Can We Trust Science in the Transgender Debate?

Bigoted science has caused tremendous suffering, here represented with a still form the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. But does this mean that all science is bad?

In my article on the sexologist Ray Blanchard and his embrace of transphobic TERFs and white supremacists, I have made the argument that science, throughout history, has been used by racists, misogynists, homophobes and transphobes to  harass and invalidate marginalized groups. Does this mean that we cannot trust science?

The answer to this question is both yes and no. The fact that something is written in a science paper published in a peer reviewed journal does not make its message true. Ray Blanchard has presented his transphobic theories in such journals.

But then again most recent peer reviewed papers on this topic criticizes his model, and these days the great majority of papers addressing gender variance and gender incongruence are affirming the identities of trans people. Most of these researchers want to help.

Science is a process

Here's the problem: Too many people have a too simplistic understanding of the scientific process. They do not grasp that it is a process. It is a process where ideas and findings are presented and discussed in the scientific community, and where the goal is that this collective process shall end up in some kind of consensus or – at least – clarify what the disagreements are all about.

So, over time, the idea is this community may end up with a clearer understanding of what is really going on.  This means that one single peer review article says something is true, does not prove that it is so. However, if a large number of studies, performed by different scientists at different locations, end up with similar results, the chances are that they are on to something.

Why science goes astray

But (there is always a "but", isn't there?) even such processes may fail, and for a variety of reasons:

1. Scientists may be trapped in disciplinary and cultural silos, where the members scratch each others backs and push out those who do not agree with their understanding of what's right and proper science. Ray Blanchard often  publishes his papers in Archives of Sexual Behavior, a journal controlled by his friends and co-believers.

When the Freudian paradigm dominated psychiatry, the idea that gay and trans people could be "cured" by conditioning became popular. Among the methods used were electroconvulsive "therapy", electrodes implanted in the brain, lobotomies and more. Today we know that a sexual orientation or a gender identity cannot be cured.

2. Scientists are human beings, and as human beings they often share the prejudices of the society surrounding them. This means that they are more likely to design research projects that aim at confirming their own prejudices than falsifying them. They are often likely to avoid research questions that can lead to results that undermine these beliefs. 

3. Such scientists are also less likely to listen to other types of expertise, as – for instance – knowledgeable representatives of the groups they are studying (as in people from the civil rights movement, gay activists or transgender thinkers.) Indeed, the far too common idea that "science tells the truth, and all others are prejudiced idiots" will often reinforce this tendency. When this is the case it rarely matters if these outsiders are also trained as scientists.

Thomas Kuhn.

4. Then there is the question of paradigm shifts, as originally described by the American physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn. This is when the complete world view underpinning the research done breaks down, as there are simply too many observations that do not live up to the expected predictions. A paradigm shift takes time, as the scientists who have invested their lives in the old framework will do their best top stop the new one from taking over. 

Ray Blanchard (to give one obvious example) is still stuck in a paradigm of sexuality and gender developed in the 19th century. He is therefore incapable of adapting to the current paradigm, which sees sexuality and gender as continuums created by a complex interplay between genes, epigenetics, hormones, life history and culture.

Yes, culture does influence science

It is actually true, as some homophobic and transphobic activists argue, that scientists may be influenced by general cultural shifts and what people outside the scientific community may say. 

In sexology, to give one obvious example, the fight for gay and trans rights has contributed to a shift towards a more openminded respect for diversity. Neither homosexuality or trans identities are no longer considered mental illnesses. 

But this is not because the researchers are no longer  following the accepted practices of good research. Rather, questions raised outside science have made these researchers ask different research questions; they interpret the data in a more critical way and they may even question the belief systems of the previous generations of researchers. 

That is a good thing. This is exactly the kind of interaction that brings science forward. 

What all of this means is that when we use science in a political and cultural debate, we need to go deeper than some random search on Google, digging up a paper that confirms our own predictions. We need to do a broader sweep of the science landscape, including different disciplines and diverse approaches.

Read: Science and Transphobia: Ray Blanchard is Now Assisting White Supremacists. Why?