104
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:Transgender activism (view source)
Revision as of 01:01, August 23, 2007
, 01:01, August 23, 2007Reference does not match its use, and its use is actually contrary to the source
I read the reference used to source this paragraph:
:J. Michael Bailey, a psychology professor and sex researcher at Northwestern University, published a book called The Man Who Would Be Queen which sharply disagrees with the pro-sex change view. Dr. Bailey argued that MTF sex changes are motivated primarily by erotic interests and not by the problem of having the gender identity common to one sex in the body of the other.
I'll quote from the source referenced:
:Bailey’s rejection of the feminine essence narrative has led a number of readers (and non-readers)
to incorrectly assume that he has also rejected SRS. In particular many I talked to assumed that, like psychiatrist Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins University, Bailey thinks that having autogynephilia
(considered a sexual disorder) should eliminate one from SRS candidacy. But, in fact, for autogynephilic as for homosexual transsexuals, Bailey believes that, if the subjects will be happier with SRS, they should seek and obtain it. Indeed, he takes McHugh to task for
forcing transsexuals to continue suffering by denying them SRS. “Given our present state of knowledge, saying that we should focus on removing transsexuals’ desire to change sex is equivalent to saying that it is better that they should suffer permanently from gender dysphoria than that they obtain sex reassignment surgery” (p. 207).
The paragraph does not match it's referenced source, and in fact, misrepresents it. I have removed the unsourced, and misrepresenting material. (that he disagrees with the pro-sex change view).
:J. Michael Bailey, a psychology professor and sex researcher at Northwestern University, published a book called The Man Who Would Be Queen which sharply disagrees with the pro-sex change view. Dr. Bailey argued that MTF sex changes are motivated primarily by erotic interests and not by the problem of having the gender identity common to one sex in the body of the other.
I'll quote from the source referenced:
:Bailey’s rejection of the feminine essence narrative has led a number of readers (and non-readers)
to incorrectly assume that he has also rejected SRS. In particular many I talked to assumed that, like psychiatrist Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins University, Bailey thinks that having autogynephilia
(considered a sexual disorder) should eliminate one from SRS candidacy. But, in fact, for autogynephilic as for homosexual transsexuals, Bailey believes that, if the subjects will be happier with SRS, they should seek and obtain it. Indeed, he takes McHugh to task for
forcing transsexuals to continue suffering by denying them SRS. “Given our present state of knowledge, saying that we should focus on removing transsexuals’ desire to change sex is equivalent to saying that it is better that they should suffer permanently from gender dysphoria than that they obtain sex reassignment surgery” (p. 207).
The paragraph does not match it's referenced source, and in fact, misrepresents it. I have removed the unsourced, and misrepresenting material. (that he disagrees with the pro-sex change view).