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.

    I understand that doing research can take a long time and costs money but publishing findings that partially confirm a pre-existing stigma of a vulnerable group of people, witnessing bigots leverage said research to voice oppression against said group, and wanting to do it all again is definitely in the realm of being unethical.

    The pursuit of nuanced truth is a luxury that is being warped and tarnished by psychotic bigotry. Performing research for the sake of truth that might get real people harmed or killed is by definition unethical.

    I have never seen or heard of a single example of a study that would be unethical due to true findings being predictably harmful to people.

    These studies are not examples because their methodology doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny. They are not seeking the truth in any way.

    I think your first point contradicts your second.

    I’m sure most people would consider it to be unethical if a study is published while knowing it is not truthful.

    It can be tricky to conduct research that could be weaponized against a group. And I do think that researchers have a responsibility to do everything they can to make it clear, multiple times, what their study doesn’t support.

    There are similar problems with research investigating , as an example, crime of black men in the U.S. Such a group is already stereotyped as having high criminal activity. If you want to do a study on black men to determine common criminal traits, you have to be very sensitive about how that data could be used. Most of this type of research is conducted by other black people, in part because of that. And secondly, because their motives are in understanding the mechanism of why certain traits are higher or lower in black Americans. And never to further stigmatize.

    Because we know that environment has a huge impact on personality and behavior. This is a given understanding.

    But an outsider may see the research as supporting that blank men have more aggressive tendencies just because they score a little lower than average on agreeableness or something (this is a made up example and I have no idea of such a study or finding exist).

    Whereas the intention of the research is to help determine which young black men are more likely to get caught up in criminal activity , not purely for this trait but the mechanisms from the environment that promote the trait also likely promote criminal behaviors.
    Or maybe it’s to uncover which combination of environment factors increase the risk.

    It’s trying to understand mechanisms. Not blame black men. Or say they have an innate higher tendency to be criminals.

    Social research is confusing to people who don’t do it. And there is a communication barrier between scientist and lay people that I think ultimately needs to be addressed by the scientist and researchers.

    But I also understand why so many get frustrated with the outrage culture online.

    They try to explain. People misinterpreted their work and accuse them of things they aren’t doing. Things they never claimed. And use (to a scientist) weak arguments about how their data didn’t include 5000 participants from various backgrounds so that means it’s not valid.

    It’s basically impossible to collect that kind of level of data for most research.

    The methodology of any study is always clearly listed in a paper a long with the limitations of those methods.

    Also, it’s more informative to collect it in multiple ways. Then you can compare those to each other.

    Also , your point is actually the argument used to make research inaccessible to the general public.

    Basically it’s that the general public doesn’t understand how research is done and will apply it inappropriately and use it inappropriately.

    It is why most pharmacology research is very difficult to get access too.

    That and companies don’t want other companies stealing their line of work. But in part, it’s because people don’t understand the research but might think they do. And try to use the information inappropriately.

    Pharmacology is probably a bad example because of the amount of legal fighting done within the pharmaceutical industry to keep people using (sometimes addicted to) their product as long as possible and to downplay any side-effects. Of course limiting resources to anyone that could oppose their sales is going to be common. So I wouldn’t say my point (which is that it is unethical to publish with no regard towards stochastic social harm on controversial topics) is the reason it’s difficult to obtain research for that industry specifically but the nature of that industry itself to keep information proprietary.

    Yeah for sure. I just was trying to come up with some example. A lot of people argue that since the majority of research (including medical and pharmacology) is funded by grants from tax payers money, that the research should be publicly available.

    Some argue that even the research that’s not funded by tax dollars should be available to the public in an easy free way because that promotes advances.

    That’s how scihub came to exist. Which is how you can get access to any paper behind a paywall.

    It’s not really theft like downloading a movie (which I actually still think is okay). Because the researcher does not get paid for that paper. And neither did the people who reviewed it.

    You only are stealing from journals. And they are rich enough. They make a profit from existing. They don’t actually produce or make anything.

    I will say though that I have seen research used by lay people in dangerous ways. Not just to stigmatize or harm a group but actually applied individually to cause harm.

    So have you heard of tdcs ? Transcranial direct current stimulation ? Basically you put two electrodes on someone’s scalp in specific places. And you run a very low current though. Like 1amp. And I’m theory the electricity runs between the two electrodes and depolarize neurons in that region which will make the neurons more likely to fire.

    I actually did tdcs research for my masters and I’ll tell you it leaves a lot to be desired. It’s a little bit questionable. Other forms of it might be more effective but this basic method I just described is not supported to do much.

    But. People have read some studies on this. And think “I could make myself smarter by running a current through my own head”.

    And there are (or used to be) diy videos on YouTube on how to do this. How much amps. How often. And these people have no idea what they are doing and are just electrocuting their own brains.

    It’s insanity. And they will talk about research papers and reference parts for why they have it set up like they do. But they don’t understand the research and are doing dangerous things.

    There are serious side effects like seizures, mania, and vision problems from tdcs. But these people on YouTube think that the magic brain enhancement tech is being hidden and kept from them so they will make their own.

    It’s things like that , that make me think, maybe some research should be restricted from the public.