{"word_count": 1121, "character_count": 7953}
I announced recently that I had been trying to publish an op-ed and that I would post it here if no newspaper would have it. No newspaper would have it, so here you go (and please imagine it were still the end of December, when this was all more recent and it still seemed a fitting time for new year’s resolutions):As the year in which President Trump reinstated the ban ontrans* persons from military service is coming to a close, many of us are hopingfor a less transphobic new year. But the current year of sickening transphobiaisn’t quite over yet. “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling just made headlinesby expressing support for Maya Forstater, an openly transphobic researcher who claimedthat sex was unchangeable and had nothing to do with identity. Anthony Ramosfrom the LGBTQ+ media advocacy organization GLAAD referredto Forstater’s view as “an anti-science ideology.”The disturbing truth is that some scientists hold similar views as Forstater. A recent publication in eNeuro, an open-access journal published by the Society for Neuroscience, proves this point. Author Stephen Gliske, a nuclear physicist by training, proposed a novel theory regarding the neurobiological underpinnings of gender dysphoria (the distress that some trans* individuals experience because of the incongruency between their bodies and gender identities). Much of the argument relies on data from previously published rodent studies.Gliske’s paper is based on the idea that trans* persons have broken brains that need fixing. In the original manuscript, which was soon amended, Gliske had suggested that future neurobiological “treatments” for trans* individuals could “restore a sense of ownership over body parts perceived as incongruous.” These interventions would pose “less risk, be less invasive, [and] have fewer barriers to receiving care” than gender confirmation surgery. In other words, Gliske advocated against transitioning and for conversion therapy.The paper has caused significant hubbub in theneuroscientific community. One of the Reviewing Editors for eNeuro resignedbecause he no longer wished to be associated with an editorial boardresponsible for publishing “a catastrophically flawed paper.” The editorspublished a correctionand removed from the article the section titled “Implications for clinicalpractice,” from which I quoted above. Eliminating this section did not make thearticle less problematic, quite the opposite. Now Gliske’s agenda is less clearand readers might come to the false conclusion that the article isn’t so badafter all.The editors for eNeuro haven’t seen the last of this yet. Numerous neuroscientists are criticizing the study’s “errors in fact and logic.” Some are circulating studies that undermine Gliske’s concepts, irrespective of his discriminatory clinical recommendations. For example, neuropsychologists Roi Jacobson and Daphna Joel’s research suggests that “body dysphoria” (distress because of one’s body) might be a more appropriate concept than Gliske’s “gender dysphoria.” Neuropsychologist Reubs Walsh commented that “dysphoria is more properly characterised as a state, not a trait,” which Gliske did not take into consideration (personal communication). Additionally, non-human animals might not be the best research subjects to study a genuinely human form of dysphoria. A formal rebuttal by Walsh and colleagues is forthcoming.Besides these critiques, Members of the Society forNeuroscience and other scientists put together apetition to the editorial board of eNeuro“demanding a full retraction” of the article.I was about to sign the petition, but then I hesitated. WouldeNeuro delete the entire publication,just like they had deleted the final section of the original manuscript? If so,would the article’s disappearance limit phobics’ misuse of (pseudo-)science? Orwould it contribute to hushing up centuries of prejudice and bias in theneurosciences?For the past two hundred years, social prejudice hasrepeatedly preceded theories and treatments of supposedly abnormal brains. Inthe early nineteenth century, physician and phrenologist Franz Gall palpatedwomen’s skulls to obtain material evidence for what he considered thedistinctive female character. Later, physician Samuel Morton claimed that thewidely accepted hierarchy of human “races” corresponded to the capacity oftheir skulls. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, neurologist Paul Brocaexpanded on the flawedidea that brains can be classified in hierarchical types: male brains(superior), female brains (inferior), white brains (superior), and black brains(inferior). Headded right-handed brains (superior) and left-handed brains (inferior),because he thought that handedness was associated with brain asymmetry and everybodyagreed that lefties were somehow off. Science did not uncover natural truths;it served to naturalize existing biases.Things got worse when scientists did not stop at classifyingand ranking brains but attempted to fix the supposedly broken ones.In the twentieth century, electroconvulsive treatment, insulin coma, metrazolshock, and malaria-induced fever were some of the measures used to tameallegedly erratic brains. Hysteria, a catch-all diagnosis for women’s behaviorthat defied societal expectations, was a common justification for violations ofwomen and their brains. Scientists used the same methodsto convert presumed gay and trans* brains into alleged straight brains. Similarly,lobotomy became one of the brain-centered interventions that was supposedto transform unruly children, discontent wives, queer persons, and othersinto conforming citizens.The advent ofpsychotropic drugs in the 1950s promised risk-free chemical fixes forwell-known types of broken brains and for a new challenge: the Civil RightsMovement. Numerous black rights activists werediagnosed with schizophrenia, institutionalized, and medicated. Psychiatristsreported that the drugs transformed violent black rioters into docile patients.More recently, psychologist Adrian Raine suggestedto prevent the formation of violent and criminal brains by providingbrains-at-risk (or their owners) with nutritional supplements. The appeal of a pill-sizedbrain fix is that it is “benignand relatively cheap.” Pills certainly cost the majority population lessthan tackling the root causes of most social problems—bigotry, discrimination,and unequal distribution of resources.Long story short, Gliske’s transphobia continues a traditionof declaring broken the brains of marginalized individuals, and his proposedconversion therapy would be in line with the quest for “benign” and “cheap” brainterventions. Gliske is not the onlyneuroscientist whose work implies the dangerous question: Why accommodatedifferent kinds of people and guarantee equal rights for all if neuroscience canfix diversity?As much as I sympathize with the urge to have Gliske’s paperdisappear, the historian in me says: Let’s not pretend it never happened. To beclear, I think the paper should never have been published—but it was published.What we need now is a critically annotated version of the paper to be uploadedby eNeuro in place of the currentarticle, so no transphobic can misuse the paper without having to dig throughbalanced and thoroughly-researched commentary. We also need to have aconversation about why transphobic research can survive peer review and bepublished in a respectable journal. Most of all, we need more research with and by marginalized individuals rather than research about them.Last but not least, we need constant reminders that sciencehas the power to define who is normal and who needs fixing (and how). If wedon’t know the history of science, we’re doomed to repeat it—just like Gliskedid. Let’s make it our new year’s resolution to learn from historical mistakes.It might encourage at least some scientists to be less biased and moreinclusive. And, who knows, some famous writers and politicians might quittransphobia, too.