Threaded index Date index FAQ
Michael Bailey's Pathologizing Stigma Hypothesis
Posted by Pharmakon on 2021-April-6 05:43:41, Tuesday
Near the beginning of the "Limitations" section of Desiree L. Elchuk, Ian V. McPhail, and Mark E. Olver's paper "Stigma-Related Stress, Complex Correlates of Disclosure, Mental Health, and Loneliness in Minor Attracted People," which has received considerable attention here (provoking nuanced responses from TPKA Onyx and TPKA kit, among others), the following passage occurs:...we do not know whether internalized pedonegativity leads to more depressive symptomatology or increased risk for suicidality. It might be that individuals experiencing depression currently are more likely to make negative evaluations of self or elevated suicide risk is due to depression. Bailey (2019) offers a compelling critic of the sexual minority stress model and future research can use this scholarship to begin to account for third-variable explanations. Although no 2019 paper by J. Michael Bailey appears in paper's list of references, I believe the intended citation is to Bailey's commentary "The Minority Stress Model Deserves Reconsideration, Not Just Extension" (Archives of Sexual Behavior 49, 2265–2268 [2020]). Bailey is the author of the controversial 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. He is associated with the theory that homosexuality is predicted by gender nonconforming behaviors in early childhood, which he argues is evidence for the innateness of sexual orientation, and with Ray Blanchard's typology of MtF transsexualism, which divides it into two types, "autogynephilic" transsexuals (men erotically stimulated by the idea of being female) and homosexual transsexuals, who just want to be female to have sex with men. In his Archives commentary, Bailey critiques the "minority stress model," which he explains "proposes that in nonheterosexual men and women, early experiences of rejection are associated with increases in RS [Rejection Sensitivity], and this confers increased susceptibility to both experiences of stigmatization and the negative mental health consequences of such stigmatization." He notes that the association of nonheterosexuality and mental health issues does not prove the stigma associated with the former caused the latter. Causality, he observes, could run in the opposite direction. In other words, sexually marginalized populations might not be having mental issues because people reject them. Instead, the mental issues might be causing both the sexual misbehavior and the rejection. After all, nobody wants to hang out with a crazy person, right? In describing the "alternative hypothesis" he thinks should be considered before the stress model train is allowed to leave the station, Bailey, rather oddly, does not cite any published research. Instead, he quotes a "personal communication" from one of the co-authors of a study that merely observed that in the minority stress model "direction of effect cannot be conclusively determined (i.e., whether prejudice and discrimination lead to a greater likelihood of developing mental health problems, or whether mental health problems lead to a greater likelihood of experiencing — or perceiving — prejudice and discrimination)." Responding to Bailey's inquiry, the co-author wrote: Perhaps stigmatized persons do develop more mental illnesses. But perhaps persons with mental illnesses simply experience more stigmatization, or are more inclined to believe that they do. Persons with mental illness, especially if they display unusual or inappropriate affect, may be more likely to elicit stigmatization. Alternatively, they may misperceive neutral events as stigmatization. Note that the authors of the study did not see fit to include this speculation in their published results. Yet Bailey, having elicited it, argues that it suffices to call into question all this nonsense of stigma being a problem. These people are just oversensitive neurotics -- probably why they are acting out their crazy fantasies in the first place! He condescendingly concludes: Twenty years ago, I commented on two of the first careful epidemiological studies showing that nonheterosexual people were at increased risk of some mental health problems. I noted that although the idea that these problems arise from "societal oppression" — what has become known as "minority stress" — was certainly possible, other explanations were also possible and should be considered. I concluded that "it would be a shame—most of all for gay men and lesbians whose mental health is at stake—if sociopolitical concerns prevented researchers from conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis...." I don't fault Elchuk et al. for citing Bailey's comment. Bailey is a big name with a big rep, and his skepticism about the theory underlying their paper is not something that can be ignored. Assuming I have correctly identified the intended citation, I do fault them for calling it a "compelling critic," both because I do not find it compelling at all and because the proper word is critique (one of an unfortunate number of sloppy errors in the article, including of course the omission of the reference from the references list). As usual, Bailey here seeks a reductionist and totalizing biological explanation for complex behavior almost certainly responsive to a wide range of environmental cues. While the foundation of many of his favored theories in a rigidly dichotomous understanding of gender may appeal to some here, the result is to pathologize and ultimately further stigmatize behaviors that are better understood as expressions of human sexual diversity and responses to increasingly multifarious social and environmental influences. The roots of the type of analysis Bailey promotes can be traced through Blanchard to Blanchard's mentor, the Czech-Canadian sexologist Kurt Freund, best known for developing phallometry. Freund, Blanchard and James Cantor all are or were associated with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto. According to Wikipedia, Blanchard and Freund met while Blanchard was employed as a clinical psychologist at a prison outside Toronto where Freund was conducting research into chemical castration of sex offenders. I don't know what connections currently exist between the CAMH operation and Elchuk, McPhail, and Olver at the University of Saskatchewan. If McPhail is going to make himself a regular presence here at BC, as he has suggested, I hope the answer is little or none. hugzu ;-p  [@nonymouse] [Guardster] [Proxify] [Anonymisierungsdienst] |
Follow ups:
