Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen/Archive 12

Liza Mundy
Liza Mundy in the Washington Post wrote, "I got so bored that I began recreationally underlining passages to decide which was the dullest."[32]

I think this sentence ought to be deleted. Is it there because WaPo needs mentioning? Doesn't add a thing of value, IMO. - Hordaland (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree the quote itself is not helpful. It also misses omits her point that the topic itself is interesting.  However it's the only note I've seen that criticizes the writing, not the contents, so it adds some perspective.  I replaced the quote with an explanation; feel free to improve as always....   LouScheffer (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. - Hordaland (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why, it fits right in with Dregers conspiracy theories ? I mean, the article is full of this nonsense. DarlieB (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you explain that comment further?--Hfarmer (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dreger alleged a fantasy "transsexual conspiracy" had up until recently been cited in this article as fact without proof or legal action ever being taken. The article as of this moment is fairly balanced  but it has at points been a slandering heap of Bailey propaganda aimed at trying to resurrect  a  sloppy "popular science"  assumption . I found Mundy's musings humorous given the eight times Dregers comments were presented falsely as being from other sources  and not as quotes from Dreger, which they were.DarlieB (talk)

Popular science
I added Category:Popular science to this article and it was quickly reverted. I do not see why. Popular science is, according to Wikipedia, "interpretation of science intended for a general audience. [...] often written by scientists as well as journalists..."

TMWWBQ is certainly intended for a general audience, science is in its title, and the author refers to his research.

The Executive Editor of The National Academies Press and The Joseph Henry Press, in his open letter calls the book "a work intended to inform general audiences about one scholar's efforts...". Also, JHP is "engaged in publishing books on science, engineering and medicine for popular audiences," and the publisher's intention was "to offer insight into how one scientist has arrived at his views..."

The book clearly is popular science by any definition. - Hordaland (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. It was promoted as popular science, but then it was criticised for not being about science, and even the author said, if I recall correctly, that it wasn't really about science, or at least that his own "research" that he was discussing wasn't actually scientific research.  Personally, I felt it was an insult to science to put this book in that category, but if others think it's appropriate, I'll hold off objecting. Dicklyon (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As a point of fact, Bailey (and others) described it specifically as being about science, and not itself science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The book was promoted as "accurate"scientific fact and has been used as validation by it's readers of scientific fact. Bailey was not clear on it's triviality . Since when do "popular science " books get submitted for peer review ?DarlieB (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One issue is that John Bancroft, then-director of the Kinsey Institute stated that the book was "not science." His view echoed a number of other comments about the book. How about the categories Popular psychology and Pseudoscience instead of or in addition to Popular science? Jokestress (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Activists can critize anything claiming any number of reasons, but that doesn't make it true. When Bancroft said the book was not science, he meant 'not a scientific report,' which no one ever said it was.  Everyone but the activists meant the word "science" to mean a summary of empirical literature; only the activists are saying that "science" means in this instance the conduct of an experiment.  To label the book "pseudoscience" is activist POV; although activists are entitled to their POV, that POV should be described on WP not pushed by WP.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd point out that User:James Cantor is the key activist for the psychologists who support Bailey. I don't think it's a good idea to put words in the mouth of John Bancroft, who said Bailey "did not support his analysis in a scientific manner—hence my comment." There's also this:
 * "Shoddy scholarship and pseudoscience A work of questionable scientific merit that has been seized upon recently by the religious right is 'The Man Who Would Be Queen,' by J. Michael Bailey, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. Bailey's errors include accepting old stereotypes of gay femininity and relying on wildly unrepresentative samples, such as the men he found at Chicago's gay dance bars. The book was praised by John Derbyshire, a virulently anti-gay contributor to National Review."
 * Source: Richard J. Rosendall (March 2, 2004). Bush's backfire. Salon.com
 * James Cantor's attempts to dismiss criticism of this book as only by "activists" is the real POV-pushing here. He's been actively promoting this book and denigrating its critics since 2003, when he was blurbed in the book's marketing materials. Jokestress (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jokestress can type all she likes, but there are many RS's that call her an activist (as does her own user page), and none that refer to me as such. (There are many RS's, however, that refer to me as a scientist with expertise in sexology.)  I have no objection whatsoever to the page including Bancroft's opinion of Bailey's book.  I object only to selectively quoting Bancroft to make it seem like he said something he did not.
 * Hordaland: Because you are the one who believes that the book is appropriately called pop science, I can recommend only that you read Jokestress' off-wiki attack site about this book and then come to your own opinion. She produced a rendering of the conspiracy she believes is behind the book located here.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Mr Cantor the reason you aren't referred to a as an "activist " is because your career is your activism . Your kind can come up with ridiculous theories and impose them on minorities validated only by data manipulation or exclusion . Whats fascinating is that you have any career at all as you spend ample time here trying to keep some minor cornerstone of your useless work validated . Your attack Jokestress because she represents the community you need to smear and discredit so you don't lose your job. Like Dr Money it's not the truth that matters but your 'theories".  Bailey is not in trouble only  because he "claims " this not to be a "hard science " book. His quotes and the books own promotion contradict that. Here is a quote from that site you point to:

"Despite having “science” in the title and being promoted as “original research,” many consider the book scientifically unsound and deeply biased. It describes gender variance in metaphors of disease and impairment that are an extension of Bailey's belief that homosexuality is an evolutionary mistake and a developmental error. Bailey's writings on homosexual eugenics and his belief that male bisexuals are liars echo his thinking on trans issues as well. "

Best not to have your victims around to argue your fantasies. That is an accurate assessment and your editing this is like having Bailey edit it. WendyP123 (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[editconflict] I just read the popular psychology article. You can take it to mean whatever -- at least, it left me confused. In general, it's not about literature while popular science is. The very word pseudoscience has negative connotations; I won't be associated with that can of worms! I don't think that it is "an insult to science to put this book in that category," as a lot of bad literature, much of it criminally simplified for example, is called popular science. - Hordaland (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what this is, but it does not fit with what I think of as popular science. This label normally makes me think of two types of books - those that explain a generally accepted scientific topic in a simplified way (perhaps General relativity for dummies or similar) and those that present both sides of a scientific controversy so non-specialists can see what the argument is about.  A book written for a popular audience, but that takes one side of a controversial topic, seem more like activism than the traditional popular science.  As Bertrand Russell said - if the experts do not agree, no opinion should be held to be certain.  LouScheffer (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "If the experts do not agree, no opinion should be held to be certain." Well said Lou. DarlieB (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Today's efforts
I'm sure that DarlieB expected just about everything done today to get reverted for exactly the same reasons that already fill several of the archives listed above, but the "spokesman" issue is new, so here's the explanation: a spokesperson never speaks for himself; s/he speaks for the organization. Therefore it is not "Alan Cubbage" that says X or Y, but the organization itself that says whatever comes out of his mouth.

It is directly analogous to an attorney speaking in court on behalf of a client: it may look like the attorney's lips are the ones that are moving, but in the eyes of the court, only the client is speaking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It was as reported and was a more accurate quote since it was Alan Cubbage who spoke for the university who made the statement.     Again, whether it is true or not is another thing as the actual investigation during which Bailey resigned was closed to the public and kept in secret.DarlieB (talk)  DarlieB (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your response. My objection is to your insistence on including the name of the specific person that NWU hired to make its formal announcements.  I think that including his name is utterly superfluous and therefore a WP:DUE violation.  You seem to think that it's important for some reason, but you have not explained what that reason might be.
 * Are you now claiming that the identity of the NWU spokesperson was kept a secret? Or does your link about secrecy refer to what NWU said (=the point that is NOT under discussion here), instead of which person they hired to make the statement (=the point that IS under discussion here)?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, it was "as reported" in the article cited as the source of statement . You "think" is not a reason for not excluding it, it is directly from the source .  Oh, I see now there is some  "conspiracy"  I'm supposed to be alleging ?   Oh please , I'm not Dreger  DarlieB (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, show me ANY proof of a" chilling effect" from criticism of Baileys book ? Better yet, show me a scientist or researcher that believes that the statement of ones theories comes without consequence. This completely contrived "academic freedom " section has absolutely no basis in fact or evidence in the real world. DarlieB (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's try sticking to the subject at hand. I think that naming the specific individual person that NWU hired as its spokesperson is trivial, unimportant, and places undue weight on the statement.  I think this in part because the actual content of the statement would be the same no matter who NWU hired to make statements for it.
 * WP:DUE says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
 * You seem to think that we should provide details about who NWU employed as its spokesperson simply because we can verify the fact, regardless of whether this is an appropriate depth of detail or quantity of text surrounding a fairly simple statement. Do I understand your position correctly?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought we should included the spokesman's name because that was exactly who the article named as having made the statement. As if when Scott McClellan was making statements for the Whitehouse you dont say "The Whitehouse " said them, you name the spokesman. But then "weight" was not your concern really, was it ? Adding one persons name is not what "not adding undue weight" means . You have perverted the meaning.DarlieB (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Basic rules
DarlieB,

I just want to be clear that you've been bold, and you've been reverted three times now, by two different editors, and that means that you do not have consensus for your additions, so you should stop adding them, and explain what you want to add, why you think it's important, and what sources support it before you edit the article again. The burden is on you to justify your additions, but you may not simply ignore the opposition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. DarlieB obviously doesn't know how to be an appropriate wikipedia editor. On the other hand, there's a good point behind the statement attributed to Moser, just not very well made.  If you want to be more productive, instead of a simple revert you could try to help DarlieB by showing what a proper statement based on Moser might look like.  Moser is basically saying that Dreger got it wrong, that such tactics of complaining to the authorities are not new, not wrong, and not at attack on academic freedom.  It's a good alternative POV to add at that point, don't you think?  Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing's goal is not to improve the article nor add clarity Dickylon, he is here to push his POV into what was the most blatantly false and fabricated article on wiki filled with unsourced lies and assumptions.   Wiki's neutrality clause states:


 * "Each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias."


 * Till recently this article was nothing more than an extension of Alice Dregers factless, amateur assumption .  IGNORE THE OPPOSITION ??????  I HAVE IN FACT ASKED ON THIS FORUM OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS ANY PROOF THIS BOOK CAUSED ANY LOSS OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM ! ANY !  I WROTE AN ENTRE SECTION ON IT IN DISCUSSION ! The entire "Academic Freedom" section itself  is in this article because of one newspaper article on Dregers "amateur" research  and not for any result or effect  that led to that conclusion ! The hypocrisy is thick as on the one hand you filled this article with your clearly hate filled POV while reverting  anything that didn't smell like your own spoor ! Meanwhile you have ignored every question I have posted on  it. Oh it's not just Moser who disagrees with Baileys fantasy "suppression ", it's everyone. No, the burden of proof is on you and I am warning you now, unless you come up with proof this section has some proof other than Dregers illusion I calling for it's deletion entirely. YOU CAN'T GIVE BAILEY'S ATTACK STATEMENT WITH NO BALANCE !  It's an assault by innuendo  on every critic ( thousands of them ) who disagreed with Bailey's methods and conclusions . I know you are here to protect Bailey but it's not balanced nor fair .  YOU PROVE IT !


 * Now I've written nothing attacking Bailey and in the beginning even Cantor said my edits were the "most neutral ".  Two editors is NOT consensus  when there are fifteen on this article. Oh and Dickylon found that my point was valid so that makes two to two and removes your "consensus" baloney all together ( by the way, where are the sections we get to vote on YOUR additions ?) . You knew there was a basis to challenge Baileys assertions of suppression based in the responses from all his critics ( many of them academics )  and yet you left that up.  To me that is an INTENTIONAL SMEAR and a violation of "do no harm". Unless you have proof of "suppression" , the publisher being threatened, the sellers being threatened or some other actual traceable form of suppression I am saying we should delete any reference to it.


 * Like it or not I have contributed to the neutrality of this article, not removed it.DarlieB (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If the problem is unsourced stuff, point it out and we can fix that; tag it with, or just take it out.  But don't add more unsourced stuff or your own interpretations.  You can't really contribute to the neutrality if you add stuff that just gets removed for lack of reliable sourcing; and as as W points out, fighting to include the name of a spokesperson is just a bit silly.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dick, the Moser source isn't a good one for saying anything beyond Moser's own opinion. It doesn't support the actual statement that DarlieB was trying to make (unless you take it as a single example of the existence of critics, and assume that if one exists, there must be "many").
 * DarlieB, please direct your attention to the previous section, and see if we can get a single, small, low-stakes dispute resolved. Then, if you want, we can try something more complicated.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The hypocrisy ! It's exactly what you have done with Dreger WAID !  You take a single example of a clearly bias person  and QUOTE THEM FIVE TIMES  though out  through other people, none of them holding the same opinion, just quoting  her . The only reason those quotes aren't in now is because of me, not any of you !  Moser's  opinion os as good as Dreger and his quotes were  properly sourced from published  articles . The idea of you saying " single example of the existence of critics " is hilarious. Dregers paper spouting fabricated delusions of conspiracies fighting the freedom of speech is the most horrific distortion of  the truth ever ! 23 papers  were written against hers not even counting McCloskey he said OUTRIGHT THERE WAS NOTHING BEYOND NORMAL  ACADEMIC CRITICISM  ! And all in  complete defiance of Baileys accusations of the loss of  "Academic Freedom " baloney. One critic, that is such an intentionally fraudulent statement.
 * WAID, you have not sourced the " Loss of Academic Freedom" beyond more that one bigoted , self serving person . Dreger, the amateur , untrained detective who has no history of investigations and has never produced evidence   for scrutiny.  One person you base the entire section on but that was sure good enough for you.  You have smeared accredited academics along with the transgender academics  community  by making these  false accusations of suppression with no proof whatsoever beyond an amateurs guesses so I wouldn't be babbling on to my sourcing. DarlieB (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * DarlieB, you're not wrong in some of these assessments, perhaps, but you can't get away with just publishing your gut feelings in wikipedia. Bring some sources to our attention here, preferably in calm language, and I'll be happy to help you figure out how to add info to the article while respecting policy.  This is not a problem with wikipedia – it's a problem with your editing.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DarlieB, if you can't engage in a productive conversation about a very simple matter (above), then I simply have no reason to believe that a conversation about a more complex matter is worth our time and energy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, the only conversations you consider "productive" are the ones you don't lose ! Amazing ! Calling 2 people out of probably 17  editors on this article  a "consensus" , constant personal insults and snide personal references aimed at other editors , then attacking things you know are true rather than properly formating them. Your push for excluding Moser is based on nothing other than your desire for this article to be as bias as possible in favor of Dr Bailey. This is not neutrality , it is disgusting manipulation . This article is still filled with nonsense and propaganda and it's time to cleanse it ! DarlieB (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes Dickylon, your adhering to wiki rules must have been what got you banned so many times.DarlieB (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never been banned from wikipedia; just a few temporary blocks for too many reverts in one day. And sounds like time for you to review WP:NPA.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Many editors don't know the distinction, so here's the summary: WP:BLOCK is what Wikipedia does to temporarily stop a problem.  It is invoked, for example, when a spate of disruptive behavior might indicate that an account has been cracked.  WP:BAN is normally permanent, and indicates that the editor is not welcome on Wikipedia any longer because the community has given up hope that the editor will be helpful.  Sometimes bans are restricted to a topic (e.g., this editor is no longer allowed to edit articles about Israeli-Palestinian relations).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny Dick, I got banned temporarily only once for the same so at this point I'm the good person. :) DarlieB (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling for the deletion of the "Loss if Academic Freedoms" section
ATTENTION FELLOW EDITORS ! The " Loss of Academic Freedom" should be removed as it is based on one single person POV and not based on anything factual or proven. There has been absolutely no proof of any of the "chilling effect " or loss of freedoms. Dreger, the amateur, untrained detective with no history of investigations and has never produced evidence of such for scrutiny to back these accusations. It smears  real life accredited academics along with the transgender academics  community with unfounded, factless,  gender hate fueled lies. This never should have been included in this article and contains absolutely no insight to add to Baileys books or theories. It merely fuels serves as propaganda in a professors war against his own failed career. It's inclusion is shameful proof this article was forged by his colleges without a single care for honesty or neutrality.

With that I am calling for Dr Baileys colleges to come forward again and provide proof of the accusations. The book met wide release, there was never any supression ever. Please provide threats against publisher, back room deals to made to ruin , anything that shows that academic freedom was suppressed. Otherwise there is no reason for it to be included at all, not even as a footnote. This article has been purged of the insane conspiracy theories of Alice Dreger and now the last remnants of this anti-transgender propaganda must go. If we are duty bound to remove untrue, unsourced material, this was the first thing that should have gone. DarlieB (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't need proof that having several transsexual activists publicly humiliate your children, attempt to have you fired, and attempt to have you put in jail actually caused a measurable loss of freedom. We only need to demonstrate that reliable sources talked about this issue -- which we have done, amply.  Both supporters and detractors have discussed this issue.  WP:DUE therefore requires us to include it.
 * The section is a POV-pushing mess at the moment -- e.g., it mis-attributes Carey's writing to Dreger in an effort to pretend that Dreger is the only person on the planet that expressed any concern about this issue -- but the need for the section's inclusion is clear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol! So on one hand you have to have properly sourced material, OH EXCEPT WHEN WAID WANTS TO INJECTED HIS BIGOTED UNSOURCED  INNUENDO ! Your constant reference to James using Baileys totally obscene and disgusting text  means nothing when he says it about transsexual kids,  but magically becomes "child abuse"  when laid against   his own children pictures. Hypocrisy ! It has absolutely nothing to do with the claims of suppression of "academic freedom" ! Nothing ! Baileys personal perversions and sexual improprieties with " fetishistic cross dressing men " are his own problem. SHOW US THEY ATTEMPTED TO SUPPRESS THIS BOOK ! They attempted to have Bailey put in jail did they ? What charge did the council of " magic transsexuals "  bring against this  poor guy  ? Can you go to jail for just being a liar ? HILARIOUS ! You have been warned, without proof this section is going. Magic unicorns, elfs and fairies. All very charming in your fantasies but they don't belong on wiki. Provide proof or this section is history. DarlieB (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with WhatamIdoing here. The relevant matters for inclusion of material is whether it has received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Two specifically relevant sources, Benedict Carey in the New York Times and Moser in Archives of Sexual Behavior, explicitly use the term, thus justifying use of the term "academic freedoms" or comparable, and there is reasonable discussion of the subject. And if there were to be any attempts to remove the cited material, it would be reverted. Continued removal of the material would result in the editor doing the removal being blocked and/or the article being locked. I would on that basis very strongly recommend that the threatened removal of the section not take place. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For this section, I was trying to find two independent quotes for each side. For the side that thinks it was not an infringement of academic freedom, I found several.  But for the other side, I could not find any that were independent of Dreger.  The NYT quote seems not so independent, since it also includes the quote by Dreger.  I found a quote by Pinker, but on checking the source he was quoted in an article by Dreger.  Does anyone know of a completely independent quote stating that the criticism amounts to a supression of academic freedom?  LouScheffer (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This was exactly my experience Lou. I just edited out a bunch of unrelated "examples" that had no relation to the article nor were they posted in defense of Bailey by their author. At this point it is the accuracy of the article that is important. If we cannot bring a neutral point of view to it I would rather see the section removed. At this point only quotes from independents, not quoting Dreger, should be allowed. The facts are that it is the vast majority (99.9999999999999999 ) that disagree with this book was ever suppressed. Even so , I have allowed the lone voice of Alice Dreger to used . When books are released it is normal for there to be  academic backlash. It has been that way since the time of Darwin spouting talk of Evolution  and I have not even seen close to that  kind of response. To portray it as  a case of "Academic Freedom " seems a rather hollow defense.DarlieB (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It may indeed be a hollow defense, but it's not in Wikipedia's scope to declare it as such. There is no question that at least some people have framed the dispute in terms of academic freedom - it's well documented in reliable sources.  Hence it seems reasonable to include a section stating that the debate exists.  Now which side is right in this argument is very definitely NOT agreed upon, so all Wikipedia (or any source attempting neutrality) can do is summarize the arguments of both sides, point out that they violently disagree, and provide the references to dig deeper.  I think the current version does this.   LouScheffer (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also want it noted that the 23 rebuttals ( their links ) to Alice Dregers article have been removed. Is that a fair portrayal of the events ? To show it as a 1 to 1 disagreement when in fact there was no one but Dreger supporting Bailey? This is the reason I suggested the removal of this section all together . It is overwhelmingly agreed that this was NOT a case of infringement of Academic Freedom and unless you intend to make that fact known you need to remove it. You all know that this section is totally inaccurate, bias and never should have been included . Give an accurate reflection of the overwhelming rejection to these  suppression charges or remove them DarlieB (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the word overwhelming is appropriate here. By Lynn Conways's account,  "Fourteen PCP's are critical of Dreger’s report (2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25). (including some from prominent clinicians);  Five PCPs are supportive of Dreger's report (9, 11, 12, 14, 20). (including those from Lawrence and from Dreger herself)  Of the remaining PCPs, two take neutral stances (1, 6,) and three are on topics other than the report (5, 21, 22)"  (From ).  I did not include this since Conway figures noticeably in the dispute.  But if Conway, who clearly opposes Dreger, has read the papers and conclude that at least 5 people agree with her, then the case is not so cut and dried that it should not be presented.   LouScheffer (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And yes, I am fine with "Dreger alleges", I went back to edit that when I saw the note Lou left. Thank you Dickylon.DarlieB (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, perhaps "a clear majority " ? Virtually 75%. So Lou, you are not including the 14 to 5 majority because it is Conway ? Is there some reason to dispute those numbers ?DarlieB (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of those don't mention the so-called "academic freedom" issue, which, like it or not, is an issue that has gotten some press. So I think Lou is doing the best that can be done here in balancing the sourced viewpoints. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry to both you  ( Lou ) and Dickylon but I think  I need to rephrase that because on reflection I believe I was right in the first place , the vast majority rejected the "academic freedom " issue  . Those papers that did not mention Dregers " suppression issue "  that you  called neutral,  were not neutral at all because by NOT  supporting Dredger's accusation of  suppression it is clear they did not think it important enough to mention. By not supporting Dreger they   join those who do not see it as an issue so instead of 14 to 5 it becomes 19  to 5 .  Dreger's  amateur , unofficial, unfunded and unqualified investigation is based on conspiracy theory.   Rather than just refute the individual arguments she  jumps into conspiracy theory based only on the fact these women are transsexual and nothing more . If anyone said there was a "black conspiracy " or a "Jewish conspiracy " based ONLY on race , religious or some ethnic identifier would we not reject it ? I'm just amazed that you all would even consider this kind of paper acceptable. If this section is to remain it  can only remain if it discusses the facts and that needs to included Alice Dregers accusations of conspiracy and reflect the clearly VAST majority that reject her  unfounded  accusations of suppression. At this point you are sanitized  her words to appear rational when the truth is , by any point  of view Alice Dreger is clearly a bigot making accusations against a powerless minority. DarlieB (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't logical. If (1) the writer is restricted to a short piece [because the commentaries did have length limits] and (2) wants to focus on something that the writer thinks is important, like whether or not the writer agrees with Blanchard's division of transwomen by their sexual orientation is justified by the evidence, it does not follow that the writer therefore agrees or disagrees with every other statement in the entire paper.  We simply do not know what the majority of these writers think about this issue.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol! If it is restricted ?! Based on what, your imagination ? Dregers paper was on "academic freedom ", her assertions were they were being suppressed ! If someone chooses to ignore it then that proves they don't accept it ! There is absolutely no other logical conclusion you can reach ! That is humorous though ! The restricted article, as if , well if they had space to write about the articles main theme they would. But they ran out of space. DarlieB (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

warning-

 * I find it necessary to warn everyone about two rules: we do not discuss the identity of editors unless they choose to disclose it, and the policies of WP:BLP apply to talk page discussion as well as articles. Obviously there must be enough flexibility to permit the discussion of BLP considerations in the articles, but otherwise the same rules against unsourced comments about individuals apply. In particular, references direct or indirect to criminal behavior must be documented to responsible sources, and not made here. I will immediately block anyone who uses this talk page to abuse people on or off wiki in order to prevent further edits of the sort. .   DGG (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Offensive comments in edit summaries
User:WhatamIdoing has written in an edit summary "Rv DarlieB, again: Gay men are not anybody's daughters. ..." in reference to natal male children with female gender identity. These children are not "gay men"; W and her group tend to always paint gender issues in terms of sexual preference, which is wholly inappropriate, insensitive, and offensive, especially with respect to children. She and the academics whose viewpoint she pushes here will admit that gender identity and sexual preference are not always correlated, yet they persist in categorizing gender identity issues into sexual preference categories. It's bizarre. Is there some way they can be prodded to break out of that offensive behavior? Dicklyon (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I misread this. After all of WAIDS attacks I thought he was attacking me. It is exactly the opposite. Thank you Dickylon.DarlieB (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Danny" is reported to have grown up to be a gay man. This is not about "these children":  this is about a single, real, live individual, who was born male and is living as a man.
 * Danny was never a "girl" or a "daughter," despite having displayed more feminine behaviors than usual when he was young. This is apparently pretty typical of "feminine" boys:  few are transwomen, and many are gay men.
 * DarlieB's insistence on re-writing this section to call a person that has lived his entire adult life as a man "her daughter" and a "young transsexual girl" is offensive and absolutely unverifiable. People that have lived their entire lives as men should not have their gender changed to match one person's perception of one part of their childhood.  At minimum, the courtesy extended to trans people about their current genders should certainly be extended to this cis-gendered man to prevent DarlieB from re-writing his personal history to make him a girl.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't defending Darlie's mistakes, but this content was about a child, not a gay man. If he grew up to be a gay man, that's hardly relevant here, when discussing a child with gender dysphoria; nor would I know that from the article or the edits.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A boy that displays an unusual amount of feminine behavior does not automatically become a "girl". In fact, most such boys consider themselves male their entire lives.  IMO, the fact that he did not ever transition to living as a female is highly relevant to a discussion of whether he should be presented here as being a girl.
 * (The fact that he's gay is only relevant to the extent that this is a typical outcome for such boys; presumably his being gay is why Bailey profiled this individual instead of someone that had a less common outcome, such as being a transwoman.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't arguing about him being referred to as a girl, just your edit summary, which seemed quite inappropriate; but now I see it may have been based on your personal knowledge that the became a gay man later. I'm just saying that in spite of your personal knowledge, the edits were about a child, and referring to the child as a "gay man" was inappropriate.  It struck me as a remark typical of what the Bailey/Blanchard crowd typicaly do, which is to classify a gender-dysphoric individual as a gay man or a person with a paraphylic problem, even if the person is so young that sexual preference is irrelevant to the gender identity.   Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard that sexual orientation is developed around the age of three, so I suppose it's possible to have a homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual young child. I'm not sure how anyone would identify it at that age, though.
 * And it's no more my "personal knowledge" than it is (or should be) yours and everyone else's: Danny's gender identity and sexual orientation is described in one of the reliable sources already cited in this article.  (Dreger's long paper, probably, but I'm not sure:  what I remember is that someone asked Bailey, who seemed sort of surprised by the question.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are we supposed to have read all the sources? And you can't even say which one it's in, but you recall it?  That's what I mean by your personal knowledge. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dreger's paper ? Are you referring to the same paper that the overwhelming majority of her peers reject  (19-4)  ? Dreger investigation was not official, amateur and totally without basis. The Bailey hearings at Northwestern were closed and SEALED so Alice Dreger was  functioning from Dr Baileys opinion alone  ! The same paper  contains her baseless ravings about a "transsexual conspiracy " ?  Tell me WAID, if black academics reject a paper stating that blacks are child molesters  , does that make it a "black conspiracy " ?  The more I am reading here, the more this is beginning to seem like  it is not a suppression of Dr Bailey but the suppression of  transsexual critics of Dr Baileys theories. Brilliantly done though. You cleansed Dreger's statements so only her conclusions appear and not a thing that they are based on. DarlieB (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The so-called "peer commentaries" were not Dreger's peers: they included people with no relevant academic credentials, including graduate students, philosophers, economists and trans people without any academic appointments (much less relevant ones).  Your assertion that the "overwhelming majority of her peers" did anything about the paper is simply false.
 * Dreger's investigation does not have to be "official" to be a reliable source. She does not need authorization from a government entity to talk to people and draw her own conclusions.
 * The word "conspiracy" appears exactly twice in Dreger's paper, and both times it is attributed to A. Kieltyka: Kieltyka's emerging conspiracy theory about Bailey and an international, anti-gay biotech program and Kieltyka believes the "collusion and possible conspiracy" is absolutely key to understanding the backlash against Bailey's book and Conway's role in in.  Dreger herself does not assert the existence of any conspiracy, and by labeling it as a conspiracy theory, she denigrates this idea.  Dreger (accurately, since all sources from all sides agree) reports that a single transwoman believes in a conspiracy, which is not the same thing as Dreger herself believing in this conspiracy.
 * Have you, by any chance, actually read the relevant documents any time in the last year or two? You keep making factual errors like this, and I think that if you read them, you'd have your facts straight.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my but they are her peers ! Most ARE fellow academic's with equal credentials but it's irrelevant because IT WAS NOT AN ARTICLE IN DREGERS FEILD OF EXPERTISE  SO THEY WERE JUST AS MUCH HER PEERS  !   Your self contradictions abound through your entire response as Dreger doesn't have to have any professional skill or ability in field in  which she wrote the article so in fact these people are just as expert  and are easily just as qualified. What is it WAID, they have to know how to investigate but she doesn't.  How hypocritical !
 * Oh yes she does have to have expertise, her article accuses a group of transsexual academics of "conspiracy ". Actually I do believe that is slander ( or libel, I can never remember you know ). The fact you cut out those parts in your Alice Dreger fillet (so delicious when you remove the parts that stink of mendacity ).


 * It doesn't matter how many times she used the word "conspiracy" WAID, that was the picture she painted ! AND NOW THEY ARE AFTER HER ! OOOOoooooo !


 * " And so I became interested. And then one of the three transwomen who went after him actually went after me for complicated reasons, so then I became even more interested and decided to do this study. I really expected when I started doing this history that I would end up with a “he said she said” kind of story, that there would be a misunderstanding. And I was absolutely shaken to my core to discover what I did find, which was that they had absolutely charged him with things that were baseless—and that they must have known were in fact baseless—and made his life absolute hell and nearly got him basically thrown out of the scientific profession in some ways… because people became so afraid of associating with him because of all these charges that in fact had been—as far as I could find from my intense investigation—were not true."- Alice Dreger on KQED 22nd of  August 2007


 * Lol! Give us all a break with your holocaust denials WAID. Alice Dreger created a conspiracy theory against three transsexual academics because they rejected Bailey's conclusions ! She tried to block Andrea James from attending her lecture ! Her goal was to silence them and clear Bailey  . We haven't even started with her article but we will.  Oh I've read it, you had better ! Not only are you wrong but you are clearly deceptive in your choices . DarlieB (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)DarlieB (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless I have lost my ability to read English, your quote above from Alice Dreger does not say she  created a conspiracy, but just that she was scandalized by the attacks made on him. Anything more than that you are reading into it from other sources or opinions. Anyway, Wikipedia talk pages are   to be used for discussing the article, not the topic. And, most important, attacks on living individuals based on your personal knowledge of the events is not permitted on Wikipedia. Darlie, I've blocked you for 2 days for persistent violations of BLP policy after multiple warnings. I remind you that this is not my subject, I have no idea who (if anyone) may be right in the dispute in RL or in Wikipedia--But I do know BLP violations when I see it.  DGG (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally DGG, I hate to concur but I think you've totally lost your ability to read english ( hey,  you said it not me , you going to ban yourself now ? ). It's also far from all the  Alice Dreger quotes where she sinks into "conspiracy paranoia" about 3 transsexuals , all bent on destroying M Bailey. I understand you are completely ignorant on the subject at hand but I appreciate your helping out your friends by blocking anyone who disagrees with them. When I actually asked you to participate I thought you would at least become familiar with the material but I did not realize your you were not into "reading". You may have noticed, I haven't been here for weeks so I do apologize for missing your incredible act of bravery in stopping me from actual debate ! You should be proud. I do though disagree totally about your ability to judge BLP violations. Deleting valid discussion and debate is exactly what it is, so , enjoy your moment of glory ! Cantor, Bailey, Zucker. It's time for this all to be real world so you all write whatever you want. Have a nice day ! DarlieB (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and one last thing , to both WAID and DGG , when did it become  necessary for a person asserting a conspiracy theory to actually say "conspiracy theory" ? I think her mad ravings about how "they " set out to destroy him "  were  enough.  DarlieB (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)