Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sex change theory"
m (Talk:Sex change moved to Talk:Sex change theory: more about the theory or ideology behind it, than what it actually entails)
Latest revision as of 18:47, 21 March 2008
It should be noted that Bailey's book was not intended to be entirely scientific, but rather simply an empirical account. Thus, the information in "The Boy Who Would Be Queen" has not peer-reviewed, nor published in a scientific journal. The significant reaction of the transgender activists seems to be targetting the title, the cover art, and the presumed bias that Bailey has in the matter.
This does not make the harassment that was done to him appropriate, but rather provides a more lenient approach to disagreement, where empirical experiences can be used to refute Bailey's position. Unfortunately, even among transgender activists, it's known that there are really two types of transsexuals... those who are naturally effeminate, and those who are not. It's documented way back to at least a Muslim teacher commenting to some members that the transsexual in question (likely not surgically so) was doing no sin, and did not deserve to die, because they are acting naturally. However that there were others who were doing what seems similar for different intentions, and it is typically quite obvious that they don't belong as females (not because of how they look, but rather because of how they act) and that acting unnaturally as a female was a sin.
A lot of the content in this article is covered elsewhere in transgender activism and gender identity disorder. I believe this article would be served more appropriate in describing the actual sex reassignment therapy, of hormones, primary surgery, and facial surgery.
Bailey did not publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper from his data, rather he published a book presenting his empirical data. This article should not imply that he did publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper, as that is false.