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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Some authors have questioned the strength of Moser’s research, including Lawrence (2017). Although a full debate on autogynephilia is unnecessary (it suffices for my argument that there exist serious critiques and alternative explanations), I must admit that I do not find her rebuttal convincing. The limitations she highlights do not seem to be sufficiently specific to shed doubt on the conclusion that cisgender women also experience autogynephilia, and some of them also apply to the original research supporting sexual orientation divisions among transgender women.

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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florence Ashley.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ashley, F. Science Has Always Been Ideological, You Just Don’t See It. Arch Sex Behav 48, 1655–1657 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01519-7

Download citation