So Littman and Bailey are controversial. Not unethical. (Fyi Lisa Littman is herself a trans woman).
They do research on a specific sub group of trans women.
Bailey has done lots of other research on sexuality in the homosexual and bisexual area as well.
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
He never said it’s true for all female trans people.
But his evidence is real.
And it’s not really surprising because there are people who cut off body parts because of sexual kinks. There are people out there who get fixated on things and are obsessed. Sexual fixation is an incredibly strong motivator.
Many in the trans community don’t like this research because it paints a picture that they are all just a bunch of perverts.
Which is something that they already have to fight against. So many see it as smearing trans people or encouraging stereotypes.
And. Of course conservatives will absolutely use these types of studies to support their opinions on trans people. Weaponize it against them.
But I want to point out some things.
Unpleasant truths don’t make them false.
The concern of these types of studies being used as weapons is valid. But. Conservatives will use anything to validate their opinions. Regardless if it does or doesn’t.
(Scientist still have a responsibility to report their research in a way to deter it being used to harm groups).
Baily says in every single one of the papers he is in, that the most effective way to treat gender dysphoria is to help the person transition to their preferred gender. He says this many times. He says it publicly. He advocates for it.
His intention is not to harm trans people but to understand them. Does he go about it in the most sensitive way. No. But intention does count.
Now bailey was also known for doing research on bisexual men. His controversial study found that self reported bisexual men actually showed a preference for men and weren’t pure bisexual. His conclusion was that bisexuality in men was likely just homosexuality. This was met with a lot of backlash. He met with people, heard concerns. And re evaluated his study methods and has since done additional studies and showed his original was flawed. (Mostly caused by the fact that men that are bisexual but prefer women more, are more likely to be closeted bisexuals and not volunteers in his studies).
Now I have personally met the guy. He taught statistics.
I also attended a seminar on his work.
I never took his sexually courses. But I had heard of his work before attending the uni he was at.
I’ve actually read the papers.
I think most people who don’t like his work, have not. Or they are mis understanding statements.
Now his person is a different story and there is plenty to criticize in his past conduct.
He never makes negative statements about trans. And the last paper I read, was by one of his grad students who was herself, a trans woman.
Transvestite culture has been around for a very long time.
Trying to pretend it’s not real because you don’t like the narrative is not the way forward.
Do I like bailys personality? Not particularly. I think he’s one of those people who like to challenge things , sometimes just to see other people squirm. A bit pretentious . But I can’t deny his research has merit to it. That’s why it keeps getting published. The methodology and statistics are sound science.
As a last point.
I don’t care if the reason that people want to transition is because it’s a sex thing. To me that does not change anything. Adults have a right to full autonomy over their own body.
They are the only ones who get to decide such things like their gender. It’s not up to me to decide if their reasons are valid or not.
I also couldn’t care less what weird kinks other people have. As long as it’s consenting adults, it’s none of my business.
That said, I realize though that my easy acceptance of people transitioning for whatever reason won’t be shared by the general public.
But I still say though that the people who will have a problem with it, currently have a problem with transitioning, even if the narrative is “I was born in the wrong body”.
Even that won’t satisfy them as a good enough reason.
So no point in pandering to them.
I do wish someone with more class and sensitivity was doing this line of research and not Bailey. But it is what it is.
So Littman and Bailey are controversial. Not unethical. (Fyi Lisa Littman is herself a trans woman).
Incorrect. They are both unethical.
Littman for example, when doing her study on rapid onset gender dysphoria, targeted only online spaces which were full of parents that were upset and angry at having a transgender child. Her sample was deliberately and knowingly biased towards supporting the hypothesis she invented. Her audience also didn’t involve any trans people, only the parents of trans people, and parents who were, as a group, explicitly more likely to be strongly uncomfortable with the idea of having a trans child.
This wasn’t a mistake, or an oversight. It was a deliberate choice she made to bias her results. That’s not “controversial”, that’s outright unethical.
Similarly, Bailey regularly lies to his participant audience, and loads his studies with questions predisposed to get the results he wants to show.
The study linked to in this post is a classic example of that. None of the results of this will be designed to help people navigate dysphoria. The study is trying to draw trans people in to think that they’re helping, when in fact, the results will be used to actively undermine their ability to seek transition care and support.
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
Even that’s not true.
When you look at the definitions Bailey uses for autogynephilia for example, if you apply those same measures to cis women, it turns out, they too more often than not, meet the requirements for autogynephilia. It only becomes a paraphilia when the woman is trans though, and it only becomes an explanation for the woman’s identity, when the woman is trans.
It’s taking a real correlation, ignoring the fact that the correlation isn’t unique to trans folk, and then using that correlation as an explanation for trans identity.
He never said it’s true for all female trans people.
He said it’s the only way to be a trans woman that is asexual, bisexual or gay.
The only trans women who don’t fit his criteria of transitioning due to a paraphilia, are straight trans women. Who, by the way, he calls “Homosexual transexuals”. He can’t even recognise their gender… And speaking of that, even though he thinks that trans women who aren’t straight should be able to transition, he doesn’t think that they’re women, and will repeatedly misgender them or talk only about their birth sex when talking about them.
Take a look at this, from his personal blog…
In this screenshot, you can see that whilst defending a woman who had nazis at her rally, he refers to trans women as “male” without ever referring to them as women, whilst also showing a diagram that says all trans activists are paraphillic (and thus, not really trans)
Bailey genuinely believes he is doing good science. But he’s not. He’s got a lens through which he perceives transgender identity, and he is absolutely not open to challenging that. That’s not good science…
I struggle to understand how you can call anything the man does “ethical”
The study authors are not religious. They are progressivs. They have repeatedly stated in their papers and in other forms that they support transitioning.
. You are making a lot of completely fabricated claims here. Whereas I referenced actual peer reviewed published studies.
Also. Every single psychology study that exists has limitations.
There are always issues. Always.
That’s the point of additional research. It aims to investigate things from multiple angles. Multiple populations.
People outside of research don’t seem to understand this.
For example if I did a study on Latino women and plastic surgery. You would say" that’s not a fair study, it’s only on Latinos "
Whereas I would reply. Yes. That’s what it says in the paper. It’s on a specific group.
Participant information is always listed in published papers.
The writers always address this.
This information was not hidden or anything.
You just have to read the papers and the limitations are always discussed in the conclusion section of papers.
autogynephilia is literally old debunked pseudoscience. some cis women get aroused from feeling sexy yet no one is questioning their gender based on that.
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink.
I mean that’s sexuality, isn’t it? You don’t control what your kinks are. But you phrase it like it isn’t so?
That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
Hmm… So? Is it different than thinking of being a women? What’s the line differentiating them from other trans women?
I mean attraction has a strong link to sexuality but phrasing it as a just a kink seems dubious to make it seem like a mental health problem.
Evidence gathered from scientific research studies of reports from individuals.
As for your other questions. These are addressed in the paper.
This paper is from 2007, which means its 20 years old and means a lot of additional research has since been done. Some times terminology changes in science and I should add that a lot of researchers coin their own terms for things. so that can make it tricky when reviewing literature. but in studies, the terms are always defined. so those definitions will be in this paper.
So I also would suggest looking at this link which shows papers that have cited this 2007 paper to see what other researchers have said about the topic and what bailey or his grad students have added to it.
There are 55 of these. some more relevant than others to the topic than others.
“That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.”
Isn’t this unspoken and inherently accepted for Cis people though? Why would a Cis woman or Cis man be ‘sexually excited’ by being what they are not? It seems to me that the base assumption is reversed from what it should be.
Also how could they have possibly conducted this is a rigorous manner? Fetishes and Sexual attraction are highly subjective. Ask this question of someone one day and you’ll get a completely different answer than if you had instead asked it another day two months later. Exposure to new things (stimulus), Dietary changes (affecting hormones and libido), etc.
Equating fetishes to the trans experience even tangentially is extremely transphobic.
I also forgot to mention Littmans more recent research on adolescent girls(biological) being trans boys.
She investigates the possibility that some are following trends and social conformity.
This has also been controversial in the trans community because some see it as trying to prove that adolescents are confused about their gender identity and don’t deserve to have any autonomy over medical decisions like hormone treatments.
Now, as I said before. I believe that people have full autonomy over their own bodies. 100%.
However, I don’t extend this to children.
I think children don’t understand the risks associated with hormone therapy.
And I , who was once a teenager myself, agree that many teenagers are prone to following fads and trends of their peers.
I don’t see how anyone can deny that happens at a high rate in children and teenagers.
I also don’t deny that a teenager is capable of knowing themselves. They can. They do.
But it’s a time of development. It’s a time of exploring oneself and Identity. It’s not the right time to make permanent, life long, risky decisions, that someone who has only been alive for 15 years can actually understand what that means.
We don’t let teenagers get plastic surgery, tattoos, buy alcohol, or even lottery tickets. Because we understand that they can’t evaluate risks yet.
Are there (hormone injection) exceptions to be made for some teens. Absolutely.
Littmans research aims to discover which trans teens will continue being trans and which will flip back to their biological based gender. That way the kids who will benefit from hormones get the hormone intervention and those that it will harm, get supportive therapy instead.
It helps reduce the risk of kids taking hormone injections and permanently disrupting their sexual development because for 6 months they thought maybe they wanted to be in a different body.
I honestly would think the trans community would support this type of research because it’s going to help reduce the risk of regret transitioners.
But as with all research on trans, it is often weaponized against the community. So their concern is valid on that front.
But if we ignore this type of research or try to stop it; What could happen is we get people who start suing medical doctors and maybe have bad relationships with their parents. Because as a teen who was exploring their identity, the adults in their life quickly suggested hormones and allowed that to start when it shouldn’t have.
“I really wish my parents didn’t let me take hormones when I was 15 and depressed, and thought transitioning would fix all my problems. Now I’m sterile and don’t have the body I should have had”.
-these stories are going to be way more damaging to trans rights and more specifically, adolescents trying to take hormones that do need them.
There already are such people on social media. And the number will grow if we don’t find better ways to evaluate kids.
We have to find ways to determine which kids feel this way consistently and long term. And those following trends.
Especially young girls turning to trans guys. Because many young women see how women are devalued in our society and don’t want to be on the oppressed side.
Lots of things may influence teenagers. We need research to better help them
This argument is the one that pisses me off more than anything any adult does (and I’m around 50): I made these mistakes when I was young so I think we need to stop you from making the same mistakes. It’s so patronizing.
I often hear it from conservatives explaining why young people are voting the wrong way. I’ve heard it from the religious when explaining why young people will eventually come (back) to Christianity. I’ve heard it from anti-drug people for why marijuana should be illegal.
We certainly could use studies on this sort of thing, but this statement alone makes me suspicious of your personal views on the subject because people I’ve heard make this sort of statement are always coming from a biased position and they never realize it because it’s so foundational to their opinion on the topic.
So Littman and Bailey are controversial. Not unethical. (Fyi Lisa Littman is herself a trans woman).
They do research on a specific sub group of trans women.
Bailey has done lots of other research on sexuality in the homosexual and bisexual area as well.
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
He never said it’s true for all female trans people.
But his evidence is real.
And it’s not really surprising because there are people who cut off body parts because of sexual kinks. There are people out there who get fixated on things and are obsessed. Sexual fixation is an incredibly strong motivator.
Many in the trans community don’t like this research because it paints a picture that they are all just a bunch of perverts. Which is something that they already have to fight against. So many see it as smearing trans people or encouraging stereotypes.
And. Of course conservatives will absolutely use these types of studies to support their opinions on trans people. Weaponize it against them.
But I want to point out some things.
Baily says in every single one of the papers he is in, that the most effective way to treat gender dysphoria is to help the person transition to their preferred gender. He says this many times. He says it publicly. He advocates for it.
His intention is not to harm trans people but to understand them. Does he go about it in the most sensitive way. No. But intention does count.
Now bailey was also known for doing research on bisexual men. His controversial study found that self reported bisexual men actually showed a preference for men and weren’t pure bisexual. His conclusion was that bisexuality in men was likely just homosexuality. This was met with a lot of backlash. He met with people, heard concerns. And re evaluated his study methods and has since done additional studies and showed his original was flawed. (Mostly caused by the fact that men that are bisexual but prefer women more, are more likely to be closeted bisexuals and not volunteers in his studies).
Now I have personally met the guy. He taught statistics. I also attended a seminar on his work.
I never took his sexually courses. But I had heard of his work before attending the uni he was at.
I’ve actually read the papers.
I think most people who don’t like his work, have not. Or they are mis understanding statements.
Now his person is a different story and there is plenty to criticize in his past conduct.
He never makes negative statements about trans. And the last paper I read, was by one of his grad students who was herself, a trans woman.
Transvestite culture has been around for a very long time. Trying to pretend it’s not real because you don’t like the narrative is not the way forward.
Do I like bailys personality? Not particularly. I think he’s one of those people who like to challenge things , sometimes just to see other people squirm. A bit pretentious . But I can’t deny his research has merit to it. That’s why it keeps getting published. The methodology and statistics are sound science.
As a last point. I don’t care if the reason that people want to transition is because it’s a sex thing. To me that does not change anything. Adults have a right to full autonomy over their own body. They are the only ones who get to decide such things like their gender. It’s not up to me to decide if their reasons are valid or not.
I also couldn’t care less what weird kinks other people have. As long as it’s consenting adults, it’s none of my business.
That said, I realize though that my easy acceptance of people transitioning for whatever reason won’t be shared by the general public.
But I still say though that the people who will have a problem with it, currently have a problem with transitioning, even if the narrative is “I was born in the wrong body”.
Even that won’t satisfy them as a good enough reason.
So no point in pandering to them.
I do wish someone with more class and sensitivity was doing this line of research and not Bailey. But it is what it is.
Incorrect. They are both unethical.
Littman for example, when doing her study on rapid onset gender dysphoria, targeted only online spaces which were full of parents that were upset and angry at having a transgender child. Her sample was deliberately and knowingly biased towards supporting the hypothesis she invented. Her audience also didn’t involve any trans people, only the parents of trans people, and parents who were, as a group, explicitly more likely to be strongly uncomfortable with the idea of having a trans child.
This wasn’t a mistake, or an oversight. It was a deliberate choice she made to bias her results. That’s not “controversial”, that’s outright unethical.
Similarly, Bailey regularly lies to his participant audience, and loads his studies with questions predisposed to get the results he wants to show.
The study linked to in this post is a classic example of that. None of the results of this will be designed to help people navigate dysphoria. The study is trying to draw trans people in to think that they’re helping, when in fact, the results will be used to actively undermine their ability to seek transition care and support.
Even that’s not true.
When you look at the definitions Bailey uses for autogynephilia for example, if you apply those same measures to cis women, it turns out, they too more often than not, meet the requirements for autogynephilia. It only becomes a paraphilia when the woman is trans though, and it only becomes an explanation for the woman’s identity, when the woman is trans.
It’s taking a real correlation, ignoring the fact that the correlation isn’t unique to trans folk, and then using that correlation as an explanation for trans identity.
He said it’s the only way to be a trans woman that is asexual, bisexual or gay.
The only trans women who don’t fit his criteria of transitioning due to a paraphilia, are straight trans women. Who, by the way, he calls “Homosexual transexuals”. He can’t even recognise their gender… And speaking of that, even though he thinks that trans women who aren’t straight should be able to transition, he doesn’t think that they’re women, and will repeatedly misgender them or talk only about their birth sex when talking about them.
Take a look at this, from his personal blog…
In this screenshot, you can see that whilst defending a woman who had nazis at her rally, he refers to trans women as “male” without ever referring to them as women, whilst also showing a diagram that says all trans activists are paraphillic (and thus, not really trans)
Bailey genuinely believes he is doing good science. But he’s not. He’s got a lens through which he perceives transgender identity, and he is absolutely not open to challenging that. That’s not good science…
I struggle to understand how you can call anything the man does “ethical”
Holy shit that’s horrible. Fuck.
The study authors are not religious. They are progressivs. They have repeatedly stated in their papers and in other forms that they support transitioning.
. You are making a lot of completely fabricated claims here. Whereas I referenced actual peer reviewed published studies.
Also. Every single psychology study that exists has limitations.
There are always issues. Always.
That’s the point of additional research. It aims to investigate things from multiple angles. Multiple populations.
People outside of research don’t seem to understand this.
For example if I did a study on Latino women and plastic surgery. You would say" that’s not a fair study, it’s only on Latinos "
Whereas I would reply. Yes. That’s what it says in the paper. It’s on a specific group.
Participant information is always listed in published papers. The writers always address this.
This information was not hidden or anything.
You just have to read the papers and the limitations are always discussed in the conclusion section of papers.
Wouldn’t it be more like if you were doing a study on Latino women and plastic surgery and you asked the women’s parents?
I really wish I knew if the study authors were religious.
I have no idea if this is sloppy science with benevolent intentions (everyone makes mistakes) or religious devotion masquerading as science.
autogynephilia is literally old debunked pseudoscience. some cis women get aroused from feeling sexy yet no one is questioning their gender based on that.
There is no “questioning” . The research is only intended to uncover mechanisms.
The research does not investigate the validity of being trans. None of their line of research does that.
If you see it that way, maybe actually read it instead of believing what other people say about it.
Can you explain more about this?
I mean that’s sexuality, isn’t it? You don’t control what your kinks are. But you phrase it like it isn’t so?
Hmm… So? Is it different than thinking of being a women? What’s the line differentiating them from other trans women?
I mean attraction has a strong link to sexuality but phrasing it as a just a kink seems dubious to make it seem like a mental health problem.
I’m just trying to understand.
Evidence gathered from scientific research studies of reports from individuals.
As for your other questions. These are addressed in the paper.
This paper is from 2007, which means its 20 years old and means a lot of additional research has since been done. Some times terminology changes in science and I should add that a lot of researchers coin their own terms for things. so that can make it tricky when reviewing literature. but in studies, the terms are always defined. so those definitions will be in this paper.
https://share.google/G3ZWsS7Y3TPh9p9k9
So I also would suggest looking at this link which shows papers that have cited this 2007 paper to see what other researchers have said about the topic and what bailey or his grad students have added to it.
There are 55 of these. some more relevant than others to the topic than others.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=15898950914960057097&as_sdt=400005&sciodt=0%2C14&hl=en
“That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.”
Isn’t this unspoken and inherently accepted for Cis people though? Why would a Cis woman or Cis man be ‘sexually excited’ by being what they are not? It seems to me that the base assumption is reversed from what it should be.
Also how could they have possibly conducted this is a rigorous manner? Fetishes and Sexual attraction are highly subjective. Ask this question of someone one day and you’ll get a completely different answer than if you had instead asked it another day two months later. Exposure to new things (stimulus), Dietary changes (affecting hormones and libido), etc. Equating fetishes to the trans experience even tangentially is extremely transphobic.
Yeah it would be weirder if trans women were sexually excited by being a man. Like this isn’t some revelation I’d expect it even.
Thank you for taking the time to write this
I also forgot to mention Littmans more recent research on adolescent girls(biological) being trans boys.
She investigates the possibility that some are following trends and social conformity.
This has also been controversial in the trans community because some see it as trying to prove that adolescents are confused about their gender identity and don’t deserve to have any autonomy over medical decisions like hormone treatments.
Now, as I said before. I believe that people have full autonomy over their own bodies. 100%. However, I don’t extend this to children.
I think children don’t understand the risks associated with hormone therapy.
And I , who was once a teenager myself, agree that many teenagers are prone to following fads and trends of their peers.
I don’t see how anyone can deny that happens at a high rate in children and teenagers.
I also don’t deny that a teenager is capable of knowing themselves. They can. They do.
But it’s a time of development. It’s a time of exploring oneself and Identity. It’s not the right time to make permanent, life long, risky decisions, that someone who has only been alive for 15 years can actually understand what that means.
We don’t let teenagers get plastic surgery, tattoos, buy alcohol, or even lottery tickets. Because we understand that they can’t evaluate risks yet.
Are there (hormone injection) exceptions to be made for some teens. Absolutely.
Littmans research aims to discover which trans teens will continue being trans and which will flip back to their biological based gender. That way the kids who will benefit from hormones get the hormone intervention and those that it will harm, get supportive therapy instead.
It helps reduce the risk of kids taking hormone injections and permanently disrupting their sexual development because for 6 months they thought maybe they wanted to be in a different body.
I honestly would think the trans community would support this type of research because it’s going to help reduce the risk of regret transitioners.
But as with all research on trans, it is often weaponized against the community. So their concern is valid on that front.
But if we ignore this type of research or try to stop it; What could happen is we get people who start suing medical doctors and maybe have bad relationships with their parents. Because as a teen who was exploring their identity, the adults in their life quickly suggested hormones and allowed that to start when it shouldn’t have.
“I really wish my parents didn’t let me take hormones when I was 15 and depressed, and thought transitioning would fix all my problems. Now I’m sterile and don’t have the body I should have had”.
-these stories are going to be way more damaging to trans rights and more specifically, adolescents trying to take hormones that do need them.
There already are such people on social media. And the number will grow if we don’t find better ways to evaluate kids.
We have to find ways to determine which kids feel this way consistently and long term. And those following trends.
Especially young girls turning to trans guys. Because many young women see how women are devalued in our society and don’t want to be on the oppressed side.
Lots of things may influence teenagers. We need research to better help them
This argument is the one that pisses me off more than anything any adult does (and I’m around 50): I made these mistakes when I was young so I think we need to stop you from making the same mistakes. It’s so patronizing.
I often hear it from conservatives explaining why young people are voting the wrong way. I’ve heard it from the religious when explaining why young people will eventually come (back) to Christianity. I’ve heard it from anti-drug people for why marijuana should be illegal.
We certainly could use studies on this sort of thing, but this statement alone makes me suspicious of your personal views on the subject because people I’ve heard make this sort of statement are always coming from a biased position and they never realize it because it’s so foundational to their opinion on the topic.