A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
There are no dates on this post or sources. I can't find that this survey exists. I confirmed Bailey is still a professor at Northwestern University.
https://psychology.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/core/profiles/michael-bailey.html
The reddit profile for the user listed has nothing.
https://www.reddit.com/user/AYAGDOS/comments/
Anyone else have any info on this? Was this a survey that already happened? That reddit user may have just been created for this survey a year ago and it's old news.
So Littman and Bailey are controversial. Not unethical. (Fyi Lisa Littman is herself a trans woman).
They do research on a specific sub group of trans women.
Bailey has done lots of other research on sexuality in the homosexual and bisexual area as well.
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
He never said it's true for all female trans people.
But his evidence is real.
And it's not really surprising because there are people who cut off body parts because of sexual kinks. There are people out there who get fixated on things and are obsessed. Sexual fixation is an incredibly strong motivator.
Many in the trans community don't like this research because it paints a picture that they are all just a bunch of perverts. Which is something that they already have to fight against. So many see it as smearing trans people or encouraging stereotypes.
And. Of course conservatives will absolutely use these types of studies to support their opinions on trans people. Weaponize it against them.
But I want to point out some things.
Baily says in every single one of the papers he is in, that the most effective way to treat gender dysphoria is to help the person transition to their preferred gender. He says this many times. He says it publicly. He advocates for it.
His intention is not to harm trans people but to understand them. Does he go about it in the most sensitive way. No. But intention does count.
Now bailey was also known for doing research on bisexual men. His controversial study found that self reported bisexual men actually showed a preference for men and weren't pure bisexual. His conclusion was that bisexuality in men was likely just homosexuality. This was met with a lot of backlash. He met with people, heard concerns. And re evaluated his study methods and has since done additional studies and showed his original was flawed. (Mostly caused by the fact that men that are bisexual but prefer women more, are more likely to be closeted bisexuals and not volunteers in his studies).
Now I have personally met the guy. He taught statistics. I also attended a seminar on his work.
I never took his sexually courses. But I had heard of his work before attending the uni he was at.
I've actually read the papers.
I think most people who don't like his work, have not. Or they are mis understanding statements.
Now his person is a different story and there is plenty to criticize in his past conduct.
He never makes negative statements about trans. And the last paper I read, was by one of his grad students who was herself, a trans woman.
Transvestite culture has been around for a very long time. Trying to pretend it's not real because you don't like the narrative is not the way forward.
Do I like bailys personality? Not particularly. I think he's one of those people who like to challenge things , sometimes just to see other people squirm. A bit pretentious . But I can't deny his research has merit to it. That's why it keeps getting published. The methodology and statistics are sound science.
As a last point. I don't care if the reason that people want to transition is because it's a sex thing. To me that does not change anything. Adults have a right to full autonomy over their own body. They are the only ones who get to decide such things like their gender. It's not up to me to decide if their reasons are valid or not.
I also couldn't care less what weird kinks other people have. As long as it's consenting adults, it's none of my business.
That said, I realize though that my easy acceptance of people transitioning for whatever reason won't be shared by the general public.
But I still say though that the people who will have a problem with it, currently have a problem with transitioning, even if the narrative is "I was born in the wrong body".
Even that won't satisfy them as a good enough reason.
So no point in pandering to them.
I do wish someone with more class and sensitivity was doing this line of research and not Bailey. But it is what it is.
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
I'm a cis woman and being a woman is very much a requirement for my sexual excitement.
Yeah a lot of people find stress to be a blocker for arousal. I imagine gender dysphoria very stressful. My first thought when reading that was how do they account for that?
So Littman and Bailey are controversial. Not unethical. (Fyi Lisa Littman is herself a trans woman).
Incorrect. They are both unethical.
Littman for example, when doing her study on rapid onset gender dysphoria, targeted only online spaces which were full of parents that were upset and angry at having a transgender child. Her sample was deliberately and knowingly biased towards supporting the hypothesis she invented. Her audience also didn't involve any trans people, only the parents of trans people, and parents who were, as a group, explicitly more likely to be strongly uncomfortable with the idea of having a trans child.
This wasn't a mistake, or an oversight. It was a deliberate choice she made to bias her results. That's not "controversial", that's outright unethical.
Similarly, Bailey regularly lies to his participant audience, and loads his studies with questions predisposed to get the results he wants to show.
The study linked to in this post is a classic example of that. None of the results of this will be designed to help people navigate dysphoria. The study is trying to draw trans people in to think that they're helping, when in fact, the results will be used to actively undermine their ability to seek transition care and support.
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
Even that's not true.
When you look at the definitions Bailey uses for autogynephilia for example, if you apply those same measures to cis women, it turns out, they too more often than not, meet the requirements for autogynephilia. It only becomes a paraphilia when the woman is trans though, and it only becomes an explanation for the woman's identity, when the woman is trans.
It's taking a real correlation, ignoring the fact that the correlation isn't unique to trans folk, and then using that correlation as an explanation for trans identity.
He never said it's true for all female trans people.
He said it's the only way to be a trans woman that is asexual, bisexual or gay.
The only trans women who don't fit his criteria of transitioning due to a paraphilia, are straight trans women. Who, by the way, he calls "Homosexual transexuals". He can't even recognise their gender... And speaking of that, even though he thinks that trans women who aren't straight should be able to transition, he doesn't think that they're women, and will repeatedly misgender them or talk only about their birth sex when talking about them.
Take a look at this, from his personal blog...
In this screenshot, you can see that whilst defending a woman who had nazis at her rally, he refers to trans women as "male" without ever referring to them as women, whilst also showing a diagram that says all trans activists are paraphillic (and thus, not really trans)
Bailey genuinely believes he is doing good science. But he's not. He's got a lens through which he perceives transgender identity, and he is absolutely not open to challenging that. That's not good science...
I struggle to understand how you can call anything the man does "ethical"
Holy shit that's horrible. Fuck.
I really wish I knew if the study authors were religious.
I have no idea if this is sloppy science with benevolent intentions (everyone makes mistakes) or religious devotion masquerading as science.
I'm leaning to the latter, or generally being an arsebum. You don't invite Nazis at a rally.
autogynephilia is literally old debunked pseudoscience. some cis women get aroused from feeling sexy yet no one is questioning their gender based on that.
I understand that doing research can take a long time and costs money but publishing findings that partially confirm a pre-existing stigma of a vulnerable group of people, witnessing bigots leverage said research to voice oppression against said group, and wanting to do it all again is definitely in the realm of being unethical.
The pursuit of nuanced truth is a luxury that is being warped and tarnished by psychotic bigotry. Performing research for the sake of truth that might get real people harmed or killed is by definition unethical.
I have never seen or heard of a single example of a study that would be unethical due to true findings being predictably harmful to people.
These studies are not examples because their methodology doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. They are not seeking the truth in any way.
I think your first point contradicts your second.
I'm sure most people would consider it to be unethical if a study is published while knowing it is not truthful.
But his evidence is real.
Can you explain more about this?
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink.
I mean that's sexuality, isn't it? You don't control what your kinks are. But you phrase it like it isn't so?
That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
Hmm... So? Is it different than thinking of being a women? What's the line differentiating them from other trans women?
I mean attraction has a strong link to sexuality but phrasing it as a just a kink seems dubious to make it seem like a mental health problem.
I'm just trying to understand.
"That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman."
Isn't this unspoken and inherently accepted for Cis people though? Why would a Cis woman or Cis man be 'sexually excited' by being what they are not? It seems to me that the base assumption is reversed from what it should be.
Also how could they have possibly conducted this is a rigorous manner? Fetishes and Sexual attraction are highly subjective. Ask this question of someone one day and you'll get a completely different answer than if you had instead asked it another day two months later. Expose to new things (stimulus), Dietary changes (affecting hormones and libido), etc. Equating fetishes to the trans experience even tangentially is extremely transphobic.
That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman
Yeah it would be weirder if trans women were sexually excited by being a man. Like this isn't some revelation I'd expect it even.
Checked Alejandra Caraballo, she is apparently a civil rights attorney and pro-queer. What she says should indeed be correct.
Bailey also is associated with far-right idiots, so yeah. Littman also hasn't studied trans people before and based her study on anecdotal experience rather than actual in-depth research; and she didn't survey the actual trans people either about their experiences, and pathologised it.
Verdict, yeah spread the word among fellow queers to not partake in that study, and don't tell others who might be sympathetic to fascists.
Littman’s the one who went to a terf-parent forum, and polled the people there about whether or not they thought that their kids “becoming” trans was a sudden thing or not, right?
Because obviously rapid onset gender dysphoria makes more sense than people not sharing their experiences with their hateful parents.
Yep, that's correct.
Ironically I myself might fall under the group she allegedly thinks exists. But a critical part she (probably intentionally) misses, is that I didn't "turn" trans because of online communities. People don't "turn" trans, but explore their identities and figure it out, it's a long process. The community merely helped me in figuring out what all my things together were. And that's why the group she invented on the spot, doesn't exist.
Before exposure to more queer stuff, I already knew I didn't like having body hair, and long for having a womb, and so on... but I didn't have a "name" for those together. I only knew I felt meh in my body and didn't really feel 'at home'. When I finally started to figure it out, it gradually 'clicked' and helped me!
To take a parallel. Just because formal English doesn't distinguish "thou" and "you" anymore*, it doesn't mean that English speakers don't understand the concept of multiple people.
* Yeah, I know of 'ye, you lot, tha, yinz, (all) y'all', etc., shuttup shuttup ඞ. Bear with me for a second.
Or like how spoken Hungarian, Chinese, and Estonian do not distinguish gendered pronouns, instead having a neutral one. That doesn't mean those people don't know what a man, woman, or enby is.
And to hit the nail in the coffin even more. If a language like Russian distinguishes 'blue' and 'breen' (blue-green) as standalone colours in their own right, does that mean they can distinguish them and anglophones can't?
No. People are familiar with them. It's just that not all know the word for the concept. Knowing the concept-word helps in understanding, though, and so it's time for a nice xkcd (explanation included for the lazy).
I don't care if I've ranted too much, get a nice cookie here and enjoy. 🍪
guy who's really into greasing his hair and listening to elvis, discovers elvis impersonators and "suddenly" starts wanting to impersonate elvis.
we really have to put a stop to this rampant presleyism, it's harming our children
I’m probably an egg (by which I mean I’m pretty sure I’m trans and would love to take a pill right now to make it so that I had always been a dude, but I don’t know that I’d take one that turned me into a man now, because I don’t know if it’s worth it to explain it to everyone. I also don’t think I’m actually experiencing dysphoria, just aware that I’m probably a man. I think that counts as an egg for some people, trans and closeted for others, and probably cis [lol] for transmedicalists).
If I ever do come out, it’s probably going to seem sudden as fuck to a bunch of people, because I’ve already thought about it for years, so I’ll have everything planned out as efficiently as possible and ready to go the second I decide to transition. I’ll come out to people after I’ve started hormones and right before it becomes noticeable, which I’ll time to coincide with a top surgery (my mother died young of breast cancer that was diagnosed when she was within a few years of my age, and I’m medically eligible for a full mastectomy). That might be wishful thinking, but at least from here, I think I can be patient about it.
The important indicator imo isn't dysphoria per se, but euphoria. If you for example were to feel fine either way but feel happier being a guy, then that's a good one.
The way I came out was basically figure out how certain I was of it, then tell to my most trusted people, then spread outward.
Yeah it would have been easy for my parents to think it came on suddenly, hell I had a beard when I came out. I was also heavily involved in trans forums to the point my username was well known to the people there every day, I had been out to my friends for nearly a year, I'd known I wasn't cis for over two years, and I'd been struggling with dysphoria and the desire to be a girl/woman my entire life. It's just that I'd tried to go all in on masculinity in the hopes it would help and it didn't
That is dysphoria. You don’t need to physically hate the body your in, just want to be in a different one.
And likewise your reasons for not wanting to transition aren’t based on not being trans but on social stigma and having to deal with it.
Best way I heard it is that no cis person is out there giving the time of thought to this subject.
Luckily if you’re going FTM there’s less issue with age, as you can develop a masculine presentation later in life via HRT. Take the time you need to find yourself.
The anti trans crowd aren't unequipped to describe what they are seeing. They aren't interested in the journey so they don't look at the map. They don't see the inner journey of doubt, realization, to empowering actualization.
To them a person just decides they are going to be someone new and it becomes taboo to ever reference the person they knew. They are uncurious about what happened to that person and don't know that what looks like a decision is a realization. No one walks them through the nightmare period of endless self doubt and denial. They have no clue about any part of the struggle.
The real heart break is that trans art is amazing at sharing the experience but the anti trans folks are uncurious and siloed in their media consumption so they don't explore anything they don't know.
At this point any US org or system gathering information on non-cis people might be feeding into Palantir's systems for repression use.
Is Palantir a US government mass surveillance thing? If so, then congrats to whoever named the thing Palantir...
Private US corp. Used by various gov'ts around the world, the US included. It's how gov'ts can both "not spy on their citizens" while end up having the ability to do so and use the info - by buying it from a private corpo.
TIL the company is very aptly named:
The stones were an unreliable guide to action, since what was not shown could be more important than what was selectively presented
Yup, they stole from Tolkien's works. Much like Morgoth, they have no creativity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies
Palantir Technologies Inc. is an American publicly traded company that develops data integration and analytics platforms enabling government agencies, militaries, and corporations to combine and analyze data from multiple sources. Its flagship products—Gotham (for intelligence and defense) and Foundry (for commercial and civil use)—connect previously siloed databases to support intelligence operations, counterterrorism analysis, law enforcement, and enterprise analytics.
At a minimum, someone with really bad judgement, who cares more about making headlines than doing high-quality research, and who shouldn't be trusted to treat the subjects of this study with respect.
Bailey was the Northwestern professor who had a live demo of a reciprocating sex toy, put on by a volunteer and her partner. It was optional to attend the demo, students were over 18 and allegedly informed on what they were going to see.
He's also been repeatedly called out for not properly informing participants in his studies. One accusation of sleeping with one of his research subjects. And toed the ethics line on writing evaluation letters for candidates of sex assignment surgery when he didn't hold a license.
His wikipedia article links to sources.
The first smell test for any survey is how would they possibly control for the non-response rate?
Putting out a billboard to ask something like "what's kind of makeup should a cracked egg try first" will get a bunch of recommendations and advertisment copy. But it wouldn't tell you much about how many males wearing makeup are trans, enby, drag, or just wearing a costume. And noting at all about how many trans girls even try makeup at all.
"Tell me your responses about how much HRT sucks" would, similarly, get you a dataset that's highly distorted.