Paul Varnell was an American journalist and LGBTQ rights activist.
Background
Paul Varnell was born on April 16, 1942 in St. Louis and grew up in the northeast United States. Varnell earned a bachelor’s degree from Cornell University in 1963, then attended graduate school at Indiana University-Bloomington. Varnell taught at Northern Illinois University before moving into activism and journalism in the 1980s.
Varnell was among that generation’s most notable conservative/libertarian journalists in the LGBTQ community.
Varnell died December 9, 2011.
Selected works
In 2005 Varnell criticized sexologist J. Michael Bailey’s belief that bisexual men do not exist, and he wrote an early critical review of Bailey’s anti-transgender book The Man Who Would Be Queen.
Weird Science: J. Michael Bailey’s ‘The Man Who Would Be Queen’
Originally published July 23, 2003, in the Chicago Free Press.
It’s a shame trees had to be sacrificed in order to print J. Michael Bailey’s controversial new book âThe Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism.â
Bailey takes a perfectly interesting and reasonable question â what is the relationship between childhood femininity in boys and gay men, and transgenderism â and succeeds only in writing a bunch of speculative and insulting nonsense.
Don’t be fooled by the âscienceâ in the title: There is very little science in this book. It’s not science calling up a two-decades-old research study and declaring it the truth for all time. It’s not science without documentation â there are no footnotes, no references listed and no bibliography.
It’s not science sitting at a bar in Chicago’s gay neighborhood of Boystown talking to gay men and transgenders about their childhoods. It’s not science when someone answers your questions and you don’t like the answers or don’t believe them, so you dismiss the insight as lies, or internalized âfemiphobia.â
It’s not science when you write pages about what âperfectâ studies would need to be conducted to prove your wanted findings, and then write that, of course, these studies could never be done because of their length and complexity.
It’s not science to simply quote small studies and surveys with no context. It’s not science taking an 8-year-old boy’s cross-dressing issue and basing an entire book on the question of what he may or may not become later in life. And it’s not science or scholarship to praise your son’s ability to spot gay men on the street. It’s not science to base your knowledge of transgender and gay lives on what they say they are seeking in personal ads.
This book is not science. A discussion of ideas, yes. One straight man’s look into an unfamiliar world, yes. Science, absolutely not.
Bailey’s thesis is that there is a connection between femininity in boys and gay men and the desire to change gender. In investigating this he takes a long detour through covering gay masculinity and femininity, stereotypes of gay men and whether gay men are actually more like straight men or women.
Then he declares there are exactly two types of transgenders: homosexual and autogynephile. The former are men who want to change gender because they identify as women and the latter are men who are erotically charged by switching gender. In his limited exploration, Bailey paints an ugly picture of transgenders’ alleged sexual perversity, confusion and relationships. And he makes no effort to consider transgenders who carry on ânormalâ jobs, friendships, sexual desires, lives, etc.
While the argument Bailey makes is pretty bad, the writing and organization of the book aren’t much better. He never adequately connects the several different strands he’s weaving into a cohesive whole theory. And his personal anecdotes are annoying, not to mention credibility-busting.
This book is not worth reading, even for the controversy. You’d learn a lot more reaching out to someone in the trans community and having a friendly and honest discussion with them about their lives than reading this ridiculous concoction of speculation.
What’s also mystifying is that some reputable authors (Steven Pinker, Anne Lawrence) and literary establishments (Kirkus Reviews, Publisher’s Weekly, Out magazine) gave the book positive quotes, since it doesn’t take much analytical ability to slice through Bailey’s arguments, speculations and assumptions. Also confusing is how an author of Bailey’s apparently reputable credentials can get away with a shoddy publication like this. He is a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, has written for The New York Times and is a well-known sex researcher.
Wisely and appropriately, the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition has called for the National Academy of Science to investigate the book and remove it from under its banner.
Baileyâs Bisexuality Study (2005)
Originally published August 3, 2005, in the Chicago Free Press.
Most of us realize that there are many people who have had sex with both sexes but that that does not necessarily means they feel equal desire for both sexes. As Masters and Johnson wryly observed, “The label of bisexual often means whatever the user wishes it to mean.”
Now a new study published in Psychological Science by Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey and two Ph.D. candidates claims to advance science by reporting that none of the men in their study of male bisexuals experienced “strong” desire for both sexes and that most experienced much stronger sexual arousal by men than women.
Whether or not Bailey’s conclusions are true, the study fails to demonstrate them effectively. Bailey has repeatedly in the past employed problematic research procedures and this study is no exception.
Bailey and his team recruited 33 “bisexuals” as well as control groups of homosexuals and heterosexuals by advertising in the gay and “alternative” press. They then showed all three groups of men “several” two-minute-long erotic films, including two of two men having sex and two of two women having sex. The subjects’ genital arousal was determined by a device placed around the penis that measured any increased circumference. Bailey says, “For men arousal is orientation.”
It turned out that one-third of each group of subjects had no significant genital arousal at all from the films, which means that either they had no sexual orientation or else the technique for testing orientation was flawed. But Bailey ignored that possibility, simply eliminated the non-responders and used the 22 bisexual who did have an arousal response.
It also turned out too that three of the 25 gay men who had measurable genital arousal were more aroused by the female films than the male films. Bailey should conclude (“arousal is orientation”) that they were heterosexual but does not and does not say why. This interesting fact is buried in a footnote in a manuscript version of the study but I missed it in the uncorrected page proofs Bailey kindly provided.
In any case, the final result was that although all the bisexual men reported equal subjective (mental) arousal to both types of films, all of them “had much greater genital arousal from one sex than to the other” and three quarters of the 22 men had stronger genital arousal from the all-male films than the all-female films.
It is noticeable that there is no mention of heterosexual films – a man having sex with a woman. The study assumes that a film of two women having sex will always generate a heterosexual arousal response but offers no evidence or argument for the claim. No doubt some men are titillated by lesbian sex but whether it is as uniformly effective a heterosexual arousal agent as a heterosexual film seems questionable.
Some bisexual men, for instance, are far more interested in their own performance, their impact on the other person, than the gender of the partner. Masters and Johnson call them “ambisexuals” and C. A. Tripp mentions that some researchers describe them – somewhat inaccurately – as ready to “stick it in anywhere.” If such men are to be aroused by brief films it would more likely be one of a man having sex with another person, male or female, than by a film lacking any male participant. This could help explain the greater number of men aroused by the all-male films.
Since the bisexual men did report substantially equal subjective (mental) arousal to both types of films, someone might wonder if two-minute films were long enough to generate genital arousal particularly for the female films since they presumably did not involve specific arousal cues such as copulatory activity. As psychologist Murray Davis points out, the move from everyday life to erotic reality can take time, the right mental set, and the right cues.
Finally one might wonder if the recruitment ads were specific enough. If Bailey had advertised for men with “equal sexual desire” for men and women he might have obtained a more interesting study group. As it was, he defined “bisexuals” as people with Kinsey ratings of 2, 3 and 4 thus including people with stronger heterosexual responses (2s) and stronger homosexual responses (4s).
One might also wonder if most of the bisexuals solicited through ads in gay publications might lean toward the gay side of bisexuality – which could be why they were reading gay publications and saw the ad. That in turn might help explain the larger number of bisexuals who were more aroused by males than females.
These and related difficulties lead to me wonder why Bailey continues to try to do sex research when he demonstrates so little understanding of the human psychology involved in sex and sexual arousal and seems so unself-critical about research designs that include sample bias, dubious testing procedures, built-in assumptions, unaccountable anomalies, etc. Whatever he is doing, it is not psychology and it is not science.
Donna Martina Cartwright (born October 4, 1946) is an American journalist and labor activist. Cartwright served as a copy editor for The New York Times for about 30 years, transitioning on the job in 1997 and retiring in 2006. Cartwright was named to the NLGJA LGBT Journalists Hall of Fame in 2014.
Background
Cartwright was born in Hackensack, New Jersey. Cartwright was also involved in creating and leading some of the most important trans rights organizations, including:
Pride at Work
New York Association for Gender Rights Advocacy (NYAGRA)
Gender Rights Advocacy Association of New Jersey
National Center for Transgender Equality
TransEpiscopal
Gender Rights Maryland
2000 media criticism
In 2000, Cartwright published a piece on how cis journalists were “Trivializing and Silencing Transgender People in Queer Media.” Cartwright wrote:
Transgender people, long marginalized in the gay and lesbian community and “written out” of its history, have been making a modest comeback in recent years. Many queer organizations routinely recognize our presence through the use of such phrases as “the GLBT community” to describe their missions or constituencies; that some of these “natives” might be capable of uttering words comprehensible to civilized people too often seems beyond the imagination of the “normalized” queer writer. Funny, gays and lesbians were seen in just such terms, not so long ago âŠ.
Both this renewed visibility and its problems are reflected in a recent work of queer history, Dudley Clendinen and Adam Nagourney’s book. Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America (Simon & Schuster, 1999) which covers the period from the late 1960’s until the late 1980’s. Clendinen and Nagourney pay serious attention to many of the controversies over the place of trans- gender people in the queer movement over the last 30 years. Unfortunately, they treat us largely as a disempowered, voiceless “other,” passive objects of history rather than subjects.
DAYS OF FURY By many accounts, 1973 was a difficult year for transgender queers: a rising tide of separatism in the lesbian/ feminist movements culmi- nated in an explosion of hatred and hysteria at the West Coast Lesbian Conference in Los Angeles in April; two months later, similar tensions erupted at the New York City Pride March.
Out for Good gives a compelling picture of these events: in L.A., Beth Elliott, a lesbian male-to-female transsexual, one of the conference organizers, was scheduled to sing as part of the conference’s opening ceremonies. She had been at the center of a bitter dispute over her transsexuality in the San Francisco chapter of the Daughters of Bilitis in late 1972.
Elliott is a fascinating figure; unfortunately, Clendinen and Nagourney seem oblivious to the pos- sibility that she might have had some- thing of value to contribute to their account. She is not quoted in Out for Good, and she says that they never interviewed her. By her own recollec- tion, she is the first “out” transsexual lesbian feminist. She transitioned at the age of 19, and soon thereafter was invited to join the Bay area Daughters of Bilitis chapter â at that point, the membership felt her transsexuality was not a disqualification.
“Wanting to make the freedom I was experiencing safer and available to more women,” she says, she began doing volunteer work at the chapter’s office. After several months, in the fall of 1971, she was elected Vice- President in a two-candidate race.
In the summer of ’72, however, trouble appeared in the form of lesbian separatists who began to press their perspective on the chapter as a whole. Tensions rose over various issues, from Elliott’s transsexuality to demands that the editor of the chap- ter newsletter be brought under offi- cial oversight. In the fall of that year, Elliott ran for re-election as Vice- President and was defeated in a cam- paign in which her transgender his- tory may have been a tacit issue. A few months later, in a separate vote, transsexuals were ruled ineligible for membership.
Out for Good skews history a bit in its account of the struggle in the San Francisco D.O.B. The book says Elliott’s “demand to be admitted into the San Francisco chapter of the Daughters of Bilitis had torn the group apart. The D.O.B. had devoted eighteen months to arguing about whether there was a place in the Daughters of Bilitis for a transsexual, before finally and bitterly voting ‘No’.”
But Elliott’s account, which is supported by a look at back copies of Sisters, the San Francisco D.O.B. ‘s magazine, is rather different. The battle took up at most a few months, not 18, and it was not over her “demand to be admitted,” but over her expulsion.
Perhaps Clendinen and Nagourney relied on the recollection of someone involved in the conflict, decades after the fact. All the more reason to have balanced their sources.
Cartwright added:
Not that this incident is exactly unknown territory for queer writers. Pat Califia, in her book Sex Changes (1997) quotes a member of the chap- ter who “had actually been present at the stormy meeting where [Elliott] was ousted âŠ
“This doesn’t feel okay to me/ she said. ‘She worked harder than anyone else in D.O.B. She gave a lot to that organization. There was no good reason to kick her out. She hadn’t done anything wrong except be a transsexual. You wouldn’t believe some of the vile and vicious things other women said to her. And she just sat and listened to all of it, kept her dignity and answered them back without losing her temper or calling anybody names/”
A few months later, some of Elliott’s enemies in the San Francisco battle attended the conference in L. A. and created an uproar when she went on stage to sing. They demand- ed that she leave, the performance was brought to a halt, and the issue was debated for hours and ultimate- ly put to a vote.
Out for Good says there was a slim majority in favor of allowing Elliott to sing, but according to contemporary sources, the margin was overwhelming. Barbara McLean’s “Diary of a Mad Organizer” in the Lesbian Tide confer- ence issue says the women voted three to one to hear Elliott, while The Advocate (May 9, 1973) also calls the vote “overwhelming.” The separatists and some others in the audience walked out. According to The heritage of sexual sophistication.”
Advocate, Elliott later received a standing ovation from “most of the 1,200 women present.” The next day, Robin Morgan, the writer and editor who later became a leading figure in the rightward drift of radical feminism, devoted part of her keynote address to a vicious, hateful attack on transgender women. In it, she suggested that we enjoy being harassed on the street (doesn’t that sound sickeningly familiar?), said that we “parody female oppression,” accused us of “leeching off women” and demanded that we be excluded from women’s space.
In a three-page account of the controversy at the conference. Out for Good quotes Morgan at length, and, somewhat more briefly, Jeanne Cordova (editorial coordinator of Lesbian Tide and an organizer of the conference) in Elliott’s defense. But neither Elliott nor any other transsex- ual is quoted; are we not up to speak- ing for ourselves? Elliott still lives in California, and eventually managed to become active again in the lesbian and leather communities; surely she might have been asked about her feelings concerning that day. And it is not exactly a daunting task to reach her; this writer managed it without great difficulty.
And Out for Good is not exactly neutral in tone. In addition to the factual errors and omissions, consider this description of Elliott: “She might have been the only woman in the room wearing a skirt or a gown â except for the fact that Beth Elliott wasn’t a woman. Beth Elliott was a preoperative transsexual, a man in the process of trying to become a woman, who, to complicate things, claimed to be a lesbian.”
At another point. Out for Good refers to “the near-riot that Beth Elliott had caused.” Well, it takes more than one person to cause a riot, and all Beth Elliott did was accept an invitation to sing. It was who she was, not what she said or did, that “caused” the near-riot.
Elliott, who was also a founding member of the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club and who played an active role in the California Committee for Sexual Law Reform, paints an interesting picture of the early post-Stonewall queer move- ment. She says that many lesbians “judged individual transsexual women on the content of their character,” adding that “there were a lot of lesbians who had no interest in the legendary political correctness of the 1970’s.”
She also notes that many of the early-70’s lesbian communities were “very sex-positive ⊠and the ‘sex purity’ movement never managed to control the lesbian community as a whole.
James also describes an incident of alleged inappropriate boundary crossing in Lawrenceâs photography of Jamesâ genitals for Lawrenceâs website www.annelawrence.com. James says Lawrence was inappropriately seductive while James had her clothes off. Lawrence denies this.
Thereâs more to the story. A year or so ago, Donna Cartwright, another transsexual woman, described to Tapestry an experience virtually identical to that reported by James. At that time we chose not to go forward with an unverified allegation. This allegation has now been substantiated in the form of Jamesâ complaint. Lawrence denies this incident also.
Wilson was born in Detroit, Michigan and earned a bachelorâs degree in liberal arts from College of Wooster in 1982. She joined The Chronicle in 1985 and wrote for them until 2017. She and her husband Darryl Ozias (born 1956) have two sons. She joined the Iowa State University wrestling program as Director of Operations in 2017, having previously volunteered for Head Coach Kevin Dresser when one of her sons wrestled for Dresser at Virginia Tech.
The Man Who Would Be Queen (2003)
In 2003 and 2004, Wilson wrote six articles about the book and the fallout for the Chronicle. The first, which Dreger characterizes as “gossipy,” came out shortly after Bailey’s vulgar misuse of gender diverse children at Stanford University. Wilson joined Bailey on on one of his voyeuristic sex tours (see Charlotte Allen) to the gay nightclub Circuit with Anjelica Kieltyka and the woman called “Juanita” in his book. Wilson describes Bailey as using medical gatekeeping to gain access to young attractive trans women: “As a psychologist, he has written letters they needed to get sex-reassignment surgery, and he has paid attention to them in ways most people donât.”
In her 2008 article published by Kenneth Zucker, in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Dreger singled out Wilson as the journalist who failed to cover the story objectively:
Wilson wrote these scandal reports as if she had just come upon the scene with no previous insider knowledge and no insider connections to use to figure out the truth behind this âcontroversy.â When I realized the strange role Wilson had played, I tried asking her and her editor why they hadnât used her before-and-after-scandal positioning to ask deep questions about why Baileyâs relationships appeared, at least in public accounts, to have suddenly changed with these women. Wilsonâs editor [Bill Horne] sent me back boilerplate: âWe stand by the accuracy, and fairness, of Robinâs reporting and are not inclined to revisit decisions Robin and her editors made here with regard to what to include or exclude from those stories in 2003.â But I was left obsessing about an if: If Wilson had used her special journalistic position as someone who was there just before the mushroom cloud, she might have seenâright awayâwhat I saw when years later I charted the journey.
Now, maybe Wilson would have concluded that Conway had just educated all these women into understanding they had been abused. But if she had taken this or any other theory of what had changed the scene so dramatically, and then bothered to look into the actual charges, as I was finally doing years later, she might have seen them fall apart one by one. And then she could have reported that. Was Wilson a good liberal simply afraid to look as though she was defending a straight, politically incorrect sex researcher against a group of supposedly downtrodden trans women? Had Conway and James scared the crap out of her, as they seemed to scare everybody else? Or was the explanation simpler? Was it just that trying to figure out what the hell was really going on would have taken too much time and other resources?
References
Dreger, Alice (2015). Galileo’s Middle Finger.
Dreger, Alice (2008). The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Wilson, Robin (September 3, 2016). Citing Safety Concerns, Northwestern U. Bans Tenured ‘Gadfly’ Professor From Campus.
Wilson, Robin (December 10, 2004). Northwestern U. Will Not Reveal Results of Investigation Into Sex Researcher.
Wilson, Robin (December 1, 2004). Northwestern U. Concludes Investigation of Sex Researcher but Keeps Results Secret.
Wilson, Robin (December 12, 2003). Northwestern U. Psychologist Is Accused of Having Sex With Research Subject.
Wilson, Robin (July 25, 2003). Transsexual ‘Subjects’ Complain About Professor’s Research Methods.
Wilson, Robin (July 17, 2003). 2 Transsexual Women Say Professor Didn’t Tell Them They Were Research Subjects.
Horne earned a bachelor’s degree in communications from Cornell University and a law degree from Albany Law School of Union University in 1984. He was admitted to the New York Bar in 1985 and practiced for several years before going into journalism, where he has published with bylines including William W. Horne and Bill Horne.
Horne joined the Chronicle in 2000 as Deputy Managing Editor, rising to editor from 2004 to 2007. He then held editor positions at World History Group from 2008 to 2013, then joined AARP in 2014 as Executive Editor of their magazine. His wife Kathleen “Kathy” Broadbent Horne is also a lawyer.
The Man Who Would Be Queen (2003)
Chronicle staffer Robin Wilson wrote six articles covering the controversy, and Dreger was critical of the coverage, citing her correspondence with Horne:
When I realized the strange role Wilson had played, I tried asking her and her editor why they hadnât used her before-and-after-scandal positioning to ask deep questions about why Baileyâs relationships appeared, at least in public accounts, to have suddenly changed with these women. Wilsonâs editor sent me back boilerplate: âWe stand by the accuracy, and fairness, of Robinâs reporting and are not inclined to revisit decisions Robin and her editors made here with regard to what to include or exclude from those stories in 2003.â
References
Dreger, Alice (2008). The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age. Archives of Sexual Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1
Dreger, Alice (2015). Galileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and One Scholar’s Search for Justice. Penguin Books ISBN 978-0143108115
FAIR was founded in 1986 by Jeff Cohen and Martin A. Lee. FAIR publishes the criticism publication Extra! and also produces the audio project CounterSpin.
FAIR is critical of corporate sponsorship and ownership of media, as well as government policies and pressure, which FAIR believes restricts journalism and distorts public discourse.
Jackson, Janine (March 16, 2017). âThat Violence Against Our Community Is Often Not Told by Media.â https://fair.org/home/that-violence-against-our-community-is-often-not-told-by-media/
GLAAD is an American media watchdog organization that monitors and reports on media issues. Their focus is sex and gender minorities, and they have done more than any other organization in history to improve media depictions of our community.
In keeping with their initial mission to fight defamation, they have a convenient way to report defamation.
Background
GLAAD was founded in 1985 as Gay and Lesbian Anti-Defamation League, to protest the New York Post’s sensationalized and homophobic reporting on HIV/AIDS. The name was changed a few years later to Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. In 2013, they moved to using their initials GLAAD exclusively.
Over the years, GLAAD has been instrumental in pressuring media and entertainment companies to improve how they depict LGBTQ people. The GLAAD Media Awards were established in 1989 to honor fair and accurate media depictions of LGBTQ people. Since the 1990s GLAAD has published a Media Reference Guide for journalists and other media creators. In 2013 GLAAD began grading entertainment companies with a Studio Responsibility Index. In 2021 they launched a similar Social Media Safety Index.
In 2015, longtime GLAAD employee Nick Adams was named Director of Transgender Media & Representation.
Accountability Project
Of particular interest for this project is the GLAAD Accountability Project (GAP), created in 2012 and relaunched in 2021 expanded listings. GAP monitors and documents individual public figures and groups using their platforms to spread misinformation and false rhetoric against LGBTQ people, youth, and allies.
Harper’s Magazine is an American publication founded in 1850. In the 21st century, amid the disruption of journalism and media, the magazine has had a revolving door of editors, leading to a number of questionable decisions that have affected the publication’s reputation.
No transgender journalist has ever appeared on their masthead since its founding in 1850.
“A Letter on Justice and Open Debate”
In 2020, Thomas Chatterton Williams led the effort to draft a letter decrying “illiberalism” with help from Robert Worth, George Packer, David Greenberg, and Mark Lilla. They then sought signatories without divulging who had signed. Because it “was passed among circles of activists and writers,” it is an excellent example of what The Transphobia Project hopes to reveal.
It’s one of the best recent examples of what Julia Serano calls “the Dregerian narrative” in which some elitists claim they are being persecuted or silenced by the minorities they exploit. The list featured an unusually large proportion of “gender critical” mainstays.
A letter countering it appeared shortly after that discussed the original’s “gender critical” aims:
The letter reads as a caustic reaction to a diversifying industry â one thatâs starting to challenge institutional norms that have protected bigotry. The writers of the letter use seductive but nebulous concepts and coded language to obscure the actual meaning behind their words, in what seems like an attempt to control and derail the ongoing debate about who gets to have a platform.
In fact, a number of the signatories have made a point of punishing people who have spoken out against them, including Bari Weiss (who made a name for herself as a Columbia University undergrad by harassing and infringing upon the speech of professors she considered to be anti-Israel, and later attempted to shame multiple media outlets into firing freelance journalist Erin Biba for her tweets), Katha Pollitt (whose transphobic rhetoric has extended to trying to deny trans journalists access to professional networking tools), Emily Yoffe (who has spoken out against sexual-assault survivors expressing their free speech rights), Anne-Marie Slaughter (who terminated her Google-funded organizationâs partnership with a Google critic), and Cary Nelson (whose support of free speech, apparently, does not extend to everyone) â just to name a few. What gives them the right to use their platforms to harass others into silence, especially writers with smaller platforms and less institutional support, while preaching that silencing writers is a problem?
Rowling, one of the signers, has spouted transphobic and transmisogynist rhetoric, mocking the idea that trans men could exist, and likening transition-related medical care such as hormone replacement therapy to conversion therapy. She directly interacts with fans on Twitter, publishes letters littered with transphobic rhetoric, and gets away with platforming violent anti-trans speakers to her 14 million followers.
Jesse Singal, another signer, is a cis man infamous for advancing his career by writing derogatorily about trans issues. In 2018, Singal had a cover story in The Atlantic expressing skepticism about the benefits of gender-affirming care for trans youth. No trans writer has been afforded the same space. Singal often faces and dismisses criticism from trans people, but he has a much larger platform than any trans journalist. In fact, a 2018 Jezebel report found that Singal was part of a closed Google listserv of more than 400 left-leaning media elites who praised his work, with not a single out trans person in the group. He also has an antagonistic history with trans journalists, academics, and other writers, dedicating many Medium posts to attempting to refute or discredit their claims and reputations.
Itâs also clear that the organizers of the letter did not communicate clearly and honestly with all the signatories. One invited professor, who did not sign the Harper’s letter, said that he was asked to sign a letter “arguing for bolder, more meaningful efforts at racial and gender inclusion in journalism, academia, and the arts.” The letter in its final form fails to make this argument at all. Another of the signers, author and professor Jennifer Finney Boylan, who is also a trans woman, said on Twitter that she did not know who else had signed it until it was published. Another signatory, Lucia Martinez Valdivia, said in a Medium post: âWhen I asked to know who the other signatories were, the names I was shown were those of people of color from all over the political spectrum, and not those of people who have taken gender-critical or trans-exclusionary positions.â
Under the guise of free speech and free exchange of ideas, the letter appears to be asking for unrestricted freedom to espouse their points of view free from consequence or criticism.
Other critics
Jeff Yang criticized the letter:
It’s hard not to see the letter as merely an elegantly written affirmation of elitism and privilege.
Each has also, in the face of resultant backlash, dismissed rebuttals and positioned themselves as beleaguered victims of the current culture, turning their support for open debate and free expression into an example of stark hypocrisy or sly gaslighting.
That’s because even if the letter were warranted â even if it weren’t an off-note, Olympian statement that reads as self-interested and elitist at best â it’s sure to be used by serial bad actors on the list as a shield against legitimate criticism.
Yang, Jeff (July 10, 2020). The problem with ‘the letter.’ CNN https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/opinions/the-letter-harpers-cancel-culture-open-debate-yang/index.html
Giorgis, Hannah (July 13, 2020). A Deeply Provincial View of Free Speech.The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/07/harpers-letter-free-speech/614080/
Kate Bornstein is a nonbinary American author, playwright, and performer. Bornstein’s important work on gender theory helped lay the groundwork for the resurgence of trans rights and culture in the 1990s.
Background
Bornstein was born March 15, 1948, grew up in Asbury Park, New Jersey and graduated from Brown University in 1969. Bornstein joined the Church of Scientology, moving into high ranks before leaving in 1981. Bornstein transitioned in 1986 and began doing theatre in San Francisco.
In 2012, Bornstein was diagnosed with lung cancer, saying it had been cleared for two years in 2015.
Bornstein is the subject of the 2014 documentary Kate Bornstein is a Queer and Pleasant Danger. Bornstein appeared with Caitlyn Jenner on the reality show I Am Cait.
Books
Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women, and the Rest of Us. ISBNÂ 978-0679757016.
Nearly Roadkill: An Infobahn Erotic Adventure. Â ISBNÂ 978-1852424183.
My Gender Workbook: How to Become a Real Man, a Real Woman, the Real You, or Something Else Entirely. Â ISBNÂ 978-0415916721.
Hello, Cruel World: 101 Alternatives to Suicide for Teens, Freaks, and Other Outlaws. ISBNÂ 9781583227206.
Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation. ISBN 9781580053082.
A Queer and Pleasant Danger: A Memoir.
My New Gender Workbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Achieving World Peace Through Gender Anarchy and Sex Positivity. ISBNÂ 978-0415538657.
Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women, and the Rest of Us (Revised and Updated). ISBNÂ 978-1-101-97461-2.
Wikipedia is a user-edited encyclopedia. The topics around sex, gender, and sexuality are among the most contentious on the site, and the community of editors has taken drastic steps to control these topics.