Can Professors Say the Truth? (part 1)

Kaiping Peng, a friend of mine who is a professor at Berkeley, recently said to me that professors have an unusual place in our society: They are expected to tell the truth. Hardly anyone else is, he said. But what happens when they do?

The most impressive professorial truth-telling in my lifetime has been The Man Who Would Be Queen (2003) by Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern. It’s mainly about male homosexuals but it also discusses male-to-female transsexuals, not all of whom are homosexual. The “controversy” — actually a defamation campaign — after its publication is described in an excellent new article by Alice Dreger, another Northwestern faculty member.

The serious truth-telling in the book is in the chapters about transsexuals, in which Bailey brought into public view the ideas of Ray Blanchard, a Toronto researcher. Blanchard had proposed that there are two types of transsexuals: homosexual and autogynephilic — in other words, that all or almost all transsexuals fall into one of these two categories. I’m going to call them Type 1 (homosexual) and Type 2 (autogynephilic). Both are men who become women or who want to become women; but they are otherwise quite different. There are many surface differences — so many that it is no surprise that, as Bailey says, the two types almost never mix socially. Type 1 appear far more like other women than Type 2, who sometimes resemble men wearing dresses. As children, Type 1 acted feminine; Type 2 did not. Type 1 often work in occupations full of women, such as beautician and hairstylist; Type 2 usually work in male-dominated professions, such as policeman, truck driver, scientist, engineer, and computer programmer. Type 1 usually start living as a female before age 25; Type 2 usually start much later, after age 40. Type 2 have usually been married (to a woman); Type 1 have not.

Blanchard proposed that these surface differences derive from a difference in motivation. Type 1 transsexuals are sexually attracted to men; changing their sex will help them attract men. (They prefer straight men to homosexual men.) Type 2 transsexuals are sexually aroused by thinking of themselves as a woman; this is why they seek sex-change surgery.

Blanchard’s typology, well-known to sex researchers, had not reached the public when Bailey’s book was published. “When I have tried to educate journalists who have called me as an expert on transsexualism, they have reacted uncomfortably,” wrote Bailey. “One said: “We can’t put that in a family newspaper.”

Learning to Write Better

From the SLD forums:

I just had a great victory. My daughter is having her friends over so we are making friendship cookies. . . . I was feeling miserable for the first time since starting SLD [Shangri-La Diet] like I wanted to eat a whole bunch of them and totally binge out. I ate a few crumbs that fell off and couldn’t get them out of my mind (I haven’t had this problem in 6 wks.). I went ahead and decided to eat just one of the yummy delights. . . . After one I was so very full I actually didn’t want anymore! DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THIS MEANS? I mean, wow! I can actually have just one cookie. I never ever ever have been able to do that before.

I like to think the Internet is improving my writing by showing me many examples of how to do it. This quote is half of a well-written few paragraphs. The other half would be the general rule that Michel Cabanac discovered: If your set point is lower than usual you will feel full sooner than usual, as this quote illustrates. (The Shangri-La Diet had lowered her set point.) Interesting idea + emotion-charged example = good writing. Blogs are another example. As I’ve said before, they are full of good writing. You don’t blog about stuff you don’t care about.

Books — part of the great wide non-Internet — suffer by comparison. I recently started reading a book about Alice Waters and Chez Panisse. I was favorably disposed: Chez Panisse is a great achievement, I am very interested in food and changes in food, it took place near my house, I had attended a nice reading given by the author. In spite of all this, I stopped after a few chapters. The book is very well written in a nuts-and-bolts way. However, it lacks emotion — the author didn’t care passionately about his subject and it shows. The book had come about because Alice Waters’s assistant had approached him and asked him if he was interested in doing such a book. He took a long time, he did a careful and thorough job, but no amount of time or care or editing could fix the problem that he didn’t feel strongly enough.

My Jaw Dropped When I Read This

From a review in tomorrow’s New York Times Book Review:

His ardent defense of states’ rights would have required him to uphold Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, not to mention segregated education, yet he lives with a white wife in Virginia. He is said to dislike light-skinned blacks, yet he is the legal guardian of a biracial child, the son of one of his numerous poor relatives.

“He” is Clarence Thomas. “Yet”, huh? There should be a rhetorical term for this: self-destructive.

Thorstein Veblen on the Importance of Spell Check

From The Theory of the Leisure Class:

As felicitous an instance of futile classicism as can well be found . . . is the conventional spelling of the English language. A breach of the proprieties in spelling is extremely annoying and will discredit any writer in the eyes of all persons who are possessed of a developed sense of the true and beautiful. English orthography satisfies all the requirements of the canons of reputability under the law of conspicuous waste. It is archaic, cumbrous, and ineffective; its acquisition consumes much time and effort; failure to acquire it is easy of detection. Therefore it is the first and readiest test of reputability in learning, and conformity to its ritual is indispensable to a blameless scholastic life.

Much of my first year in college I spent reading Veblen. It seemed fresh and smart then; it seems fresh and smart now.

Librarians vs. Soft Censorship

The Shangri-La Diet was published because a paper I wrote was amplified by blogs. Here (from 2002) is something similar: one person’s opinion amplified by a listserv. A librarian persuaded HarperCollins to publish a book by Michael Moore (Stupid White Men) that they had decided not to publish.

“They [HarperCollins] said it would be ‘intellectually dishonest’ not to admit that Bush has done a good job, and that the other things in the book wouldn’t be believable if I didn’t at least give Bush that much,” says Moore. The author was certain that HarperCollins would cancel and destroy the book if he didn’t accede to its demands.

The New Yorker Crosses a Line

This week’s New Yorker contains an article (humor by Larry Doyle) that can be fully appreciated only online — it is full of hyperlinks. A press release calls the online version “an interactive version” of the article. A better term would be “the real version.” It’s the difference between a sculpture (the online version) and a picture of a sculpture (the print version).

Before Spy ran into financial trouble, I had had approved an article about someone in the software industry. At the time, the Internet and web pages were just starting. I envisioned my article with lots of pseudo-hyperlinks (underlined bits of text in the main article connected to text boxes). Since there was no online Spy it would have just been a form of footnote or annotation. Alas, the article was canceled. My editor at Spy, Susan Morrison, now edits the section of The New Yorker in which this line-crossing Spy ish article has appeared. “We [the editors of Spy] try to find new ways to present information,” Susan once told me, as some staffers played a board game that appeared in the next issue. Larry Doyle used to write for Spy. Congrats to both of them.

Could this have been cleverly timed to coincide with publication of Doyle’s new book? Probably.

Addendum: Doyle himself comments:

I have a humor piece in the New Yorker today — and it’s interactive! The piece is a website devoted to wedding plans of one particularly ambitious bride, crammed with links both real and fabricated: to her blog; to a new movie starring Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Lopez; to a site on how to treat stab wounds. Once you’ve bought the magazine and read the story, go to gwynnanddavesharetheirjoy.com and poke around (You need to read the story first, or the website won’t make sense.) You can also read the story for free online, but where’s the fun in that?

Love that dare not speak its name. Use of the old-fashioned term interactive is a hint that something is amiss. It’s not interactive in the print version, Larry.