Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Free Speech...Unless You Don't Agree

Geez, this kind of crap from the left is so common I don't know why we even notice it any more. If you don't like what someone has to say, SHOUT THEM DOWN, SILENCE THEM!!! By all means don't try to carry on an intelligent debate. You should never do your own research or write your own book to refute an argument with which you disagree.

Even if you state a fact that nobody disputes, if it is an uncomfortable fact for someone you will be shouted down and pilloried for stating it.

Look at this story. It starts off by telling us that "The central figure, J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University, has promoted a theory that his critics think is inaccurate, insulting and potentially damaging to transgender women." What is the response? Academic analysis? Research or presentation of facts to refute the theory?

Hell no, this is the left we are talking about. They accused him of all kinds of crap. Basically, you throw enough dirt and the air is so cloudy no one can see the original issue. One "woman" accused him of having sex with her, but, of course, she doesn't want to talk about it to anyone who is trying to clear the air. And besides, he wasn't married at the time she claims they had sex, so big deal, if it's even true.

Another couple of "girls" accused him of "researching" them without their permission. Turns out he didn't even mention them in the book.

They accused him of conducting human research without telling the subjects they were, well, subjects. Of course, being told they were subjects of research may have altered the results, but it turns out he may not have been doing "research" after all:
Moreover, based on her own reading of federal regulations, Dr. Dreger, whose report can be viewed at, argued that the book did not qualify as scientific research. The federal definition describes “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation.”

Dr. Bailey used the people in his book as anecdotes, not as the subjects of a systematic investigation, she reported.
Oh, what was the controversy you ask? Well, certainly it was something so outlandish, so completely and utterly false, so destructive to the fabric of society that it justified attempting to destroy him.

He "intended to explain the biology of sexual orientation and gender to a general audience."
Many sex researchers who have worked with Dr. Bailey say that he is a solid scientist and collaborator, who by his own admission enjoys violating intellectual taboos.

In his book, he argued that some people born male who want to cross genders are driven primarily by an erotic fascination with themselves as women. This idea runs counter to the belief, held by many men who decide to live as women, that they are the victims of a biological mistake — in essence, women trapped in men’s bodies. Dr. Bailey described the alternate theory, which is based on Canadian studies done in the 1980s and 1990s, in part by telling the stories of several transgender women he met through a mutual acquaintance. In the book, he gave them pseudonyms, like “Alma” and “Juanita.”
The response? Basically, "I don't like what you wrote, or even that you dared to broach the subject."
But days after the book appeared, Lynn Conway, a prominent computer scientist at the University of Michigan, sent out an e-mail message comparing Dr. Bailey’s views to Nazi propaganda. She and other transgender women found the tone of the book abusive, and the theory of motivation it presented to be a recipe for further discrimination.

Dr. Conway did not respond to requests for an interview.

Dr. Ben Barres, a neurobiologist at Stanford, said in reference to Dr. Bailey’s thesis in the book, “Bailey seems to make a living by claiming that the things people hold most deeply true are not true.”
A Nazi? What the hell, lady, or whatever you are? How many people has he killed? Why don't you go to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, and see if you still feel this applies? Does Dr. Bailey have a stack of thousands of shoes in his backyard from innocents he has killed? Oh, wait, you won't answer these questions, will you? You prefer to send out horrible e-mails and then refuse to discuss them. Won't even try to defend your smears, will you?

The basic message from Dr. Conway and Dr. Barres, as is typical of these types of attacks from the left, is that they got their feeling hurt because he claimed "thins people hold most deeply true are not true." Oh, boo freakin' hoo. Get a box of tissues and go have a good cry.

No comments: