I came across a letter by Deirdre McCloskey on Lynn Conway’s site.   Deirdre is a Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at University of Illinois at Chicago.  She transitioned some years ago.

Her letter refers to a big controversy that took place in 2003-4 over Professor J. Michael Bailey’s book, The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism.

The book was published by the National Academies Press.  Stephen Mautner being the executive editor at the time, who had some explaining to do.

Dierdre’s letter is an interesting sample of her writing abilities and I thought I would pass along a link to an overview of her book, ‘Economical Writing’.

Here’s a little snapshot of Dierdre’s letter to the editor, back when the controversy first exploded.

December 19, 2003:  “Transsexual Travesty”
Letter to The Editor of The Chicago Reader  by Deirdre McCloskey

“… practically no one in the scientific community believes the “science” in Professor Bailey’s Silly Theory (let me be as slanted as Rodkin is, OK?). At the July meeting in Bloomington, Indiana, of the International Academy of Sex Research, John Bancroft, director of the Kinsey Institute and one of the most respected sexologists in the world, stood up after Bailey’s abbreviated talk and said sternly, “Michael, I would caution you against calling this book ’science’ because I have read it, and I can tell you it is not science.” Then he sat down, to stunned silence. “

I picked up an affection for the name Dierdre years ago, watching Monty Python’s ‘The Meaning Of Life’.  In the classic scene trashing the church, a mother is surrounded by literally dozens of children, doing the dishes with one of the older children at her side.  She gives birth standing at the counter and simply says, “Would you get that for me Dierdre.”  My hope is that we will have network media that lampoons all these absurdities thrust upon us by ignoramuses like J. Michael Bailey.

Perhaps what we really need is a  National Lampoon style publication / multimedia base, with a transsexual slant.  The public and the media tend to use humor to facillitate their own shortcomings and homophobic tendencies.  It’s as old as corn.  We all learned it in grade school, and so we all feel comfortable with jokes as a medium to recieve information on uncomfortable subjects – it’s the stock and trade of every comedian.   Of course, it ceases to function in a postive way when the humor crosses the line into homophobic jingoism, which is really politicking against the transsexual movement.  A large number of people already regard transsexuals as ‘a joke’.  I hate to even write those words, but it is true.  We can take that which is already set as a weapon against us, and turn it on those who use it in their calculated homophobic agenda.

I say, we take control of the humor front on our own subculture, and feed it to people in an intelligent way, a way that appeals to their ‘good senses’ instead of their dark side. That way we can take shots at all of our favorites and have a humorous way of imparting our message in the media.  Here’s a good example of what I mean – check out Calpernia Addams in ” Bad Questions to Ask a Transsexual: The Director’s Cut “

I’m Canadian eh, and we have lots of experience  laughing at ourselves.  For example:  in other countries when officials are caught with their hand in the till, heads roll.  Here in Canada, it’ more of a belly roll.  In fact, the odd Canadian will go to great lenghts to make a fool of themselves in order to raise the humor of all concerned.

Anyone got any ideas??