Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
I had two rebuttals to my article on transgenderism, “A sex change won’t do you good,” [The Maine Campus, April 7] a letter from Charlie Brickham and a column from Claire Folsom [The Maine Campus, April 11]. Both said I was uniformed, chiefly because I reject Karl Ulrich’s 1868 notion of “women’s souls in men’s bodies.”
Brickham reminded readers that “Gender roles are preconceived social constructs and expectations placed upon a person at birth and taught throughout life.” Contradictorily, he also stated that transgenderism is a “conflict between their biological sex and their true gender.” Brickham also asserts that transgenderism is a “genetic characteristic.” So, which is it, biological or social? Brickham does a superb job of demonstrating the simple logical flaw in the accepted origin theory of transgenderism. How can gender be both socially constructed and a genetic trait? I conclude it cannot.
Transkids.us says “Continuing to treat transsexuality as a problem of ‘gender identity’ confuses the issues and makes an accurate description of the psychology of transsexuality impossible.”
Transgenderism is a slippery field based on feelings and emotions. Transgendered author Dr. Madeline H. Wyndzen admits, “As a scientific psychologist, I am surprised at how little attention has been given to conducting empirical work to understand transsexuality.”
What wasn’t reflected in Monday’s paper was the number of ad hominem attacks I’ve received in the past week, both written and verbal. These attacks didn’t attempt to discredit my scientific view, they attempted to discredit me. I’ve been called bigoted and ignorant and told that this is a gay issue – it’s not – and that I don’t have the right to a view. Sadly, these same tactics are commonly used on anyone who questions the transgendered community.
In 2003, Dr. J. Michael Bailey, then head of the Psychology Department at Northwestern University, published “The Man Who Would Be Queen.” His book said that there are two very different types of trans-folk with two different reasons for gender dysphoria. The first type, which Claire and Charlie appear to belong to, are known as autogynephilic and are attracted to women. The second group, homosexual transsexuals, are hyper-effeminate, exclusively gay men.
Some members of the transgendered community, mostly autogynephelics, didn’t like Bailey’s well-researched view. They attacked Bailey’s credentials and pressured Northwestern to investigate him for research misconduct pertaining to informed consent. Please note that even if the charges were proven to be true they would not disprove any of his findings.
The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association – HBIGDA – whose ideals were refuted by Bailey, tried to influence the investigation. Psychologist Dr. Ray Blanchard, head of Canada’s most established gender clinic, was so disgusted by HIGDA’s attempt to interfere, that he responded with an angry public letter.
In regards to discussing issues like this in universities, political science professor Amy Fried said “Part of getting an education is learning about different views, assessing evidence and arguing about both – it is not about being in a safe bubble with people and ideas with which you agree. If you don’t like someone’s position against gay and lesbian studies or against the Bush administration’s foreign policy, then make an argument about why you don’t like it. Not only is saying “I’m offended” not an argument, it is personal. It is a personal statement about one’s feelings and the other person, who you have labeled as offensive.”
It’s heartbreaking to see how many narrow-minded people are on this campus. We’d all be better off, conservative and liberal, if we pulled our fingers out of our ears and just listened to each other.
Mike Hartwell is a senior journalism major.
