The federal government is spending $152,000 to study “voice therapy” for transgenders, saying it is incumbent to being “accepted as one’s preferred gender.”
“This study will illuminate the capabilities of the human larynx and inform the relationship between voice production and perception,” states a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant, awarded to George Washington University. “The long term goal of this research is to inform and provide new directions for Transgender (TG) voice care, thereby improving the lives of TG people who feel their voice is a great obstacle to living as their preferred gender.”
“Incomplete gender presentation can negatively impact the TG individual’s job opportunities, relationships, and social acceptance,” the study explains. “Results of this project will advance an aspect of gender transition vital to being accepted as one’s preferred gender and living a successful, healthy life.”
George Washington University received $152,500 in 2012 from the NIH’s National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Adrienne B. Hancock, an assistant professor at GWU, is leading the project.
According to the University, her primary research addresses “transgender voice and communication.” “She has examined transgender voice physiology as well as the psychosocial influence of voice and communication skills for transgender speakers,” her bio states.
The project will compare male-to-female transgender voices with men and women voices, judged by 100 listeners to “judge the gender” of the speech samples. Those male-to-female transgenders who pass as a female voice will be placed in a separate group and then compared to those who still sound like men.
“Like voice therapy for other populations, [transgender] voice therapy should be grounded in knowledge of the vocal mechanism of the speaker,” the grant states. “It should not resort, as it currently does, to establishing acoustic goals based exclusively on differences between normative values of two gender groups and assumed gender perception boundaries.”
The study hopes to influence voice therapy methods for transgenders by its project end date in August 2014.
Its public health relevance statement reads: “The production and perception results of this study will inform voice therapy clinical protocols for Transgender speakers who face discrimination when their voice does not match their preferred gender presentation, which limits their ability to contribute to society and live healthy, safe lives.”
Although CNSNews.com asked the NIH for comment on this particular grant, the agency’s public affairs office responded by e-mail with a general statement that read, “NIH research addresses the full spectrum of human health across all populations of Americans. Behavioral research will continue to be an important area of research supported by NIH. The details of the specific grant that you are inquiring about, including funding amounts and project start and end dates, can be found on NIH Reporter.
I wonder what Suzanne Pleshette would have thought of this.
“Since Sen. William Proxmire’s Golden Fleece awards in the 1970s and 1980s, basic science projects are periodically singled out by people with political agendas to highlight how government “wastes” taxpayer money on seemingly foolish research. These arguments misrepresent the distinction between and the roles of basic and applied science. Basic science is not aimed at solving an immediate practical problem. Basic science is an integral part of scientific progress, but individual projects may sound meaningless when taken out of context. Basic science often ends up solving problems anyway, but it is just not designed for this purpose. Applied science builds upon basic science, so they are inextricably linked. As an example, Geckskin™ is a new adhesive product with myriad applications developed by my colleagues at the University of Massachusetts. Their work is based on several decades of basic research on gecko locomotion.
Whether the government should fund basic research in times of economic crisis is a valid question that deserves well-informed discourse comparing all governmental expenses. As a scientist, my view is that supporting basic and applied research is essential to keep the United States ahead in the global economy. The government cannot afford not to make that investment. In fact, I argue that research spending should increase dramatically for the United States to continue to lead the world in scientific discovery. Investment in the NSF is just over $20 per year per person, while it takes upward of $2,000 per year per person to fund the military. Basic research has to be funded by the government rather than private investors because there are no immediate profits to be derived from it.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/04/duck_penis_controversy_nsf_is_right_to_fund_basic_research_that_conservatives.html
Pie…you crack me up. She was a good solid female bass!
“As a scientist, my view is that supporting basic and applied research is essential to keep the United States ahead in the global economy.”
If the project is worthy a scientist should have no trouble finding funding for the research. In the case of voice therapy a very sympathetic LGBT community would shower such a researcher with cash. Such researchers just don’t want to be bothered with fundraising for their pet projects. A business man has to find funding; researchers can do the same.
“Investment in the NSF is just over $20 per year per person, while it takes upward of $2,000 per year per person to fund the military”
The purpose of the military is defense of the nation and is Constitutionally mandated at the federal level. This is not a good comparison.
“Basic research has to be funded by the government rather than private investors because there are no immediate profits to be derived from it.”
There’s a difference between investment for profit and contribution for a cause. The research in question is for a cause and should be funded through concerned philanthropy.
I wish them luck with this. Male vocal chords are thicker and shorter (If I remember correctly). The Beach Boys/Four Seasons falsetto is fun and interesting but hardly what this group is looking for in a solution.
And the white house is still closed for visits by those that pay the bills . . . . . . .
Makes you wonder if ANYONE in the Fed goofernment has a lick of sense!
Interesting. Evidently Chris thinks that forced copulation by ducks and transgender voice care are basic science worthy of public funding.
The subtext here is as thick as molasses in January. I wonder if Chris might consider participating in some “basic research” as an enthusiastic volunteer. He just might be able to extend the frontier of counterintuitive morphology.
Ahhh yes, the altar of “basic research”, It means that any study is worthy if the NSF approves it.
Personally I prefer the funds be spent on the military (which also funds basic science). If it only saves just one forced sexual copulation between transgender, voice trained ducks, it is worth it.
Tina:
You just can’t make this stuff up. Chris linked to duck porn to defend funding of “basic research” in transgender voice lessons.
Is this our future? Whose kids are these?
I’ll take “Duck Dynasty” over this nonsense any day.
I just had an evil thought — is Chris your stooge? Are Chris (and Libby) some sort of fraudulent manipulation created by Post Scripts?
Tina:
Without government funded basic research this would never have been possible —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErHpxrF-WK4
Tina:
Do not get me wrong, I am not against government funding of basic research. I only question the funding decisions. As far as government versus private funding goes, I have a few questions —
Who funded the basic research for the steam engine?
Who funded the physics that led to the vacuum tube?
Who funded the invention of radio?
Who funded the basic science of tele-vision?
Who funded the research of silicon transistors?
Who funded the research that led to integrated electronics, ubiquitous and cheap computational machines and cell phones?
Who funded the research into the corkscrew nature of male duck penises and transgender voice study?
Pie I assure you Chris and Libby are legitimate possters and longtime friends…I know it’s weird but hey, they say love makes the world go ’round.
I’ve always been a pretty big girl (she’s just tall that’s all) so I enjoyed the walk down memory lane and appreciate that research.
Some of the comments were also fun:
Six military plus one alternate?
Tina:
By the way, I was being facetious on the post with The Four Seasons link.
But allow me to continue …
Government funding for “basic research” never included the invention of the Theremin —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSzTPGlNa5U
I guess duck penises and transgender voice lessons take precedent over electronic instruments.
Excuse my sexist faux pas in the above, I should have said in the above that counterintuitive morphology in duck genitalia take precedent over, say, the invention of RADAR which was independently investigated and proposed by Hertz and Tesla ultimately developed by US Navy and Army funded research.
NSF — Left and right counterintuitive duck genitals.
US Military — RADAR
I am also pretty sure the boy’s from Dayton Ohio were not looking for government hand-outs either.
Pie, you rock man! Good stuff!!!! lmao.
Pie states “I just had an evil thought — is Chris your stooge? Are Chris (and Libby) some sort of fraudulent manipulation created by Post Scripts?”
🙂 I believe those types do exist,
Federal funds used to pay food stamp recruiters are being hired by states to bring in federal funds to support local economy.
A food stamp recruiter’s job is to enroll at least 150 seniors for food stamps each month, a quota she usually exceeds.
“Only about 38 percent of eligible seniors choose to participate in the program, half the rate of the general population. In Florida, that means about 300,000 people over 60 are not getting their benefits, and at least $381 million in available federal money isn’t coming into the state. To help enroll more seniors, the government has published an outreach guide that blends compassion with sales techniques, generating some protests in Congress. The guide teaches recruiters how to “overcome the word ‘no,’ ” suggesting answers for likely hesitations.
Rhode Island hosts SNAP-themed bingo games for the elderly. Alabama hands out fliers that read: “Be a patriot. Bring your food stamp money home.” Three states in the Midwest throw food-stamp parties where new recipients sign up en masse.
Alabama hands out fliers that read: “Be a patriot. Bring your food stamp money home.” Three states in the Midwest throw food-stamp parties where new recipients sign up en masse.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-florida-a-food-stamp-recruiter-deals-with-wrenching-choices/2013/04/23/b3d6b41c-a3a4-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html
Tina: “If the project is worthy a scientist should have no trouble finding funding for the research.”
I find that painfully naive.
We wouldn’t be using the Internet right now were it not for government funding.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=103050
Pie, did you actually read the duck penis article? Look, I know how ridiculous that question sounds, but the author’s whole point is that scientific progress is sometimes found in ridiculous-seeming endeavors. We don’t know where we’ll find info that we can use in applied science.
“I find that painfully naive.”
I suppose you would since you think EVERYTHING should derive from government (and damn the cost). Progressives never consider the money angle which is why they are always begging for government support.
Private investors consider the cost, the value that might be derived, and the probability that something might come of the research within a workable time frame so it doesn’t just become a money sink. These are important considerations that too often don’t get factored in when government spends…and a lot of our dollars are wasted.
It’s so easy to spend money when it’s not your own.
All Chris does in this forum is debate in favor of a overly taxing government system that supports more welfare. This reminds me of a current commercial where the little girl keeps asking for more and more, just becuase she likes it and with no other reason. I also read he is by product of the liberal movement. Such people have moved forward as they mature especially when they enter their chosen workforce and becoming the taxed and not the takers and they see the light of day because now their earning become affected