Transsexual Road Map > Films
and Books > BBL Clearinghouse
> A Critique of the Autogynephilia Hypothesis >
|
|
Transsexual Road Map > Films
and Books > BBL Clearinghouse
> A Critique of the Autogynephilia Hypothesis >
|
|
|
Financing Insurance Workplace Legal issues Name choice Name change Driver’s license Birth certificate Passport Marriage Will Other documents
|
The Bailey Affair: Psychology Perverted: A Response by Dr Peter Hegarty, Dr Penny Lenihan, Dr Meg Barker and Dr Lyndsey Moon
As a social psychologist (PH), a consultant counselling psychologist (PL) a
social psychologist (MB) ) and a chartered counselling psychologist (LM), we
are challenged and heartened by Joan Roughgarden's call for psychologists to
condemn transphobic and otherwise bigoted research. Like Roughgarden we were
troubled upon reading Bailey's book for its explicit transphobic assumptions
that trans adults are a negative outcome of development and for the heterosexism,
sexism and racism which Roughgarden describes so well. Trans men, gay and bisexual
women are notable by their invisibility in the text. The use of the authors
friends' opinion of bisexuality as "gay, straight or lying" in the
book itself, and now it seems in advertisements is not perceived as amusing
or trivial in our opinion in view of the slow progress there has been in developing
a bisexual psychology, and the real effects of biphobia in blighting people's
lives. There is very little recognition in mainstream psychology generally which
is further perpetuated by this book, that someone could be attracted to both
sexes or have relationships with both, with many theorists favouring the general
binary construction of sexuality which does not allow for an 'in between' position;
people are either gay or straight (Ochs, 1996). Generally, many bisexuals are
seen as straight if in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, and
gay if in a relationship with someone of the same sex and that experience of
having an imposed social identity which conflicts with a personal identity,
and the confusion it engenders can have commonalities with trans experience.
In respect to the "Gaydar" and discussion of sexual orientation and
related behaviour described in the book, a whole literature of gay and lesbian
psychology which has been painstakingly developed and promoted within mainstream
psychology, appears to have been excluded. We are particularly concerned that Bailey's work will be seen as representative
of scientific psychological research, both by the trans community and by other
sections of the public. Bailey relies on a sample size of six - which would
not be sufficient for any experimental or survey research to be published in
a peer reviewed psychology journal. (Indeed, the standard statistical assumptions
upon which quantitative psychological research rests - such as the central limit
theorem - cannot apply to samples of this size). In this regard Bailey's work
is an outlier rather than the norm for quantitative psychology. Sometimes psychologists do conduct research with small sample sizes, and rely
on qualitative data rather than quantitative data. Such research can be particularly
useful when conducted among under-represented and difficult-to-access populations
as it can inform psychologists about a group that it might be difficult to study
statistically. Does Bailey's research then fit the model for acceptable qualitative
psychology? This is questionable. A hallmark of good qualitative research is
reflexivity - an awareness and description of the way that qualitative data
is shaped by the researcher's own position. Qualitative researchers also frequently
understand their participants as directing the research and informing its questions.
The participants in this research have provided the case material but cannot
be said to be participants in the sense that is currently considered good practice
in psychological research. There is insufficient discussion of the limitations
of his interviews and too many conclusions are drawn about the essence of transsexual
psychology from casual talk in bars, occasional anecdotes and the opinions of
the author's friends. The persistent critiques from the trans community (including
Bailey's own participants) support our criticism of this not being collaborative
qualitative research.In spite of the differences between them, and the debates
between quantitative and qualitative methods in particular, all social scientific
methodologies are designed to ensure that we do not inflate our own opinions
into evidence. In quantitative research this is done by using methods that limit
the effects of the researchers' own perspective on the data. In qualitative
research, it is done by making those effects part of the data itself. This is
not in evidence in the research reported in "The Man Who Would Be Queen". As a result the danger that Bailey's expressed anti-trans opinions might be confused with scientific evidence is particularly high in this case. Indeed, Bailey repeatedly uses a non-scientific form of argument, the 'ad hominum', to lend scientific credence to his point of view. He often cites his own status within scientific communities (and those of colleagues) but it is important to note that status within one's own field, (or elsewhere), should count for nothing in academic debates. For these reasons, the consistent criticism of Bailey's work from trans scholars, scientists from other disciplines and activists such as Joan Roughgarden, Jed Bland and Lynn Conway is particularly welcome to us as psychologists who are concerned with standards of ethical and scholarly conduct within our field. Roughgarden is right that there is a history of transphobic research in psychology. In fact we are surprised that she describes Bailey's research as 'surprising' as he has been involved in research on childhood 'gender non-conformity' for some time (e.g., Bailey & Zucker, 1996). Most of the psychological research on transsexuality and transgender falls into the abnormal clinical literature, as did most research on homosexuality up until the 1970s. Indeed, in contrast to the well-developed fields of research on heterosexism (and also sexism, ageism, and racism) there are few studies of transphobia in psychology journals, and no standardized attitude measure has been published. Clearly there is a wide open field of trans psychology, premised on the assumption that trans people are people rather than clinical cases, which is crying out to be developed. However, it would be wrong to assume that the methods of psychology are so completely flawed that they render Bailey's research as paradigmatic. As psychologists with a special interest in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
psychology and civil rights, we accept the need to change the way psychology
has constructed all of these populations and to draw from recent works within
the field of psychology to expand our everyday reality about our social worlds.
However, we also recognise the need to become more interdisciplinary and even
multidisciplinary if we really do want to move lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender
(and dare we say 'queer') studies into the 21st Century. There are growing numbers
of critical psychologists challenging traditional psychological theories and
shifting paradigms. This is particularly evident in the Lesbian and Gay Psychology
Section of the British Psychological Society which promotes and develops lesbian,
gay and bisexual psychological research and practice not framed from within
a heterosexist framework, as well as including a significant number of psychologists
with a special interest in developing a transgender psychology which does not
pathologise trans people . This will inevitably take time and patience - despite
the need for those impatient enough to want change, to come forward and become
more visible.
|
|
|
|
||
