Editor's note: I got the following note on 7 May 2003. Jeff's shift key appears to be out of order. My response follows the full letter.

you are a vile human being for putting pictures of mike's kids on your web site. you disagree with mike's theories? fine. there is ample opportunity for scientific debate, and no one more than mike welcomes a scientific critique of his work. to ascribe any motives to mike beyond trying to find the truth is nothing more than an attempt to stifle free and open discourse. you should hook up with kansas state legislature.

sincerely,
jeff sherman

*****************************************************************
Jeffrey W. Sherman
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Northwestern University
2029 Sheridan Rd.
Evanston, IL 60208-2710
phone: 847-467-4133
fax: 847-491-7859
url: www.psych.nwu.edu/People/JeffSherman.htm
******************************************************************

WEB LINK: http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/sherman/sherman.html
email: sherm@northwestern.edu

my emailed response...

you are a vile human being for putting pictures of mike's kids on your web site.

It's what he's doing to my kids in his lectures. "Vile" is an apt descriptor. May I borrow it?

Maybe Mike should open his lecture to the parents of those kids whose images he features. I wonder how they'd feel to see their children's expressions of pain being used by Mike to amuse audiences? I bet they'd think he's a pretty vile human being. I certainly do.

Do you not see the schematic connection, stereotype-boy? How much clearer do I need to make it for you Northwestern guys? A Lombroso essay? An essay on Der ewige Jude? Tell me, and I'll write it. I really do want to reach you, and I'm not sure what it will take for you to understand what we're trying to say here.

If he's got a problem with the pictures, Mike can contact me just as you have. He's been incapable of an email response to me for 3 years and counting.

you disagree with mike's theories? fine. there is ample opportunity for scientific debate, and no one more than mike welcomes a scientific critique of his work.

I will be dismantling all of the ridiculous assumptions behind his "science" in the future, but in the meantime, I needed to convey how utterly offensive he is to me. Not his theories, but Mike himself.

His section on transsexualism is the worst sort of muckraking speculation, based on highly questionable methodologies and imprecise terminology. I'll deal with his theories in time, but your esteemed colleague is number one with a bullet on my shitlist, and he is about to find out that's not a good place to be.

to ascribe any motives to mike beyond trying to find the truth is nothing more than an attempt to stifle free and open discourse. you should hook up with kansas state legislature.

Mike went into this assuming he already knew "the truth." That's a big no-no, right, Jeff? People in my community who tried to disabuse him of his preconceptions were methodically blown off.

You're obviously a pretty smart guy. I glanced over your CV, and I believe that much of what I plan to say about this matter in upcoming months may dovetail with your work. The rapid-response sites currently online are only the tiniest fraction of what's about to go down on this whole thing. You really have no idea. Stay tuned.

Let me know if you have any other opinions you'd like to share. I respond to all emails.

Andrea

http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-blanchard-lawrence.html