more epic fail on that survey thing

[rm]

My temper? LOST.

http://shaggirl.livejournal.com/186106.html?thread=3048698#t3048698

ETA: I missed, until just now, the part where good ol' Ogi says it's okay for him to use the word "tranny" because that's what people who love trans individuals call said individuals in the adult entertainment industry.

So I just had to write a rant about sex work.

http://shaggirl.livejournal.com/186106.html?thread=3047418#t3047418

Comments

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

While I don't defend their phrasing, you do seem to overlook their sentence: "That is, the opposite of what culture would predict."

That aside, has anybody found out who is funding this study, employing the researchers (presumably if they are academics they are at a university) and/or who is publishing it (you mentioned a book earlier)? Has anyone written a formal complaint to those parties?

[gement.livejournal.com]

Yes, I and a number of other people have written to both. Noncommittal but "we're talking to them" response from the publisher as of today.

[gina-r-snape.livejournal.com]

I was wondering that too. It's bad science on so many levels. I can't imagine anyone approving such a study for publication or of it getting past a dissertation committee.

Clearly we all seem to see their laughably faulty constructs. Especially in equating slash fic with transpeople (and I agree with rm that they are specifically sexualizing pre-op/non-op MtF) But their unit of measurement isn't even well defined. They are all over the map in wanting to look at neurosexual imaging, quantifying fandom activity, comparing to "societal norms" and linking this to a biologically grounded definition of sex that I'm certain doesn't take hormonal, chromosomal or other differences into account.

They state they want to understand the "fandom landscape" but seem to have already defined for themselves both fandom norms and societal expectations.

This is just bad research. Bad. Bad. Bad.