Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 495–497 | Cite as

Accounting for Power and Academic Responsibility

  • Elroi J. WindsorEmail author
Peer Commentary

Dreger’s historical account of the controversy surrounding Bailey’s (2003) publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism (TMWWBQ) provides an exciting and thorough review of a complicated series of events. Dreger attempts to consider multiple perspectives in her investigation and supports her inquiries with an impressive amount of documentation. Much of her evidence is compelling. However, the article yields opportunities for critique. Due to space limitations, this commentary highlights just a few important oversights that compromise Dreger’s conclusions, specifically the issues of imbalanced representations, ignoring academic responsibility, and downplaying histories of power differences between trans people and the academics who study them.

An issue apparent throughout Dreger’s account is the unevenness of perspectives. During her investigation, Dreger maintained close contact with major players in this controversy–particularly Bailey...

Keywords

Medical Transition Transsexualism Trans People Academic Responsibility Gender Body 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bailey, J. M. (2003). The man who would be queen: The science of gender-bending and transsexualism. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  2. Billings, D. B., & Urban, T. (1982). The socio-medical construction of transsexualism: An interpretation and critique. Social Problems, 29, 266–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Feinbloom, D. H. (1976). Transvestites and transsexuals: Mixed views. New York: Delacorte Press.Google Scholar
  4. Green, J. (2006). Look! No, don’t! The visibility dilemma for transsexual men. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The transgender studies reader (pp. 499–508). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Kando, T. (1973). Sex change: The achievement of gender identity among feminized transsexuals. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.Google Scholar
  6. King, D. (1996). Gender blending: Medical perspectives and technology. In R. Ekins & D. King (Eds.), Blending genders: Social aspects of cross-dressing and sex-changing (pp. 79–98). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Meyer, W., Bockting, W. O., Cohen-Kettenis, P., Coleman, E., DiCeglie, D., Devor, H., et al. (2001). The standards of care for gender identity disorders, 6th version. Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, Inc. Retrieved July 20, 2006, from http://www.hbigda.org/Documents2/socv6.pdf.
  8. Meyerowitz, J. (2002). How sex changed: A history of transsexuality in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Stone, S. (1991). The Empire strikes back: A posttranssexual manifesto. In J. Epstein & K. Straub (Eds.), Body guards: The cultural politics of gender ambiguity (pp. 280–304). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations