Dr. Michael Bailey and The Botched Theory

Recently, there's been quite a bit of rumbling in the blogosphere about this report on what happened to Psychologist J. Michael Bailey after he published a book entitled The Man Who Would Be Queen in 2003.

The book itself touched off a furor among transsexual and transgender people, in large part because Bailey's theory flew in the face of their individual experiences. I'll leave the dissection of Bailey's "theory" to others. In my view, it is sufficient to say that his theoretical construct is a bit of a "reductio ad absurdum" that attempts to define gender identity in terms of sexual identity... and in doing so fails utterly to address the narrative so common among transsexuals. I do not think Bailey is necessarily a homophobe (or transphobe, I guess), rather he just doesn't "get it".

That Bailey is reviled among the transsexual community is not a huge surprise. When your work is cited and reviewed favorably by NARTH, you have to know that the affected communities are not going to be overly impressed. When you walk up to an entire group of people and tell them that their experiences and self-definition are "invalid" in some way, you guarantee that you will earn their animosity. When the argument used is seen by many as weak, or not well supported by the evidence, then you can expect to experience a persistent and stubborn backlash.

The report I mentioned earlier does describe some pretty awful things that have been done by a few in response to Bailey's book. I do not condone threats of harm or outright attempts to blackball the man professionally.

That said, many are trying to claim that Bailey's experience is "chilling" to academic freedom. I disagree. Bailey's book is a mass market publication, which puts it firmly in the public square when it comes to the political discourse. Perhaps where Bailey's biggest error lies is in the reality that not only did he publish the book relying on his credentials to bolster his argument's credibility, he failed to put forth a compelling body of evidence to support his argument.

Perhaps this comment from Bailey (via Lifesite) tells us this most clearly:

Referring to the bitter controversy surrounding the work, Bailey stated on his website "Although the critics have produced a litany of alleged sins, their main complaint is something that I actually do write, and believe."

Well, since Bailey claims to be a scientist, he should be well aware that if he is going to put forth an argument that flies in the face of a great deal of evidence, his own model and evidence has to be pretty compelling. Simply writing a book like that from a perspective of "what he believes" would qualify as both irresponsible and a serious mistake.

Activist Clergy

In the last few years, we've seen an increasing level of religious figures engaging openly in the political dialogue of their respective nations. (Or, in the case of Pope Ratz, all nations)

Whether we are talking about Bishop Henry in Calgary, Pope Ratzinger's various declarations, or Bishops demanding "reviews" of a nation's laws on Abortion.

I do not for a moment wish to argue that being a member of the clergy means that one does not have a legitimate interest and voice in politics. Far from it.

However, the clergy enjoys a unique, and privileged position in many Western countries. We grant Churches exemption from taxation, a privilege granted to no group that acts as a political lobby. In a nation where no official religion is recognized, this privilege is extended to any organization that can describe itself as a "church". By definition, a church's clergy are privileged people - given unique access to a regular platform for influencing the views of a great many people.

To what extent should we grant clergy the right to use their position as influential public figures as a platform from which to engage in political activism? We've seen Bishop Henry in Calgary make some pretty awful statements in the past, and others have attempted to influence our politicians through what I have come to call "spiritual blackmail" - such as denying communion to a politician who doesn't legislate according to what the Church demands. (It is not the denial that is significant, it is the often public statement of that threat/punishment)

Churches are not neutral parties - and in fact they can be amazingly rigid and (by modern standards), bigoted. One example is the anti-semitic overtones of Catholic Tridentine Mass recently "reapproved" by the Pope should concern many in a society that claims that all people are equal.

The Latin, or Tridentine rite contains a prayer that is read on Good Friday calling for the conversion of Jews. The U.S.-based Anti-Defamation League has criticized Benedict's decision, calling it a "theological setback" and a "body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations."

The 16th-century mass is traditionally delivered by a priest in Latin with his back to the congregation throughout the service.

How lovely. In essence, we have a pope here who is approving the revival of a pattern of prayer that is politely described as hostile to another faith. Coming from this particular pope, I'm hardly surprised by that revelation, but I don't think it reflects anything positive either.

When religion can foster conflicts and grudges that are ages old, and we already grant Churches a significantly privileged status in our society, should we allow them a free voice, or perhaps it is time to start demanding to "follow the money", and whatever percentage of their resources that is spent on political lobby/activism becomes taxable just like any other political lobby. (For example, I would argue that Bishop Henry's "pastoral letters" of a couple of years ago, and the distribution thereof would represent political activism. The costs of that activism come out of Church coffers, and whatever that cost is becomes taxable income.