or prostitution or both. This reflects their willingness
to forgo conventional routes, especially those that cost extra time or
money.
>>"Homosexual transsexuals tend to have a short time horizon,
>> with certain pleasure in the present worth great risks for
>> the future." p. 184
>>"Prostitution is the single most common occupation that
>> homosexual transsexuals in our study admitted to."
"About half of them worked as prostitutes at some point. In Chicago,
the entry-level position is as a female-impersonating streetwalker who
works the area of Broadway that is mostly gay after dark. (Their
customers, of course, are not gay men. They are either unwary
straight men or men looking for she-males.) This kind of prostitution
is dangerous, especially for transexuals, whose customers sometimes do
not know what they are. They often form relationships with street
hustlers or ex-cons. The rate of HIV infenction among transexual
streetwalkers is very high, partly due to the high rate of intravenous
drug use."
So, Jess, given the context-context-context of the quotes, do you
think that the type of prostitution described is not dangerous, not
short-sighted, or both? Do you think lack of family support might
lead someone to this type of lifestyle?
This quote appears in the context of a woman who married a man, but
left him a year later apparently because "she missed the excitement of
living in the city, and of dating new partners."
>>"Nearly all the homosexual transsexuals I know work as escorts
>> after they have their surgery." p. 210
Now we jump back to the original context of prostitutes living on the street.
>>"As for shoplifting, homosexual transsexuals are not especially
>> well suited as much as especially motivated. For many, their
>> taste in clothing is much more expensive than their income
>> allows." p. 185
>
> Good gravy!
Indeed. Picking out random sentences without their context can lead
foolish people to jump to any number of conclusions.
And while I think Bailey's sample may be a bit scewed, for this
particular population (transsexual prostitutes in chicago) his
statements may have some truth in them.
Now, go crawl back in your hole.
---
Michael Thomas
> In article <Xns94A0B4B2C640Edf...@24.168.128.90>,
> dXXXf...@bway.net.invalid says...
> >
> > If you have a quibble with the science, then bring up the reasons
> > why the studies involved were invalid badly designed.
> >
> > But just not liking the conclusion of the studies is not itself
> > worth mentioning.
>
> What science, what studies? There is virtually no method in the
> book. He states without proof that gays doubt the existence of
> bisexuals.
Uh, that's *very* different than *him* claiming that there
aren't any male bisexuals. And in fact, his experience
matches mine: there are a *lot* of gay men that classify
male bisexuals with pixies, ogres and unicorns.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
Green: see "Bush Hugger"
Ellen Evans
Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> wrote:
>In article <c23kr7$t5e$1...@panix2.panix.com>, je...@panix.com says...
>>transexual women who are attracted to women are not *really*
>> attracted to women
>
> This is where we are disagreeing.
No, this is where you take my summary of someone else's argument - clearly
marked as such - out of context and then go off again with a non-argument.
If you want to convince people that your evaluation of a situation is the
most compelling one, you have to give them a real, developed and
supported by evidence, argument.
Ellen Evans
Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> wrote:
[]
> The idea that lesbian MTF's are suffering from a mental disorder
>is just as obvious a lie.
It's less a lie than, potentially, an incorrect conclusion based on faulty
data. Which it is fairly easy to document in a convincing way. Look at
Eric's posts.
Arnold Zwicky
scott safier <sc...@pink-triangle.NO.org.SPAM> quotes michael bailey:
>Bailey writes: "The first thing to emphasize is that the authors of
>these websites have badly distorted my positions. ... It is a
>popular science book aimed at a general audience, and so it can be
>consumed without great effort."
here bailey tries to have it both ways: the book really is *science*,
but it's not fair to criticize the book on scientific grounds, because
it's just light stuff for a general audience.
(plenty of other people have managed to write fascinating and
entertaining popular science without compromising the scientific
underpinnings of their work, by the way.)
in fact, bailey adopts, virtually without examination, the standard
ideology about sex and gender (cultural masculinity and cultural
femininity are polar opposites, grounded in biological maleness and
femaleness, respectively) and homosexuality (at least for gay men, who
are treated as men who aspire to femininity, or even femaleness, and
so are partly male and partly female), so he's just reproducing for
his readers what most of them already believe. except that he claims
to be finding (scientific) evidence for these beliefs.
now, the Lambda Literary Foundation (which, as it happens, i am a
supporter of) is perfectly within its rights to nominate bailey's book
for an award. but you can question their wisdom and their judgment in
this case (as i do). in any case, the decision was apparently not an
easy one; see
http://www.lambdalit.org/FinalistDecision.html
http://www.lambdalit.org/OpenLetter.html
once the book was on the (public) list of finalists, of course, it
became very difficult indeed to take it off.
(if *i'd* been on the committee selecting the finalists, i'd certainly
have voted for leila rupp and verta taylor's wonderful, rich, complex
book Drag Queens at the 801 Cabaret.)
scott, what i don't understand in this is your dogged defense of
bailey on every point. why have you dug your heels in so firmly?
>...And while I think Bailey's sample may be a bit s[k]ewed, for this
>particular population (transsexual prostitutes in chicago) his
>statements may have some truth in them.
but the book isn't billed as being about transsexual prostitutes in
chicago, but about mtf transsexuals in general (and gay men in
general).
with only eight "subjects", the book could have been framed as a set
of narratives about the lives and life histories of some transsexual
prostitutes in chicago. that could have been an interesting book, one
a lot less annoying than the one he actually wrote.
zotling
Michael Thomas
> It took political action based on the idea the stereotypes where
> totally false to defeat these stereotypes.
> They were pure baseless bigotry.
No. There really are sissy faggots and thank god (and
Ellen's do) for them. The problem the stereotype in this
particular case, but the very thought that it ought to
viewed negatively. Far too many faggots spend far too much
time working on their str8 acting credentials thus
propogating the _lie_ that there is something wrong with
being a flaming fallow.
Kristal
> Uh, that's *very* different than *him* claiming that there
> aren't any male bisexuals. And in fact, his experience
> matches mine: there are a *lot* of gay men that classify
> male bisexuals with pixies, ogres and unicorns.
There are male bisexuals. You are not expressing a logical view
but irrational hatred. No male bisexual can have a relationship with you
on any level without realizing you are a bigot. You are not ignorant,
you are a monster. The book encourages bigotry. Logical arguments aren't
the point. The underlying hatred is. The nomination encourages bigots
like you to congratulate yourself instead of working on your igorance
and bigotry. People shouldn't tolerate the bullshit you believe and
expect to accomplish meaningful political action. Hatred of bisexuals
creates environments where people deny they are bisexual and confirm the
stereotype that causes the hatred.
Kristal
David Horne
Oh, dear. You can't read a short usenet post for content, and yet you're
pontificating about a book?
David
--
David Horne- (website under reconstruction)
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Mike McKinley
I thought someone was going on vacation, anyway.
I think we should *all* go on vacation.
Mike McKinley
> Now, go crawl back in your hole.
Oh, Saffy, even though you're aging precipitously, I still wanna crawl
in your hole.
Scott Safier
> scott, what i don't understand in this is your dogged defense of
> bailey on every point. why have you dug your heels in so firmly?
Because it appears to me that there is an attempt at
uber-political-correctness-run-amok to censor Bailey. As Lambda Lit
says in their open letter: "Censorship. The Lambda Literary Foundation
believes in the free expression of ideas. It is not uncommon for us to
publish reviews in Book Report that the editors might disagree with,
but we respect the authors viewpoint and the honesty of their
discussion. Similarly, it seems inappropriate for us to remove a book
from consideration for a Lambda Literary Award because it doesnt meet
some arbitrary standard of political correctness."
For example, looking at one of the websites Eric points to, it is
clear to me that the author of that site is using quotations out of
context and in a random order to distort the story Bailey is telling.
I can understand that people may not like the theory Bailey is
espousing, but the techniques they are using are the kind found in
flamewars on soc.motss, not in reasoned debate.
> >...And while I think Bailey's sample may be a bit s[k]ewed, for this
> >particular population (transsexual prostitutes in chicago) his
> >statements may have some truth in them.
>
> but the book isn't billed as being about transsexual prostitutes in
> chicago, but about mtf transsexuals in general (and gay men in
> general).
The quotes that Eric posted, and that appear on the website are said
to be "caricatures" of trans women. Instead, they are tales of
specific people who happen to engage in prostitution. Nowhere does
this website provide this context.
> with only eight "subjects",
Does Bailey call them subjects, or do his detractors? It appears to
me to be the latter.
Certainly the prime basis for the theory, regardless of the scientific
worth of the theory, has more than eight people in the sample size.
> the book could have been framed as a set
> of narratives about the lives and life histories of some transsexual
> prostitutes in chicago. that could have been an interesting book, one
> a lot less annoying than the one he actually wrote.
It seems to me, from my cursory reading of the book, that this is what
he is trying to do. Well, at least use this small population to bring
life to a particular theory.
--
Michael Thomas
> Mike Thomas:
>
> >And in fact, his experience matches mine: there are a *lot* of
> >gay men that classify male bisexuals with pixies, ogres and
> >unicorns.
>
> right here in this newsgroup, so I know it's true. And Lars
> Eighner told me very plainly that I was, so *that* must be
> true as well. I admit, though, being uncertain whether you're
> more nearly a unicorn or a pixie.
Insofar as gurl cooties have been deposited on my
important bed site. Hurumph.
> How's your kitchen going? Mine's now less than two weeks from
> demolition. I'm going to be washing dishes in the laundry
> sink and boiling water for coffee in an electric kettle. As
> for where to put *stuff*, lord only knows...
All the rough work is now done, and he's started to
install the cabinets. The slab gets measured next week.
The cabinets are exactly what we hoped for, though there's
been a small mismeasuring glitch that we're working
through right now. I'm really pleased with my contractor
though, much to my relief.
Of course, the newest disaster is that since Joan passed
away, a relative's family has moved in and found every
possible plumbing glitch with two new and one old waterfall
resulting. Grrrr.
Ellen Evans
Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> wrote:
>In article <v7ad2x7...@fasolt.mtcc.com>, mi...@mtcc.com says...
>> Uh, that's *very* different than *him* claiming that there
>> aren't any male bisexuals. And in fact, his experience
>> matches mine: there are a *lot* of gay men that classify
>> male bisexuals with pixies, ogres and unicorns.
>
> There are male bisexuals. You are not expressing a logical view
>but irrational hatred.
Uh, doll, chill. What Michael said was in *his experience* a lot of gay
men don't believe there are male bisexuals. That's my experience as well:
I've met a lot of gay men who don't believe there are male bisexuals.
Mike doesn't, in fact, make any assertions at all as to the actual
existence or non-existence of male bisexuals, he makes an assertion about
the opinions of many gay men in his experience. If you're going to run
around accusing people of being irrational, you need to make sure you're
not being irrational yourself. Dial down the hysteria and make rational
assertions based on actual facts.
And learn to read for tone.
Ellen Evans
Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
[]
> No. There really are sissy faggots and thank god (and
> Ellen's do) for them.
Ellen's *what* do thank god, or, conversely, my do *is* a god?
Speaking of which, now that I have a job, I need to get my hair done.
David W. Fenton
news:MPG.1aaef83dd...@news.compuserve.com:
> In article <slrnc4aisv...@pong.telerama.com>, scott@pink-
> triangle.NO.org.SPAM says...
>> David W. Fenton:
>> > Indeed, pointers to web pages that do the criticizing for you
>> > would suffice.
>>
>> What I appreciated about Bailey's site is that he links to some
>> criticism and to some proponents of the theory he advocates. He
>> also has made publically available the chapter that (he claims)
>> most trans folk find objectionable.
>>
>> Personally, the objections are sounding more like the objections
>> to Kinsey's research than anything else.
>
> The entire book is available on the web. I found other parts
> more
> objectionable than the first chapter.
Well, homosexuality is wrong, because it says so in the Bible:
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/public/bibles/kjv.search.html
There, that proves it.
Right?
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
David W. Fenton
news:Xns94A0CE02A7D08...@130.133.1.4:
> "David W. Fenton" <dXXXf...@bway.net.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns94A0D5FF7E29Edf...@24.168.128.78:
>
>> In any event, I'm not likely to wade through a long critique
>> absent some explanation of what's in it.
>
> See my later response to Kristal.
You responded to Scott with a laundry list of objections.
That's precisely what Kristal should have provided.
>> Argument by URL, while preferable to argument by "I said so!", is
>> still not going to win any points around here.
>>
>> In any event, it's the interpretation of the citations that
>> matter. Otherwise, Paul Cameron would be legitimate.
>
> When I said "citations to the orginal" I meant citations to
> Bailey's book (there's only *one* citation in the entire book, to
> one of Blanchard's papers).
My point is that you can't point at the work as a whole and say "I
read it and it's bad!" unless you want to look like you're
incompetent at arguing.
You've provided concrete examples of things that are wrong with the
book.
Kristal never did.
David W. Fenton
news:MPG.1aaef58da...@news.compuserve.com:
> In article <Xns94A0B4B2C640Edf...@24.168.128.90>,
> dXXXf...@bway.net.invalid says...
>>
>> If you have a quibble with the science, then bring up the reasons
>> why the studies involved were invalid badly designed.
>>
>> But just not liking the conclusion of the studies is not itself
>> worth mentioning.
>
> What science, what studies? There is virtually no method in
> the
> book. He states without proof that gays doubt the existence of
> bisexuals. Many assertions are made without evidence, a clearly
> stated hypothesis is rare. There are no references he mentions
> other researchers but there are no footnotes and no bilbliography.
> There is a lot of anecdotal evidence, and offensive material
> abounds as do obvious errors. He believes that some popular
> stereotypes are true but when he tries to codify him the end
> results are bizarre. I don't like the conclusions, I think the
> methods are wrong, and I think some of the conclusions are wrong
> to the point of being obviously wrong and at some points his ideas
> are so bad that I do not know what he is saying. You have to read
> the entire book to realize that it is offensive, wrong, badly
> done, and badly researched. It should not have been nominated for
> an award for a lot of reasons.
This is what you should have posted at the beginning of the
discussion.
I have no dog in this fight, so ya'll can go ahead and discuss these
actual points all you want.
But until there were some factual assertions about the book on the
table, with specific examples (as you've given above), there was no
way for anyone to discuss it with you.
David W. Fenton
news:c25bfv$g4g$1...@panix3.panix.com:
> In article <MPG.1aafc5f28...@news.compuserve.com>,
> Kristal <Kri...@REMOVEyifan.net> wrote:
>>In article <v7ad2x7...@fasolt.mtcc.com>, mi...@mtcc.com says...
>>> Uh, that's *very* different than *him* claiming that there
>>> aren't any male bisexuals. And in fact, his experience
>>> matches mine: there are a *lot* of gay men that classify
>>> male bisexuals with pixies, ogres and unicorns.
>>
>> There are male bisexuals. You are not expressing a logical
>> view
>>but irrational hatred.
>
> Uh, doll, chill. What Michael said was in *his experience* a lot
> of gay men don't believe there are male bisexuals. That's my
> experience as well: I've met a lot of gay men who don't believe
> there are male bisexuals. Mike doesn't, in fact, make any
> assertions at all as to the actual existence or non-existence of
> male bisexuals, he makes an assertion about the opinions of many
> gay men in his experience. If you're going to run around accusing
> people of being irrational, you need to make sure you're not being
> irrational yourself. Dial down the hysteria and make rational
> assertions based on actual facts.
>
> And learn to read for tone.
Tone?
She needs to learn to read for *content*.
As David Horne says, it's hard to trust her judgments of an entire
book when she can't even see through her agenda blinders to
comprehend something as simple as what Mike posted.
Of course, I'm not sure why Mike considered his post responsive to
the issue under discussion. He could just as easily be accused of
misreading content, though it's much a less egregious example of it.
David W. Fenton
news:MPG.1aaefbe5e...@news.compuserve.com:
> The conclusions of the book are obvious
> bigotry.
That's fairly obvious from Eric's summary.
But you never provided anything nearly as specific as evidence for
you "argument."
And that's why you've gotten so much flack.
Your style of discourse was the problem -- all emotion and no facts,
even when you were making factual claims.