In a post on the website Intersex News, Sophia Siedlberg has written a 2,091 word piece about me and my work.
Whilst I welcome informed dialogue on any aspect of my work, it is regrettable that none of the claims made in the post about my work or my personal history are substantiated by evidence. In fact, it would seem that Sophia Siedlberg has never read any of my work.
In order to respond to the post in appropriate detail, I’ll proceed by quoting and commenting on each of its points in turn.
To be clear: I shall be reproducing here (in italics) the entire content of the post as retrieved from Intersex News on 28 January 2009. Details of all my publications to which I refer below are available on my website, and the full text of several can be accessed online for free.
Siedlberg’s post begins:
Those "conferences" I mentioned in "What consensus" are actually quite curious affairs. Or rather Iain Morland of the University of Cardiff can be described as somewhat curious. He is a queer theorist.
Whilst queer theory is one of my research and teaching areas, I have never in print or in public identified as a ‘queer theorist’. In fact in the co-authored introduction to Queer Theory, Annabelle Willox and I were rather critical of much queer theory. I’ve also critiqued queerness in my editorial (with Wendy O’Brien) to a special issue of Transformations.
Now I perhaps need to explain just what "Morland queer theory" actually is. Morland Queer Theory harks from the same parallel universe Dr. Who exists in and, as always, seems to be the case, Cardiff is the doorway between these two universes. The only real difference between time lords and Morland queer theorists is that the former are pure fiction. That is, they openly state that a telephone box is not actually capable of towing a planet. This is usually the result of a special effects unit with access to some pretty neat CGI software. Morland queer theorists or MQT’s, while being equally improbable, do not profess to be special effects and here it is allegedly possible for one individual to tow an entire population into some fantasy land populated by people hiding behind sofas.
No evidence is presented for the claim that that there exist people who identify as ‘Morland Queer Theorists’. I have never met any.
The problem with Morland himself is how it is almost impossible to pin his ideas down to any specific belief...
No evidence is presented for this claim. Further, if it were true, it is not clear why it would be a ‘problem’.
...other than he is a bit of a phallocrat...
No evidence is presented for this claim. However, in ‘Thinking with the Phallus’ I did roundly critique phallic thinking in medicine and psychoanalysis.
...with a Der Eigene subnarrative...
No evidence is presented for this claim, the meaning of which is unclear.
(Not unusual in Cardiff it would seem)
No evidence is presented for this claim.
...and he is really good friends with John Money Feminists...
No evidence is presented for this claim. It is not clear what a ‘John Money Feminist’ is. However, I have critiqued some feminist accounts of intersex in, for example, ‘Feminism and Intersexuality’ and ‘Postmodern Intersex’.
(Who see everything as a social construct, thus making intersex people disappear in a puff of illogic)
Because no examples of ‘John Money Feminists’ are given, it is impossible to tell whether this statement is true or false.
...and occasionally you will find the odd Freudian slip which tells you about what he is probably all about...
No example of such a Freudian slip is given.
His "Gender and sexualities research group" has the following stated premise:
I am not an organiser of the ‘Gender and Sexualities research group’. This is an informal network of people in many departments at Cardiff with research interests in genders and sexualities. By definition, I am a member.
"Sexuality is not the property of an individual and is not a hormonally or biologically given, inherent quality. Rather sexual cultures and sexual meanings are constructed through a range of discursive practices across social institutions. ... Thus, when we talk about 'sexuality' we are talking about a whole assemblage of heterogeneous practices, techniques, habits, dispositions, forms of training and so on that govern things like dating and codes of dress in particular situations. (Debbie Epstein, Sarah O'Flynn and David Telford, 2003, Silenced Sexualities in Schools and Universities. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books, page 3)"
I have not read the book from which this quotation is taken. The quotation appears on the home page of the gender and sexualities research group. Whilst I did not design that page, I would broadly agree with the quotation.
We find the Moneyite description of the "Gender binary" as a "social construct" (not good)...
The text cited above does not make this claim.
...and also the idea that biology may be fluid (perhaps a little more sane)...
The text cited above does not make this claim.
...but then we look at the core notion that sex and sexuality are not the property of any individual.
The text cited above claims that sexuality, not sex, is not the property of an individual.
I take that to be the Freudian slip.
This claim is unsound, because I was not the author of the cited text.
As is often the case with such people...
It is unclear whether this refers to me, or to the authors of the book that I didn’t write and haven’t read.
...you tend to find they will say liberal sounding things like "Gender is a social construct" and "Biology is fluid"...
In the evidence presented, the authors say neither of these things.
...but what they will also say, in between the lines, is that they themselves have their own ideal social order to which the individual must conform.
No evidence for this claim is presented.
Queer theory has in the past landed in hot water by saying that transsexual folks do not need to have sex reassignment surgery, and that this is bodily self mutilation, what they should do is "accept the sex they were born with" and call themselves transgender instead.
No evidence for this claim is presented. However, it does characterise some feminist views (for example, those of Germaine Greer and Bernice Hausman, whom I have critiqued respectively in ‘Postmodern Intersex’ and ‘Plastic Man’.)
A lot of transsexual folks I know of tend not to agree with this. In fact they regard it as someone telling them how they must treat their own bodies.
True. I would include Jay Prosser among those who disagree with such a view of sex reassignment surgery. Prosser is the author of Second Skins: The Body Narratives of Transsexuality (a book that critiques Hausman); and he endorsed my anthology Queer Theory (on the anthology’s back cover).
What queer theory was actually saying was that they were all liberal and about self determination, but the individual has to conform to their rules, which incidentally rob the individual of the right to self determination, rendering queer theory an oxymoron at best.
No evidence is presented for this claim, although I do think it’s applicable to some strands of feminism, as mentioned above.
Morland queer theory is sort of like queer theory that has yet to move out of the 1980's.
No evidence is presented for this claim. Whilst queer activism emerged in the 1980s, my understanding is that the term queer theory was not coined until 1990, by Teresa de Lauretis.
It does seem to have a need to control the individual even more...
No evidence is presented for this claim.
...while at the same time falsely claiming that Morland queer theory is about self determination.
No evidence is presented for this claim.
So it does bother me a lot when I see that Morland has a big interest in intersex people.
One reason for my interest in the topic, but not the only reason, is that I was born with an intersex anatomy, as I’ve stated in publications including ‘Is Intersexuality Real?’ and ‘The Glans Opens Like a Book’, and my letter to the Lancet.
It was Morland you will remember who held those "Cutting, slicing, dicing and throwing intersex people into Kenwood liquidizers for the nation" conferences in 2008.
I have not organised any events with such titles.
This is the same Iain Morland who "asks" questions like: "Can queer theory be applied to intersex"? (The real answer being "Take your psychobabble and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.")
No source is given for this quotation. However, it may be a paraphrase of the title of a talk I gave in 2008 titled, ‘Is a Queer Theory of Intersex Possible?’. Siedlberg was not present at the talk. In the talk, I concluded that a queer theory of intersex is not possible, without a substantial rethinking of many foundational concepts in queer theory.
Morland is also into Freudian and Lacanian psychology...
No evidence is presented for this claim. However, it is probably based on the fact that Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis (not psychology) are listed as two of my research interests on my Cardiff University webpage. As research interests, they are areas to which I take a strongly critical approach, demonstrated in ‘Thinking with the Phallus’.
...two sex-obsessed schools of thought...
True. And I’ve critiqued such a focus in ‘Thinking with the Phallus’.
...that are founded on ideas like "Ouch, please stop raping me" means "I am begging for it".
No evidence is presented for this claim.
Why do I feel so hostile to Dr. Morland’s theories? Well, it is because he is another "expert" who presents himself as some flying charisma who "has the answers" but talks in riddles.
No evidence is presented for the claim that I talk in riddles. Additionally, I do not know what a ‘flying charisma’ is.
And as with most "experts", he surrounds himself with the usual suspects...
No examples of such ‘suspects’ are given, so I do not know whether this statement is true or false.
...and formulates yet more norm born theories that are designed to make intersex people know their place.
False. As stated above, and mentioned in published work as long ago as 2001, I was born with an intersex anatomy.
He will of course say this is not so, which is something I find particularly annoying...
It is regrettable that my anatomy causes annoyance.
...because if he was so open, people who are actually members of the intersex community who had a few grievances would have been given a platform to speak at his conferences, but this does not often happen.
Having organised a number of seminars, and one conference, on topics including but not limited to intersex, I have never considered it to be appropriate to invite speakers and participants on the basis of what I presume to know about their genital anatomies. In the specific case of the Critical Sexology seminar series, which I co-organised between 2002-2005, suggestions for speakers and seminar themes have always been welcome.
As is always the case, it is a one way conversation.
My aim in the present post is to ensure that there is a two-way conversation regarding any claims made about me and my work.
The expert makes the proclamations or diktats. We obey.
No evidence is presented of such incidents.
These experts do not like the Organisation Intersex International because we, (part of the community of which Morland speaks) do not entirely agree with Morland's idea that we should be passive recipients of what society decrees.
No experts are named, so it is impossible to know whether the statement about their opinion of OII is true or false. Further, no evidence is presented for the claim that people dislike OII because it does not agree with my own views. Additionally, no evidence is presented for the claim that I think people should be ‘passive recipients of what society decrees’.
He can talk about banning surgery on infants, but when an infant grows up wanting surgery themselves, then he wants to ban that as well.
No evidence is presented for this claim.
We are then reduced to the status of social lab rats for him and his friends to talk about in cutting, slicing, and dicing conferences.
No evidence is presented for this claim.
I do not want to be the subject of demeaning sexology theories. I do not want to be told what I should be thinking because I was born with an intersex variation, and I really have little or no patience with this "Hands off" (which really means "Rape me") doctrine he ascribes to.
Whist I recognise and respect Sophia Siedlberg’s right to self-determination irrespective of anatomy, no evidence is presented for the claim that I ascribe to the stated doctrine.
This is where Morland comes to represent the oppressor. Whatever he himself believes, he has not experienced life as I have, or the many intersex people he is claiming to speak for or theorize about.
As stated above, I was born with an intersex anatomy; as stated in ‘Is Intersexuality Real?’, I have received fourteen surgeries for this. Most were unsuccessful and took place before I was old enough to give personal consent.
Either he engages us in two way conversation or like some of his other "Expert colleagues", he will be told to back off.
As stated above, my aim in the present post is to ensure that there is a two-way conversation regarding any claims made about me and my work. No details are given of other individuals who have been ‘told to back off’, so it is impossible to know whether that claim is true or false.
Like the rest of these "experts", he should stop and think for a moment and ask himself why an increasing number of intersex people regard him as "hostile" and "the enemy".
No evidence is presented for this claim.
If he dismisses that, then he is no better than the surgeon directed by Dr. John Money to carve up David Reimer.
The point of comparison here is unclear, because David Reimer was not born with an intersex anatomy.
And if he does use his "training" of "Hands off" really means "Rape me"....
No evidence is presented for the claim that I have been trained in such an approach.
...as a rationale to continue "doing what is right" (in his eyes), he will come up against resistance.
No evidence about my work has been presented in Sophia Siedlberg’s post, so it is impossible to predict whether this claim about resistance is true or false. Nonetheless, I always welcome constructive debate and informed disagreement regarding my work, just as my work has often debated and disagreed with the work of others.
Why some of these experts fail to see the inevitable eludes me. If you cause someone to suffer, they will object to it, duh!
No evidence has been presented for the claim that I, or other unnamed individuals, have caused suffering.
This is the fundamental issue here. Iain Morland, who is basically an artist and sociologist...
No evidence is presented for this claim. I do not have any training in art or sociology; I do not work as an artist or sociologist.
...seems to be laboring under the belief that intersex people need to be "managed" as a part of a wider process of "Gender management".
No evidence is presented for this claim.
Take a look at Morland's organization "Critical Sexology" and their mission statement:
The Critical Sexology seminar series is not an organisation.
"Critical Sexology is a London-based, interdisciplinary seminar series for psychologists, psychoanalysts, medical doctors, literary and cultural studies scholars, philosophers, artists, lawyers and historians with a critical interest in the construction and management of gender and sexuality in the medical, discursive and cultural spheres. Established in 2002 by Iain Morland and Lih-Mei Liao, Critical Sexology has since held three seminars per year, with meetings taking place in London. The seminar is currently co-organised by Lisa Downing (University of Exeter), Meg Barker (Open University), and Robert Gillett (Queen Mary, University of London)."
You will notice the key phrase: "Construction and management of gender and sexuality in the medical, discursive and cultural spheres". That is a more florid way of saying: "We are going to be gender policing!".
No evidence is presented for this claim. In fact, every relevant paper and discussion in the seminar series that I have attended has critiqued ‘gender policing’ in one form or another.
This is further evidenced by the fact that in 2008 many of those who have either expressed dissent with the way "intersex management" is going (that is, objecting to the Chicago Consensus Statement, etc.) were excluded, as were those who have lived their lives contrary to the official "Constructed life" associated with their intersex variation.
No evidence is presented for this claim; it is unclear from what event people were allegedly excluded, and on what basis.
With me they seem to be very wary from what I have been hearing, because I have a pathological hatred of the people who tried to impose a "male" status on me as a child.
No evidence is presented for this claim; it is unclear who is wary of Siedlberg.
They believe that rather than engage me in discussion (I am still open to that), they should tighten security at conferences just in case I may turn up with a machine gun (Ideally a 9mm Stirling Pathcett L2A3 with about 20 full magazines) and put them out of my misery.
No evidence is presented for this claim; Sophia Siedlberg has never contacted me requesting to attend or participate in any event that I have organised.
Of course it does beg the question that if they do have this level of concern about an individual who lives contrary to their gender policing, they cannot deny that on some issues they have got it very wrong, that is, their gender policing must be pretty bad if they fear someone who has been so messed up by that it taking their revenge is a real possibility. All I have actually done is write a few choice words often in satirical articles while having a record for violence in my past. If they know why I was violent, then they would have very good reason to fear my reaction to gender policing, which means they have been obtaining information without my consent. I will be open about it. Yes I do have a history of violence against people who decided I should live according to their "Gender rules", mainly medical people who were dumb enough to insist I should be as they decided when I was an 18 month old child and also a few "Gender politicians" who called me things I am not. I do not deny it. But the fact that there is a level of unspoken panic among these people when I say something in a satirical article is telling.
What they won't tell you is that I campaign against the violence of gender policing that is exacted upon intersex and transsexual folks. And I do this by legitimate means these days. You see this is the point. I am not the person I used to be. I live an ordinary and peaceful life now. They simply don't like the fact that I cannot be what they want me to be to fit their pet theories. Pet theories which are clearly flawed.
I do not know anything about, and have never discussed with colleagues, Sophia Siedlberg’s personal history.
I am not breaking any laws and I am not involved in any criminal activity. For a long time now, I have simply been subverting these "Experts" who seem to regard me as someone who does not fit nicely into their belief system. This is also why OII has in the past been excluded from Morland's conferences, because OII is made up of people who simply by existing somehow subvert the doctrines of Morland et al.
No evidence is presented for the claim that OII has been excluded from any event that I have organised. On the contrary, Michelle O’Brien, who I understand to now be a member or supporter of OII, was an invited discussant at a Critical Sexology seminar on 5 November 2004. I invited her.
What the "Experts" clearly fail to realize is that on some things they are simply wrong. I am a human being, not someone to be "managed" like a zoo animal or laboratory rat. In fact none of us in the grass roots intersex movement should be seen as zoo animals or lab rats, to be scrutinized under the light of arrogant theories presented as verbose pathologization.
No evidence is presented for this claim about expert opinion.
You see what Morland is perhaps missing, to his peril in an academic and political sense, is that people live outside the "official designations" laid down by his "experts" in order to survive.
No evidence is presented for this claim. From my first substantial publication onwards (‘Is Intersexuality Real?’) I have consistently argued for the recognition of individuals’ anatomies and/or identities outside of such official designations as the male and female categories on birth certificates.
So if these experts are imposing official designations, they are, to those they discuss, acting in a hostile manner. They are stripping people of their human rights, and this is no different to what the Nazis did, whether they like to hear that or not.
It is impossible to tell whether this claim is true or false, because it does not present evidence about the work of specific individuals in the imposition of official designations.
I will put a challenge to Iain Morland, and I think he be well advised to take that challenge. Talk to us and hear what we actually have to say about our lived lives...
Sophia Siedlberg has never contacted me, so this challenge seems regrettably belated. As far as I am aware, Siedlberg has never attended any event at which I have spoken, or which I have organised.
...and use your position for something more positive than a Sunday afternoon lunch conversation in a concentration commandant's dining room
I have never visited a concentration commandant's dining room.
Is that insulting you Iain? Well, look at what you are doing very carefully and ask yourself why there is so much anger out here.
No evidence is presented regarding the amount and quantity of anger.
As stated above, whilst I welcome informed dialogue on any aspect of my work, it is regrettable that none of the claims made in Siedlberg’s post about either my work or my personal history are substantiated by evidence. On the basis of the post, it would seem that Siedlberg has never read any of my work.
Conversely, I quoted from Siedlberg’s 1999 article ‘In Response to My Fury’ on page 130 of my doctoral dissertation. The quotation was critical of ‘the two sex system’, and I agreed with its criticism.