Evolutionary psychology (EP) is an ideology within psychology that proposes that neurological traits and behaviors have been shaped by sexual selection to serve survival and reproduction. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould described it as “Darwinian fundamentalism” because of the field’s rigid and dogmatic misunderstanding of evolution.
Evolutionary psychologists often engage in unfalsifiable theorizing about gender roles, derisively dubbed “just so stories” after the erroneous folk legends about how animals got various charateristics. Evolutionary psychologists are particularly fond of making claims about behaviors that allegedly evolved in prehistory. They then use the claims to explain and even justify sexist sterotypes.
Sex and gender minorities pose a special dilemma for evolutionary psychology: we muddle what they see as simple formulas regarding reproduction and sex differentiation.
If you think about gender diversity as a value that eludes full human understanding within a scientific language, like pi in mathematics, gender diversity exposes the limitations in EP’s system of representation. Rather than appreciating and understanding the elegance and intricacy of this mysterious value of gender diversity, evolutionary psychologists are suggesting we essentially round pi to a nice easy-to-understand integer by saying there are two sexes and rounding off the little fractions of sex and gender minorities to make the other equations easier.
J. Michael Bailey
J. Michael Bailey is a transphobic eugenicist and evolutionary psychologist trying to figure out “the puzzle of sexual roientation” within the dogma of evolutionary psychology. Bailey claims there are two, and only sexes, and two, and only two two “types” of trans women that fit into this paradigm: extremely gay males with a fetish for straight males and extremely paraphilic males with a fetish for their feminized selves.
This simplistic definition allows for an easy answer to the problem we pose for EP. Of course, this model is worthless given existing and upcoming reproductive technologies that bypass natural selection.
Nonetheless, Bailey insists this model is correct, since conceding it is not would open up a huge flaw in that worldview and hypothesis. In Bailey’s world, it is very important that gay/straight and male/female binaries be defended and justified.
This of course leads to fundamentally flawed results from calculations with this rounded number, but that hasn’t stopped Bailey and friends from a vigorous defense of this decision to simplify humanity to a Mendelian quadrant of XX/XY.
In the EP worldview, gay people are “a big mistake” evolutionarily (as J. Michael Bailey calls it), or perhaps more generously an evolutionary paradox: why does a trait that leads to fewer offspring persist?
I’ll have much more to say on this matter in the future, but evolutionary psychology is a very attractive field of inquiry to eugenicists and others who believe that all humans are not equal, and that many are in fact unfit or maladaptive. These people who measure human worth by a narrow definition of “intelligence” or reproductive capacity are the leading edge of the upcoming bioethical battle regarding diversity of all sorts, from genetics to gender.
Evolutionary psychologists and like-minded academics connected to anti-transgender activism include:
Gould, Steven Jay (June 12, 1997). Darwinian Fundamentalism. New York Review of Books http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/06/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/ https://archive.is/NPzx5 [archive]
Havens, Kiera (June 13, 2013). Box of Rocks #3 — Never Change.Medium https://medium.com/@Keira_Havens/box-of-rocks-3-never-change-80b879237314
Wren B, Launer J, Reiss MJ, Swanepoel A, Music G. Can evolutionary thinking shed light on gender diversity? BJPsych Advances. 2019;25(6):351-362. https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2019.35
Hagen, Edward (2004). Evolutionary psychology FAQ. http://human.projects.anth.ucsb.edu/evpsychfaq.html [archive]
J. Michael Bailey‘s 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen was an an important turning point in asymmetrical information warfare. Transgender activists had to employ novel strategies to fight the anti-transgender bias that was being put forth via socially-credentialed sources. One of the sites of dispute was the Amazon listing for Bailey’s book, where Amazon manipulated the consensus to remove the majority of negative reviews while sparing positive reviews by the author’s friends and colleagues.
The nascent online practices of “academic logrolling” vs. “review bombing” came to wider notice when a glitch in Amazon’s Canadian system revealed the names of anonymous reviewers, exposing how much of this activity was occurring on Amazon’s platform. Amazon later implemented a number of changes, including giving more weight to verified purchases and allowing readers to vote and comment on reviews. Because their ultimate goal is to make money by selling books, Amazon is generally going to favor the side of shills.
Shill reviews
The pro-Bailey shill reviewers in the first year included a number of colleagues and supporters, several of whom are mentioned in the book:
This page went live in 2003 as part of a systematic plan to document everyone involved in this debate. Trans people had begun reporting difficulties getting their reviews accepted, suggesting Amazon was manually blocking negative reviews:
I spent over a month of fighting with Amazon to get them to post my review. Amazon is systematically censoring negative reviews. You have to follow their rules precisely to get things posted and even then people may have to fight. I advise anyone trying to post a review to followup with an e-mail if it is not posted within a week. And then if it is not posted, it is key to ask for the supervisor in charge of book reviews and demand that it be posted (lest they be accused of censoring, which they are definitely definitely doing)
In April 2004, the book had a 2-star rating based on 80 reviews.
By March 10, 2004, Amazon had removed 24 customer reviews from the review section, including several from famous trans writers and scholars, and even a Top 500 Amazon reviewer (Geoff Puterbaugh). All but one of these reviews gave the book the worst numerical rating possible. Amazon’s actions raised the book’s overall rating from 2 stars to 3 stars.
The purge removed negative reviews by many notable people, including scientists and clinicians:
The reader who reported difficulties getting a review posted was one of the 24 suppressed in the purge.
Single-purpose reviewers
From the 2004 purge into June 2006, someone posted 40 different 5-star reviews under different names. In almost every case, Bailey’s book was the only review ever made by the account. It’s very likely these were all posted by the same person familiar with the controversy, probably Denise Magner. Magner compulsively used sockpuppets, starting with an Amazon review by her sockpuppet Stephanie Alejandra Velasquez on May 4, 2003. That review was taken down in the Amazon purge, and the 40 new reviews began appearing immediately after. Many of the names used are puns on people involved in the controversy, like Simon LeVay and John Bancroft.
Book publishers and authors were just learning about how to improve sales by manipulating Amazon, something Amazon encourages. Right below an author’s Amazon Sales Rank is an invitation: “(Publishers and authors: improve your sales)”
Publishers increasingly use these unconfirmed reviews edited by an unnamed Amazon employee as evidence about a book’s reception. Joseph Henry Press Executive Editor Stephen Mautner cited Amazon reviews in his open letter about Bailey’s book:
As of June 13, 2003 there were 27 1-star (lowest) ratings, and 11 5-star (highest) ratings, with only 5 in-between.
From the start, this book was marketed as controversial. The trans community had to use a number of innovative methods to fight the unscientific ideas presented in this book. Many of these methods have since been widely adopted, like online petitions and this kind of systematized documentation to expose patterns of bias like Amazon’s.
References
Harmon, Amy (February 14, 2004). Amazon Glitch Unmasks War of Reviewers.New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/14/us/amazon-glitch-unmasks-war-of-reviewers.html
The Sex And Gender Explorer Test, or S.A.G.E. test is an online “gender test.” While it’s fine to take it for fun, it is not science and should not be used to make important decisions.
As the author says:
I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist. I have only a layperson’s understanding of the “science” that serves as the foundation for both the questions and the methodology of psychological evaluations. As the creator of the COGIATI test says, there is NO professionally authored psychological test for identification or classification of people with gender conflicts. It is obvious such a diagnostic tool would be useful to both the conflicted subject and the health care profession. If the creation of the S.A.G.E. test serves as an impetus or foundation for a credentialed professional to develop such a test, its purpose will have been served.
This test is built on the work of other supposed “gender tests” and shares many of the same short-comings. How you score is NOT a competition with other people or to show that you are “better” than someone else. I did not do ANY of the research on which this test is based, and I cannot speak for the validitiy or accuracy of those gender-related theories or research projects. Quite honestly, I’m not even sure if I totally agree with them. So why did I make this thing at all? I guess I just got bored and wanted to see if I could.
Remember, this test will not TELL you what your gender identity is. It is designed to help you EXPLORE and understand your gender identity against “social norms” and clinical diagnostic classifications. It is NOT a substitute for seeking professional therapy.
