Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 48, Issue 6, pp 1655–1657 | Cite as

Science Has Always Been Ideological, You Just Don’t See It

  • Florence AshleyEmail author
Letter to the Editor

I have followed the controversy surrounding Kevin Hsu’s presentation at the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS) conference, in relation to an earlier paper (Hsu, Rosenthal, Miller, & Bailey, 2016), from its very beginning. I was the person who shared pictures of his slides on erotic target identity inversions on social media. In the slides, he repeated the hypothesis of autogynephilia, compared it with apotemnophilia, autopedophilia, and autoanthropomorphozoophilia, and described it as manifesting on a spectrum from cross-dressing to genital reassignment surgery. I later read Bailey’s (2019) widely shared screed and, more recently, Rind’s (2019) Letter to the Editor supporting Bailey’s Guest Editorial.

Rind’s (2019) argument posits an increasing opposition between science, which purports to be neutral, and advocacy, which is ideologically motivated. For him, as for Bailey, sex research is being ruined because ideological motivations are increasingly casting certain...

Notes

References

  1. Bailey, J. M. (2019). How to ruin sex research [Guest Editorial]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(4), 1007–1011.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1420-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bettcher, T. M. (2014). When selves have sex: What the phenomenology of trans sexuality can teach about sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(5), 605–620.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.865472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hsu, K. J., Rosenthal, A. M., Miller, D. I., & Bailey, J. M. (2016). Who are gynandromorphophilic men? Characterizing men with sexual interest in transgender women. Psychological Medicine, 46(4), 819–827.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291715002317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lawrence, A. A. (2017). Autogynephilia and the typology of male-to-female transsexualism: Concepts and controversies. European Psychologist, 22(1), 39–54.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lewis, P. J. (n.d.). Interpretations of quantum mechanics. Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved June 11, 2019 from https://www.iep.utm.edu/int-qm/.
  7. Moser, C. (2009). Autogynephilia in women. Journal of Homosexuality, 56(5), 539–547.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360903005212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Moser, C. (2010). Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory: A critique. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(6), 790–809.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2010.486241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rind, B. (2019). Sexual science versus progressive advocacy: The need for resistance [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01475-2.Google Scholar
  10. Serano, J. M. (2010). The case against autogynephilia. International Journal of Transgenderism, 12(3), 176–187.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2010.514223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Teo, T. (2010). What is epistemological violence in the empirical social sciences? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 295–303.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00265.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations