Book review: Galileo’s Middle Finger, by Alice Dreger
Table of contents
- Introduction
- 1. Background: Blanchard’s sexual typology of trans women
- 2. Dreger neglects relevant issues faced by trans women
- 3. Social and cultural factors do not account for the clinical realities of gender dysphoria
- 4. Sexual explanations are insufficient to account for gender dysphoria
- 5. Blanchard’s typology requires accusing large numbers of trans women of deception or delusion
- 6. Autogynephilia is used as a stigmatizing label in personal disputes by sexologists and by Dreger
- 7. Other issues
- 8. Societal fallout from a sexualized theory of trans women’s genders
- References
Introduction
The Lambda Literary Foundation recently rescinded the nomination of the book Galileo’s Middle Finger by historian Alice Dreger for an award in its LGBT nonfiction category. Controversy emerged due to Dreger’s coverage of various academic disputes following the publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen by psychologist J. Michael Bailey in 2003. Bailey’s book advanced a sexological theory about trans women and their experiences of gender dysphoria, claiming that they’re motivated to transition for primarily sexual reasons – an idea that was vocally protested by many trans people. Dreger describes this theory and largely endorses its themes, incorporating it into her book’s wider narrative of unpopular scientific findings being challenged by activists on a political rather than an empirical basis.
However, her presentation and interpretation of the theory is accompanied by many questionable claims and inaccurate implications, ultimately offering an incomplete and sensationalized account of trans women’s experiences of their genders. At times her perspective reveals a surprising unawareness of crucial aspects of these women’s realities that directly come to bear on the theory and its validity. She further omits many of the more doubtful claims made by sexologists in support of the theory, disguising the full extent of what she’s really endorsing. Her engagement with the controversy surrounding Bailey’s book occasionally descends into the kind of overly personal attacks that she otherwise deplores. Continue reading
