I disagree strongly and think we should accelerate almost all forms of scientific progress and inquiry, even when it might find truths that are politically inconvenient. For all the parochial reasons why progress and truth are good (better models of the world, higher standards of living, more slack, all via better tech, like better medicine, even when not explicitly searching for it...). And for those of us who believe the world is in peril, all the more reason to take on risk.
Also it is bad game-theory to give into threats, including hypothetical future threats. Respectability politics saves oppressors from having to do the work of oppressing and instead outsources it onto the oppressed group. This makes it cheaper to oppress trans people.
Also am skeptical of the strategy. If trans people don’t do the science, then cis people will. Unless trans people pressure our cis allies not to, in which case the haters will do the science or make stuff up, which I think is worse.
The existing Blanchardian research program is guilty of egregious research methodology dishonesty. If you are worried about oppressors creating bad research, I think attacking the character of the researchers would be a more appropriate response, as that justifies dismissing their work without needing to spend additional resources.
The main issue with this strategy is that most of the activists in the field don’t understand the research well enough to emphasize the flaws properly. Plus even if they do, they will likely make extremely questionable assertions too. And while I do understand the research well enough to emphasize the flaws, I’m uncompromising about also pointing out the places where the researchers actually have a point, so this makes activists uninterested in boosting my critiques.
I disagree strongly and think we should accelerate almost all forms of scientific progress and inquiry, even when it might find truths that are politically inconvenient. For all the parochial reasons why progress and truth are good (better models of the world, higher standards of living, more slack, all via better tech, like better medicine, even when not explicitly searching for it...). And for those of us who believe the world is in peril, all the more reason to take on risk.
Also it is bad game-theory to give into threats, including hypothetical future threats. Respectability politics saves oppressors from having to do the work of oppressing and instead outsources it onto the oppressed group. This makes it cheaper to oppress trans people.
Also am skeptical of the strategy. If trans people don’t do the science, then cis people will. Unless trans people pressure our cis allies not to, in which case the haters will do the science or make stuff up, which I think is worse.
The existing Blanchardian research program is guilty of egregious research methodology dishonesty. If you are worried about oppressors creating bad research, I think attacking the character of the researchers would be a more appropriate response, as that justifies dismissing their work without needing to spend additional resources.
The main issue with this strategy is that most of the activists in the field don’t understand the research well enough to emphasize the flaws properly. Plus even if they do, they will likely make extremely questionable assertions too. And while I do understand the research well enough to emphasize the flaws, I’m uncompromising about also pointing out the places where the researchers actually have a point, so this makes activists uninterested in boosting my critiques.