The Dredge Is At It Again

Yes, Alice Dreger – J. Michael Bailey’s one-woman, Guggenheim-funded Greek chorus of anti-transsexual hatred – is at it again.

This time its in the October newsletter of the – get your gag reflex ready – History of Science Society.

And The Dredge is now not simply misappropriating scholarly victimhood, she’s shooting her wad, going for broke, yadda yadda yadda…

In the Service of Galileo’s Ghost: A Short Guide to History, Assault, and Ideology 

 Sorry Alice, but you long ago stopped being curiouser or even merely a curiousity.  You’re light-years beyond Wonderland on the wackadoo scale.

Exhibit 487,302,216 – an attempt to rehabilitate (actually, habilitate might be the better word, since I’m not sure there was ever any credibility to fall down from in the first instance) the pathetic ringer-wannabe who was in the audience at the Bailey Brouhaha panel at the 2008 National Women’s Studies Association Conference:

Rosa stood up and said:

 

“Rosa Lee Klaneski, Trinity College. I cite Alice Dreger’s academically-rigorous work all the time in my own work.”

Here is a piece of her “work”:

And here’s just one of the reviews of it at Amazon:

In this book, Rosa Lee tries to argue that gender is not a social construction (an interesting thesis that seems highly relevant to modern feminism) through transgender theory and—here is where it all breaks down—quantum physics. Somehow Lee got the idea that quantum mechanics (she makes frequent analogies to physics she clearly doesn’t understand) could be used to explain away the more grievous logical errors in her ultimate conclusion: “society is a contruction of gender.”

Lee writes: “The patriarcy deliberately planted the philosophical seeds of post-structuralist feminism to distract feminists from reality’s true nature[…].” Her entire understanding of her opposition is limited to this sort of absurd conspiracy-theory.

Which, of course, makes her the perfect compatriot for The Dredge.

Now, back to what said Dredge was attempting to ‘prove’ in the History of Science newsletter – continuing her quote of Lee’s attempt to be witty in 2008:

“She doesn’t know who I am but I know who she is. And I am just wondering[…]– and I’m a transgender person myself – what gives any transgender person the right to abrogate someone else’s first amendment right to freedom of speech just because they hold an unpopular minority view? In my opinion [regarding] the person that you are arguing against [i.e., scientist Michael Bailey, my historical subject], I completely agree with you. Bunk. Ridiculous science. And should be classified as such. I got that. What gives us the right to censor [Dreger’s or Bailey’s work] just because we don’t like it?”

Now here is where The Chicanery of The Dredge really kicks into high gear.  Remember what Rosa Lee has, at this point alleged: Those of us private-citizen transsexuals who are rightly pointing out all that is wrong with J. Michael Bailey are violating his First Amendment rights.

I do want to thank The Dredge for transcribing Lee’s words; they (and the other audience comments) weren’t as audible as I would have liked on my audio recording (though I think they’re a bit moreso on the video.)  However…

The objection raised in return was that the panel didn’t constitute censorship. Technically this was true

Uh…no.  There was nothing technical about it.

Not only are those who have disproven – and continue to disprove – Bailey not government actors (at least not while doing so), but there is not nor has there ever been an absolute right to free speech! Waving your pathetic Ph.D. does not immunize you (or Bailey, or Blanchard, etc.) from the consequences of speech. 

but anyone with any background on this knew – as Rosa and I did – the intimidation tactics used to try to silence Bailey, me, and others.

You mean like illegimately procuring scientific gloss for fraudulent trans-exterminationist fairy tales (that NARTH-oids likely frighten their children to sleep with), claiming victimhood when you and your chorusmasters are called on its fraudulence (and the implicit collective defamation inherent in the false legitimizing of it), actually intimidating your critics (up to and including not-so-veiled threats to pre-sabotage the careers of trans women who dare to attempt to acquire credentials to compete against yours), and further silencing your critics by smothering all real discussion with Guggenheim-gilded new ‘work’ of your own which further falsely fertilizes your otherwise fallow field of victimhood.

You mean like that?

Yeh – I didn’t think so.