Seth points to another example here on taboo research (for background on taboo research, see here and here).

Alice Dreger writes:

In 2003, psychology professor and sex researcher J. Michael Bailey published a book entitled The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. The book’s portrayal of male-to-female (MTF) transsexualism, based on a theory developed by sexologist Ray Blanchard, outraged some transgender activists. . . Dissatisfied with the option of merely criticizing the book, a small number of transwomen . . . worked to try to ruin Bailey. Using published and unpublished sources as well as original interviews, this essay traces the history of the backlash against Bailey and his book. It also provides a thorough exegesis of the book’s treatment of transsexuality and includes a comprehensive investigation of the merits of the charges made against Bailey that he had behaved unethically, immorally, and illegally in the production of his book.

Seth calls Bailey’s book “the most impressive professorial truth-telling in my lifetime,” which seems a bit hyperbolic to me: I’m not sure if “impressive” refers to the truthfulness of the book or the courage in writing it, but in either case this seems to be a pretty strong claim. Interesting story, though.

Also, a statistics question

It would be interesting to see the data. As a statistician, I’m skeptical of the division of transsexuals into two categories—from my general experience, data that are described as bimodal often aren’t. (See, for example, the data on handendess in my book with Deb Nolan.) People expect to find discreteness and will see it in data even when it’s not there.