Continuing our voluminous correspondence (here, here, here, here, and here), Deirdre McCloskey wrote again:

Dear Professor Roberts:

Yup. [In answer to my question “In your last letter, by ‘self-experimentation’ did you mean dress as a woman?”] That should be obvious to you. That it’s not, and that you sneer at the idea, is indicative. No one who has not actually tried to pass in the other gender has any idea what it is like not to pass, how dangerous and embarrassing it is. No one who has not tried the experiment can have any idea how important it is to have nose jobs and the like. It’s exactly out of such non-self-experimentation, and the lack of real empathy it implies, that the God-wants-you-to-be-thus, Clarke Institute torturing comes.

I don’t remember our discussion about Crossing.

You think Bailey’s book will be a powerful force for toleration? I suppose you’ve actually looked at the evidence, right? You’ve consulting the blogs, and you’ve read the hate mail? And your conclusion is. . . what? That a wave of transphobic filth stimulated by your blog and Carey’s article will lead, somehow, to the promised land? You have here a questionable social theory, but let’s hope you’re right.

Disagreement, as you should well know from your own self-experimentation, is not the same as “harassment.” Nor is holding people to ethical standards in their scientific behavior. We didn’t “do” anything to Bailey. We exercised our rights as free citizens and as ethical scientists. That you were “appalled” shows that you got fired up by Carey’s article (just as he wished) and didn’t bother inquire—as you easily could have done (you keep making a point of our previous e-mail relationship) but most assuredly did not before shooting off your ill-considered blog—with the principals. You wanted the story to be Bailey = Galileo, and were not going to let such silly things as evidence stand in the way. You’ve stoutly defended it ever since, with no heed to the evidence.

I’m not impressed that you praise Holocaust deniers, or that you give standing to naive creationism. It just shows what is evident in your defense of Bailey, that you are willing to encourage the worst in our society in aid of a simpleton’s version of “fairness.” You would have been “fair” to Goebbels and the Inquisition, the Ku Klux Klan and the first Chinese emperor. Your position of “Let them have uncriticized speech to advocate idiotic and harmful proposals” depends on people like Lynn and me exercising our free speech to criticize such people. You would be the first person the Nazis you defend would come for. No, actually, on second thought, you would be the second, after me.

Sincerely,

Deirdre

I replied:

Dear Professor McCloskey:

I don’t “sneer” at the self-experimentation you propose. It has a long and admirable history.

I did not get “fired up by Carey’s article.” My blog posts on this topic appeared before his article.

I mentioned our correspondence about Crossing in my blog posts about this.

I didn’t “praise Holocaust deniers” — I just think they shouldn’t be harassed or silenced.

I don’t mind criticism of Bailey — of course not. I mind attempts to ruin him — which is what your and Conway’s absurd complaints to authorities were.

Sincerely,

Seth Roberts

She wrote again:

Dear Professor Roberts:

Let’s make this a convergent series, by undertaking to answer in half the space as the last one. Your only–only–argument against our complaints about Bailey’s behavior is to assert repeatedly, unadorned by evidence, that they were “absurd.” Northwestern University did not think them absurd. They fired Bailey from the chairmanship; they investigated him for a year. The lawyer we consulted did not think them absurd; nor did the state licensing bureau. Alas, the statute of limitation had run out.

We did nothing to “silence” anyone. Get this: we are not the government. We argued with Bailey. We complained about his behavior. None of that constitutes “silencing,” unless indeed poor, dear Bailey is too feeble for this world.

Regards,

Deirdre

I replied:

Dear Professor McCloskey:

Please see my earlier letter for a detailed explanation, including evidence, of why your complaints were absurd. No one has ever gone to a mugger and asked to be mugged. That’s my evidence for your State of Illinois complaint. And no one has ever been considered a research subject because they were in a story in a trade book. That’s my evidence for your Northwestern complaint.

When you say that Bailey left the chairmanship because of your complaints, you are wrong.

“We did nothing to ‘silence’ anyone.” If you don’t understand the term chilling effect, we are again at a curious point in intellectual history.

Sincerely,

Seth Roberts

She wrote again:

Dear Professor Roberts:

Anyone who is chilled by being challenged intellectually, I suppose you agree, doesn’t belong in intellectual life.

Anyone who is chilled by being investigated for wrongdoing when he’s done wrong is just a moral coward, as I reckon Bailey to be. You don’t understand The Letter if you don’t think the women were mugged. You’ve not walked in those shoes, or bothered to find out. You haven’t read Bailey’s book if you think the women were not “research subjects.” He called them that, and bragged about it. After the book came out he said, oh, it was “only a trade book. Not science.”

Regards,

Deirdre

I replied:

Dear Professor McCloskey,

If you believe that Bailey should be punished for helping those who came to him for help, you have a most unusual and unfortunate view of how people should treat each other.

If you can’t tell the difference between a trade book and a research monograph, we are again at a curious place in intellectual history.

Sincerely,

Seth Roberts

On her website, McCloskey includes almost all our correspondence. The omissions are trivial, with one exception: She doesn’t include this email from me, in spite of including her reply to it. Curious!

I wrote to her about the omission:

Dear Deirdre:

Thanks for posting our correspondence on your website. I too am glad we had it. A tiny flaw: You omit my email below (“If you believe…”).

Seth

No answer. One of the few letters from me she didn’t answer. She continued writing to me. I believe she omitted that email from her website because it makes things too clear.