Intersexions Cafe - Statement by Sophia Siedlberg, Spokesperson for OII-UK

Statement by Sophia Siedlberg, Spokesperson for OII in the United Kingdom
2 April 2008
http://www.intersexualite.org/Siedlberg.html#anchor_20

Hello Clarke-Northwestern. Hello Sexnet. How are you nice people today? While you are eating your breakfasts, lunch or supper depending on the time you actually read this, I would like you to contemplate a concept known as “Dissent”. That is people do not agree with everything you say, and perhaps more unsettling for you is the fact that they are angry about it.

Why are you running around crying foul about political correctness? (I am far from politically correct, as you may have noticed) as well as crying foul about the right to academic “Free Speech”? (I would love to know what happened to my academic freedom, Oh sorry I forgot, I am a DSD so I do not deserve such privileges). Why do you not take the time to talk to people instead?

This has been the real problem here, while I freely admit I have been harsh in my criticism, the one thing I have always said is “Talk to us”. You may be rather surprised; people may actually see what you are trying to say instead of assuming the worst.

What is the “Worst” we seem to be perceiving? Well, when people hear talk of “Screening people out” and “It is all important for those affected to be conforming to gender identity and biopsychosocial stereotypes as expressed by the social norms and we cannot de-pathologize intersex too much because that would be problematic for the medical profession and parents”, then are you really expecting them to accept that blindly without asking questions?

From upon high comes some statement or another “Would parents be forced to have Jewish children” (Bailey 2001) “We can cure them before they are born” (Vilain 2001). “We can determine what sex they want to be with a gene test (Vilain 2003), “They are especially suited for prostitution” (Bailey 2003) We consider them a cosmic joke (Dreger 2007).

Your commentaries are always about some group of people or another who some of you regard as little more than “Moving Targets” (Dreger 2007). Perhaps I am missing the obvious but when it is just nasty comment after nasty comment and people question you about it, we all read “Oh it is political correctness etc etc”. Well from me personally this has never been true, I would defend to the death your right to free speech, and I would defend to death my right to answer back. I see no problem on my part. I see your repeated gaffes and comments as little more than the usual run of the mill comments I expect from arrogant doctors and I respond in kind.

You see to quote the “literature” I “Do not respect authority”. Well, to put it more accurately, when that Authority has in the past consistently sought to cause me harm then no, I do not respect it.

Being surgically mutilated as an 18 month old baby, being brutalized for the next eight or so years because “the surgery did not do as it was supposed to” then being sent to an institution where I was abused by pedophiles as a “novelty” and then being forced onto hormonal “Therapies” that could well have turned me into some sort of psychotic animal does not really give me much confidence in what people, such as yourselves would be dreaming up next. So not I do not respect “Authority”.

And while you people at the Clarke-northwestern and on Sexnet are not personally responsible for the vile situations I had to endure as a child, you are responsible for continuing the same on other children. You can argue that you are thinking carefully about your policy making and guidelines, but I would point out that how you claim you intend them to be used and how they actually will be used are two different things.

As for your claims on how they will be used, I have to say that “pissing in the snow” jokes at Kinsey Institute lectures (Dreger 2007) do not really give me all that much confidence in terms of intent.

Professor J Michael Bailey, I will address this part to you, the reason why a number of Male to Female Transsexual folks had a go at you, seems to me to do with the fact that you describe a taxonomy that asserts their “Maleness”, you publish a book that treats them as little more than objects of curious sex. You seem to think that this is all some “Truth” and yet you have never once actually tried to defend yourself from your critics in any way other than more attacks on them.

You then go on to write another book called “Gay Straight or Liar” (It is bisexual folks this time I see). When I mock you in public, I do so knowing that it may elicit a response, when the response is to send one of your pet trolls in your little “pretty thing harem” (Yes that is how it is perceived, is it surprising?) one me calling me an “autogynephilic transsexual” I have to say that it is disappointing at best.

But then I should be grateful that you have illustrated that you cannot simply access people’s medical histories as the rumors claim. I know you cannot access people’s records without their consent because if you tried, then you would be more accurate in describing people. Oh yes the rumors. Perhaps we should address those, like the one where you are accused of trying to engineer a virus to kill gay folks off. That was flying around before I came into the debate, but I can tell you the root of it. The “Gay eugenics” paper as it has come to be known. Where you and Aaron Greenberg suggest that you could in theory offer screening so prospective parents can “Avoid” having “Gay children”. My opinions of that paper are written out in a review of it. In normal debate you are supposed to read it and either comment or refute what is being said, not simply ignore it and whine about Freedom of speech. (While trying to silence dissent). I am not really all that interested in the controversy you have got yourself embroiled in with regards transsexual folks, but it does bother me that I have the distinct feeling that you are working with your colleagues to use intersex people to identify the biological basis of “Gender identity”. And as such you have been involved with the DSD consortium, despite your claims to the contrary.

Alice Dreger, do you really think I am going to sit back and accept the things you are saying without challenging some of them? Such as “if someone rejects their assigned sex while being intersexed then they are transgendered” you know as well as I do that when childhood surgery has been involved, then someone rejecting the sex assignment is rejecting sex assignment surgery imposed without consent, in many respects that is the opposite of what Transgenderism is perceived to represent. The message I get from that is that doing surgery on non consenting children is OK while adults who consent to surgery on themselves is not. (Given that you are presumably going to apply Bailey’s taxonomy in such cases).

As for the rest of my own complaint, I will spell this out here and now. I am sure some people are aware that as a UK citizen I object quite strongly to what happened in 2006 when after the UK support groups (Like the AISSG) had spent something like 8 years discussing and negotiating things with the medical profession here in the UK. (and we even had our own set of guidelines drawn up). then at the last moment, the American "DSD" guidelines were imposed, there was no consultation, to negotiation nothing, just this "this will be done the American way".

When looking at the people who were involved with the American guidelines Such as yourselves and by default Berenbaum and Bailey. It looked problematic, While discussions in the UK prior to all this were sometimes strained, at least people knew who they were talking to, had access to the people who were drawing up these guidelines, and discussion was generally amicable. The American guidelines appeared and put into use and suddenly there was no access to anyone.

Then I am the one being criticized for responding to things like the following: (Which I will quote again) “Would parents be forced to have Jewish children” (Bailey 2001) “We can cure them before they are born” (Vilain 2001). “We can determine what sex they want to be with a gene test (Vilain 2003), “They are especially suited for prostitution” (Bailey 2003) We consider them a cosmic joke (Dreger 2007).

You the "Clarke-Northwestern clique" have made a career out of defaming, slandering, demeaning, hammering and mocking different monitory groups, and you they are confronted about it you either go silent or the smear campaigns start.

Am I supposed to just sit back an accept that willingly and say nothing? and because I do not, the "Clarke-northwestern" are upset because someone had taken the time to give you a taste of your own cruel and demeaning medicine? and it is not as if I have not being willing to talk.

I have repeatedly stated that I am willing to talk and try to bring this to a reasonable conclusion, when I have gone too far I have withdrawn articles, when I have felt that I may have gone to far, avoided publishing an article. I think their criticisms are unfounded because they have not made any attempt to talk in spite of the fact that I have repeatedly left the door open for people to talk, as a representative of OII in the UK. I have a responsibility to question why the DSD guidelines were imposed in the UK without any consultation or discussion, and if the people responsible for those guidelines were showing an ad hoc and demeaning attitude towards those they claim to understand then I would be failing in my duty as the UK representative if I did not challenge these things.

It does not have to be like this, All I really ask is that the demeaning, nasty and arrogant attitude is dropped, and then I will quite hapilly withdraw my articles that were written with the purpose of mirroring this attitude. (Yes I used exactly the same tone the Clarke-northwestern did to make the point) It would be a lot better if people actually talked. I have said so time and time again, only to be cold shouldered and personally attacked by one of Bailey's hit squad).

So I will conclude with the statement that there can be arranged a place for us all to talk, it will be done respectfully and calmly. I will add however that if you refuse to talk and continue on the path you are presently following, you may find more people appearing who are both angry and hurt by what you are doing, and also much of the anger is not so much about the theories you are using but the total lack of representation and discussion/consultation. This will inevitably undermine your reputations. I will impose a limit and ask for say a 5 week period where I will publish or say nothing while you decide what to do. If you take up my offer then good, we can discuss things further, if not, well please do not complain about what may or may not be published from that date onwards. You will have brought in on yourselves.

Have a nice day and enjoy whatever meal you are eating right now.

Sophia Siedlberg.
_________________
Curtis E. Hinkle
http://tinyurl.com/2kv4dw