re: #235 Bubblehead II

I’ve read some criticism of the book, mainly this one: huffingtonpost.com.

As an historian, and one who is deeply concerned with her reputation as a truth seeker, she candidly admits the object of her concern is not without flaws. After admitting that she is not a scientist, she almost immediately claims that there is little evidence to back up the consensus position on human sexual development. Either she’s lying, or hasn’t done her homework. As I’ve presented, the developing consensus was already publicly available back in 2005 in a publication co-authored by many of the luminaries in the field, called “Atypical Gender Development.” In the ensuing decade the evidence has continued to pile up, but it has had no impact on her search for the truth. She still considers the consensus as ideologically biased and intent on a witch hunt, led by a number of well-known and highly successful trans activists. That one of these women is a well-respected economist (Deirdre McCloskey) and another is one of the most important inventors in American history (Lynn Conway) has no effect on her critique. Poor Professor Bailey has been attacked and must be defended by her, her actions enabling others to rise to his defense as well.