After a morning spent trying to carefully find a little bit of measured criticism of New Atlantis number 50, I think I want to tentatively suggest that the recommended reading strategy here, which I intend to continue to develop as time permits, is to read this study

alongside the New Atlantis study.

And, yes, it would be more correct to call both of these “review” or “meta-analysis” articles, insofar as “study” is often understood to involve fresh empirical results, which neither of these deliver.

It seems important to me that we recognize the severe limitations of social science methodology, and that we recognize just as clearly that there are indeed empirically testable hypotheses involved in conversations about sex and sexuality.  I think that the Bailey et al study, which does not necessarily agree at all points with the New Atlantis study, suggests enough clear points of difference from the popularized forms of gender ideology that even a very parsimonious reading of the claims of both studies obligates honest intellectuals to stop repeating much of the slop that many a textbook and faculty workshop treat as dogma.