| Revision as of 23:50, 2 May 2011 editTijfo098 (talk | contribs)16,966 edits →Revised article structure← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:17, 12 June 2024 edit undoHist9600 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users911 edits Undid revision 1228594813 by 205.178.96.107 (talk) Removed per WP:NOTFORUM. In any case, User:James Cantor was banned for using sock puppet accounts. It's over.Tag: Undo | ||
| (85 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Talk header|search=yes}} | ||
| {{italic title}} | |||
| {{LGBTProject | class=B}} | |||
| {{Not a forum}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Sexuality|class=B|importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | |||
| {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 15 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 3 | |minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
| |algo = old(30d) | |algo = old(30d) | ||
| |archive = Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Refideas | |||
| {{Off topic warning}} | |||
| | state=collapsed | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Adler |first1=Jonathan M. |title=Two Modes of Thought: The Narrative/Paradigmatic Disconnect in the Bailey Book Controversy |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=422–425 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9318-0 |pmid=18431639}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Bancroft |first1=John |title=Lust or Identity? |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=426–428 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9317-1 |pmid=18431640}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Barres |first1=Ben A. |title=A Response to Dreger’s Defense of the Bailey Book |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=429–429 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9320-6 |pmid=18446433}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Bettcher |first1=Talia Mae |title=Pretenders to the Throne |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=430–433 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9326-0 |pmid=18431632}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Blanchard |first1=Ray |title=Deconstructing the Feminine Essence Narrative |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=434–438 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9328-y |pmid=18431630}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Caretto |first1=Antonia |title=Dreger’s Adventures |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=439–440 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9333-1 |pmid=18431625}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Clarkson |first1=Nicholas L. |title=Trans Victims, Trans Zealots: A Critique of Dreger’s History of the Bailey Controversy |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=441–443 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9327-z |pmid=18431631}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Gagnon |first1=John H. |title=Is This a Work of Science? |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=444–447 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9321-5 |pmid=18431637}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Gladue |first1=Brian A. |title=Gender Identity Politics, Human Subjects Issues, and the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=448–450 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9322-4 |pmid=18431636}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Green |first1=Richard |title=Lighten Up, Ladies |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=451–452 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9323-3 |pmid=18431635}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Lane |first1=Riki |title=Truth, Lies, and Trans Science |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=453–456 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9336-y |pmid=18431622}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Lawrence |first1=Anne A. |title=Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=457–461 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9325-1 |pmid=18431633}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Mathy |first1=Robin M. |title=Cowboys, Sheepherders, and The Man Who Would Be Queen: 'I Know' vs. First-Order Lived Experience |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=462–465 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9335-z |pmid=18431623}}\ | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=McCloskey |first1=Deirdre |title=Politics in Scholarly Drag: Dreger’s Assault on the Critics of Bailey |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=466–468 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9337-x |pmid=18431621}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Meana |first1=Marta |title=The Drama of Sex, Identity, and the 'Queen' |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=469–471 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9324-2 |pmid=18431634}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Nichols |first1=Margaret |title=Dreger on the Bailey Controversy: Lost in the Drama, Missing the Big Picture |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=476–480 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9329-x |pmid=18431629}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Rind |first1=Bruce |title=The Bailey Affair: Political Correctness and Attacks on Sex Research |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=481–484 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9334-0 |pmid=18431624}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Roberts |first1=Seth |title=McCloskey and Me: A Back-and-Forth |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=485–488 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9344-y |pmid=18431619}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Rosenmann |first1=Amir |last2=Safir |first2=Marilyn P. |title=Sex, Sexuality, and Gender Dichotomized: Transgender Homosexuality in Israel |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=489–490 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9330-4 |pmid=18431628}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Serano |first1=Julia |title=A Matter of Perspective: A Transsexual Woman-Centric Critique of Dreger’s 'Scholarly History' of the Bailey Controversy |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=491–494 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9332-2 |pmid=18431626}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Windsor |first1=Elroi J. |title=Accounting for Power and Academic Responsibility |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=495–497 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9319-z |pmid=18431638}} | |||
| | {{cite journal |last1=Wyndzen |first1=Madeline H. |title=A Social Psychology of a History of a Snippet in the Psychology of Transgenderism |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |date=2008 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=498–502 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9340-2 |pmid=18431620}} | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Autogynephilia in Women. == | |||
| == Criticism of the article in its == | |||
| Note: I'm focussing on this article's presentation of the contents of this book, not on the contents of the book. | |||
| What I found missing in this article is an explanation of exactly what his critics objected to in this book. I have a sense that they may have exceeded the norms for "academic freedom" in some way -- did someone demand he be fired or the book be suppressed? -- but little more than the book is somehow controversial, ''possibly'' because of an emotional response rather than a rational one. (I'm either reading between the lines -- or reading into them.) Reading the version I've linked to above, Bailey's thesis is explained clearly & appears, at first glance, to be logically consistent to someone who knows little about the subject -- like me. As a result, I cannot determine whether their criticism is that he made mistakes in his research, or analyzing his findings, or if they just object that his assertions don't conform to whatever beliefs they have about human sexuality. | |||
| And FWIW, part of the controversy over this book appears to be bubbling over to ]: the section there about this book repeats at length, & almost word-for-word, the criticisms of this controversial book. I would expect the discussion there to be more focussed on how the book fit into his career or his history of researching sex. -- ] (]) 17:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :It's the last one: Bailey's assertions don't conform to their beliefs. | |||
| :There have been some complaints about research methodology, but that is basically a side show: The book is not, itself, a work of science; it does not present original experiments. It's a pop sci description of the dominant theories on femininity in males. The majority of complaints are basically "You hurt my community when you say that in public", combined with "My personal beliefs about my own psychology are different from what the sex researchers say" (which is likely to be true about anyone). As far as we can tell, the only person who has published 'scientific' complaints about the research is a determinedly anonymous person who claims to be a transwoman and (if memory serves) a grad student in an unrelated area of psychology. | |||
| :If the article isn't doing a good job of it, here's a quick summary of the scandal: | |||
| :* The critics attempted to have the book suppressed through complaints to the publisher. They arranged for it to be panned in reviews and withdrawn from consideration for awards. Some of the horror seems to be that lay readers might actually read and understand the book, and think that since a respected academic press published it, then it must be True™. | |||
| :* The critics tried to get Bailey (a tenured university professor) fired. They claimed that chatting with people in bars about their life histories was conducting IRB-qualified research (official ruling: oral histories aren't sufficiently systematic to be IRB-qualifed research), which would require written ]. Then they said that he had sex with one of these alleged research subjects (a prostitute), which would (or at least ''could'') be abuse of a research subject. Oh, and four transwomen claimed to be defamed by the book, when only two were actually described in it, and they all claimed to be surprised by it and to have never consented to any of it, despite in some cases having actually read and discussed the proofs with Bailey and sending e-mail messages saying the opposite. (The actual surprise appears to be their discovery that their earnest assertions that they really were true women trapped in men's bodies, and that sex had nothing at all to do with it, didn't convince him that Blanchard's approach was wrong.) | |||
| :* The critics also tried to get Bailey convicted of a class B misdemeanor for ], whose sentence includes up to six months in jail. The complaint here is that he wrote letters that accurately identified his job title. The legal system rejected the complaint as meritless (he never charged money for any letters, and under US law, all professors of psychology are legally permitted to describe themselves as psychologists, even if they don't have licenses to practice clinical psychology). | |||
| :* The critics also harassed his family and supporters. One person, for example, posted the names and school pictures of his children with obscene captions. Several police reports were filed about threatening communications. Other researchers reported being told not to apply for grants or show any connection to Bailey. Others were apparently quietly encouraged to find other areas of research, to avoid coming up with the "wrong" answers. | |||
| :Some of the responses were certainly reasonable reactions: Saying that you think Blanchard's idea is entirely wrong is not only just fine, but actually desirable. Telling Bailey that you think he's a jerk for publicly disagreeing with your self-conceptualization is probably okay. But other things, like humiliating someone's kids or hinting to researchers that they should only communicate politically favorable findings if they don't want their own families to be similarly attacked, is not the sort of behavior that decent society accepts. | |||
| :If we're not communicating that, please tell me which pieces are missing or unclear. ] (]) 18:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Why is it when I explain what I want to see in an article, instead of making the expected fixes to it, they respond to my criticism on the Talk page? (This is the third time I've encountered this response, so I'm beginning to wonder if I need to express my criticism in a different way so the material I'm expecting appears in the article -- not on the talk page.) Should I be more explicit by concluding my criticism with something along the lines of "Please rewrite the article to address these concerns -- don't answer me here"? -- ] (]) 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Two reasons: | |||
| :# It seems to me that all of what I outlined above is (more or less) present in the article. So I don't understand what's "missing" and therefore what you think needs to be added. | |||
| :# Changes to the article usually produce a long series of specious complaints and nearly endless haggling over any little word that might present the mainstream/academic view as being the mainstream view, rather than as a widely disputed view, or as implying that not all of our editors—the article names some Wikipedians and friends of Wikipedians on the critics' side—have behaved with perfect rectitude in the real world. In short, while I ''could'' improve the article, the cost is probably half a day's work on the article, to be followed by three months' of fielding nasty comments and responding to half-truths at various levels of dispute resolution, most of which will once again be ignored by the wider community. </br> At the end of which, by the way, we'll still have the above editor decide that it's all wrong because it doesn't anoint her friends as saints and doesn't demonize the researchers, and so it will all get reverted. Three months of pain for no net benefit doesn't seem worthwhile to me. If you want to have a go at it, though, please be my guest. ] (]) 01:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::By "friends" I mean "friends", as in ]. | |||
| ::I am not sure that you will be capable of understanding this, but the article does not say that the critics ''were successful at'' suppressing Blanchard's theory. It says that ''Bailey said they tried to'' suppress the theory. The distinction between "actual results" and "intention" is important. ] (]) 17:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I, too, am coming to this article by way of the village pump. As I read the article, I made a few minor copy edits for clarity--nothing (I trust) controversial. I know little about this subject and have no personal stake in the issues involved. After careful consideration, I think that NPOV in the current version is good enough, with one exception: I think it's reasonable for other editors to get hung up on the final sentence in the lead: "Bailey says that criticism of him was motivated by a desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about autogynephilia theory on transsexuals." I have a few questions about this sentence: | |||
| * It's roughly equivalent to saying, "Bailey says that his critics were motivated by...", right? That would be clearer, as it makes more sense to talk of people as having motivations than it does to talk about abstract "criticisms" as having motivations. | |||
| * Does this sentence belong in the lead? The lead is intended to summarize the body of the article, but this idea is not developed in the article itself. | |||
| * When the sentence discusses "criticism," what exactly is meant? ''All'' the negative reactions, or just the most extreme ones? In its current form it implies ''all'', but that's not what Bailey himself wrote: "Individuals who hated an idea tried to prevent the idea from spreading." I think he recognized that it is likely that some of the people who reviewed the book negatively had more mundane motivations (like that they were paid to review the book just as they're paid to review other books). | |||
| Depending on the responses to these questions, one possibility I'll mention would be rewording this sentence to read, "Bailey asserts that some of his critics were motivated by a desire to..." That would be more accurate than adding "though some refute this assertion" or the like. It doesn't seem that many people ''did'' refute that assertion, but it also seems that Bailey's assertion was more nuanced than it's represented here. I'll remain a disinterested third party and keep an eye on the article as I can. Thanks for asking for some additional looks to see if this edit war can be stopped. -- ] (] · ]) 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Your suggestion of "some of his critics" sounds good to me. I'd personally choose the verb "says" rather than "asserts", since plainer language is less likely to trigger ]. ] (]) 20:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| And by the way, thank you for coming in on the article. I welcome the open opinions even of they come from people WAID has hand chosen to protect his version. I would rather it was consensus. ] (]) 20:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :98, I do not know WAID in the slightest, nor did he hand pick me. He put out an open call, and I have given time to this article because I believe in Misplaced Pages, not because I care about anyone or anything specific to this article. Regarding the "many" who dispute the claim, the only source cited in the lead was Moser. If others heard Bailey's complaints of "academic suppression" and then responded saying, "No, it wasn't academic suppression," then I agree with you that the clause "though some refute this" belongs in the lead. As for the section headline "Academic freedom," I think that is the most unbiased way to say that the following section is ''on the subject of'' academic freedom, and that's all. Your changes today seem simply to have been a wholesale reversion to your earlier version, and I do not think that that is appropriate given the consensus and discussion taking place here. I am very open to your edits if you discuss them here on the talk page first--that is likely the best way to move this article forward without fueling the current edit war. Thanks. -- ] (] · ]) 01:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have been trying to harmonize edits on this article for quite some time now, and I am glad someone else has stepped up to handle it. What they do not yet know about the controversy, they will soon learn, just as I did, for it was all new to me also. I'm now going to make a personal statement about my time here. It's very much opinion, and I am giving it for opinion without any intention to come back and argue it--I no longer feel I can edit here neutrally, and I write | |||
| :::I have the utmost regard for some of the people involved. Most of all, I have an immense awe of Lenn Conway's technical career, and an even greater respect for her memoir, which impressed and affected me beyond my ability to express it. And I respect Blanchard as one of the first people to try a scientific approach to this and one of the first physicians to take an individually humane approach. That an even wider range of character and behavior is now understood is not criticism of him. I do not have the same level of respect for Bailey's method of research based on studies of "representative" individuals. I am very aware of the extent to which such work can reflect the investigator and not the subject. To contest his work based on the understandings of other people about their psychosocial identity is not unreasonably; to attack him as a person over it is an outrage on the freedom of inquiry. Actions such as Andrea James' posting mentioned above , in particular, are beyond the limits of discourse-- to do harm to a person's children because of one's opinion of the person is universally regarded as despicable. Even so, a person who does it in psychological desperation can in some sense be forgiven, but not those in cold blood who support it. Society does not accept the Westboro Baptist's procedures, but merely thinks it wiser not to criminalize it. A person here who would come here to argue in support of them would not be permitted to to so, My own feeling is that 98. has come rather close to this, and it is not me who has made the comparison. ''']''' (]) 04:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :As a point of fact, Bailey's kids were teenagers at the time of Andrea James' attack. James claims to have believed they were adults, but was apparently misinformed. ] (]) 17:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it's accurate to call them young adults. So please, your proof of damage ? Did they sue James for emotional distress ? Certainly there were no charges, To make a claim harm was done to anyone's children please source it. Otherwise the claim is irrelevant.] (]) 21:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, it is not accurate to call a fifteen year old a "young adult". ] (]) 22:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have been following this thread with great amusement. Lots of factual errors being bandied about, most of which have little to do with article content. Much of it seems based on idiosyncratic interpretations of various versions of what transpired. So everyone can move on, I believe Bailey's son and daughter were both adults (as in 18+) in 2003, the year the book dedicated to them came out, and the year they enthusiastically did press for the book. His son, who is quoted in the book and presented as some sort of paragon of normality and common sense in it (compared to "Danny," the gender-nonconforming case report who is "cured" in the book), is currently a graduate evolutionary psychologist and planning to be a college professor himself (he turns 27 this year, I believe she's 25 now and turns 26 next time around). Bailey's son's continued commentary on the controversy has been documented here and there, so if we want to discuss that sourced material, that's great. This idea of these two as "innocent children," while very appealing to angry mommies and "academic freedom" sentimentalists, is quite a stretch. I'd argue neither term applies. I'd say "complicit adults" might be a bit more accurate. As their dad said during his recent "fucksaw" stunt, when he trotted them out in the press yet again, I consider people in their late teens and early twenties to be open-minded grown ups rather than fragile children. But that's neither here nor there. If you have a question about article content or published sources, please email me or come to my talk page rather than having some drawn-out debate here that isn't about a sourced statement. This is not a forum. I believe this article would be fine if 98 and WAID discontinued their months-long spat here. Their feelings and personal involvement have a tinge of ] to them, a wiki no-no. I am pleased to see disinterested parties have stepped in, and I think the article and the project would be best served if you both stop arguing and find other topics to edit, where you don't have personal involvement and high passion. There's always USENET if you want to have an unending argument with each other. It doesn't really belong here. Well, that's it for me. Thanks again for the smiles. ] (]) 01:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let's do a little basic math: In 2008, Dreger reported Drew's age as 22. The book and your attack were both published in 2003, five years before. Assuming I have at least the arithmetic skills of an average eight year old, twenty-two minus five is seventeen, which is an age that we do not consider to be an adult in the US. If Kate is two years younger, then she was fifteen—also an age that we do not consider to be an adult in the US. ] (]) 21:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::We have been through this many, many times since 2007, WAID. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on your idiosyncratic and erroneous interpretation of what happened. Dreger interviewed Drew Bailey in 2006, when he was 22. Her reference states: "Bailey, Drew (2006, June 20). Interview with Alice Dreger; revised transcript received August 1, 2006." Source is already in the article. As you point out, she also says he was "now 22 years old" at the time of the interview. That means Drew was born around 1984-5. He's 27 this year. He was certainly an adult (18+) when the book came out. While it's possible his sister was 20 in 2006, your passive-aggressive sarcasm about their ages is simply wrong. Dreger wants very much to make it sound as if they were "in junior high and primary school, respectively," but most people see Dreger's up to her usual nonsense. If you want to discuss this via email or on my talk page yet again, we can, but I am disappointed that you are once again adding the same misinformation here again and again because you seek to right great wrongs. It's the definition of tendentious editing and POV-pushing. ] (]) 21:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't have any inside knowledge, so I can't speak to his current age, but I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of Dreger's statement. I think that "now 22" means "''now'' 22", as in "as of the date that I write this, 22" not "two years ago, 22" or "then 22" or "back when I interviewed him 22". ] (]) 21:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The simple arithmetic is that the Dreger paper was completed in late 2006 and disseminated (exactly as later published) in 2007. That's because it was designed as a target article, with the paper and selected brief responses to be published all at once (which happened in 2008, which is probably why your simple arithmetic is wrong as usual). You don't need to tell us that you don't have a lot of inside knowledge about this; it's clear from your ongoing misstatements. ] (]) 21:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Dreger's paper cites multiple sources from 2007, such as PMID 17951885 ("Autumn 2007") and a 30 January 2007 letter to ''The New York Times'', which strongly suggests that "completed in late 2006" is incorrect. ] (]) 22:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::OK, I misspoke-- the Dreger interviews began on 20 June 2006 (22-year-old Drew Bailey was in fact the first one) and concluded in late September 2006. There was some correspondence and pre-pub quotations in early 2007 that were added. As I said, the final paper was disseminated in 2007. I first received it on 2 August 2007, and the version I got was what was published in June 2008. Drew Bailey will be 27 on his next birthday and was an adult when the book controversy occurred in 2003. In other words, you are wrong, as I said earlier. ] (]) 22:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Regarding these sentences: "There were ample sourced articles by his peers/academics saying he had set back the field years, that he had wounded the community but I never included those. I left it to one person who was already a sourced peer." I think it would be great for you to include these other sources, even only here on the Talk page. It would be nice to know sources other than Moser. Essentially, it would be useful to have sources of other individuals stating what their motives really ''were'' in attacking Bailey. Something like "My motivation in criticizing this book was to defend alternate theories. I was ''not'' motivated by a desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about autogynephilia theory on transsexuals." Thanks. -- ] (] · ]) 19:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Effects=== | |||
| Part of the campaign involved distributing a flyer at the 2003 International Academy of Sex Research meeting that said academics should: <blockquote>censure J. Michael Bailey for his recent acts of junk science and groundless defamation. Do not invite him to speak at your institutions. Disinvite him if he is invited. Review his manuscripts and grant proposals with great caution and skepticism.</blockquote> | |||
| I therefore think it unreasonable to claim that the campaign didn't attempt to interfere with Bailey's publications and grants. | |||
| As for effects on the academic field, there is one disputed effect (a possible loss of trust between clinicians and their clients) and one widely agreed effect, which is less willingness from researchers to deal with transpeople. | |||
| The first can be sourced to Walter Bockting and Eli Coleman at U Minn, who have expressed concern that publishing a pop sci book about Blanchard's theory could offend transsexual people, who might then respond with greater distrust of clinicians and possibly a refusal to cooperate with researchers. This claim is disputed by, e.g., Jamison Green, who says it has had no actual effect on clinical relationships (and that the scandal has significantly strengthened the community of trans activists). | |||
| The second seems to be a broader concern. Steven Pinker of Harvard University wrote, "The intimidation directed at Bailey will ensure that graduate students, post-docs, and other young researchers will not touch this topic with a ten-foot pole, starving the field of new talent. Only tenured professors who have decided to change fields—a tiny number—would take it on." | |||
| Alice Dreger wrote, "it was the over-the-top response from Conway and her colleagues that really put a chill on sex researchers’ interest in trans issues....many sex researchers told me—without wishing to be named—that trans activists such as James have behaved so crazily, the entire population they 'represent' has been marked by researchers as being too unstable and dangerous to bother with." | |||
| As far as I can tell, nobody disputes this effect on academic research. Some activists may even be happy about this outcome: if you feel oppressed or harmed by researchers, then having fewer them around would naturally be an improvement. But nobody thinks that this campaign did not discourage researchers from dealing with trans people. ] (]) 21:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::All of this is taken from sources that are already cited in the article. I assure you, in particular, that I have not invented any of the direct quotations. ] (]) 05:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::"I haven't read the whole book, no, but I did look through the reviews"-The Blade of the Northern Lights | |||
| ::::Please don't take my comments entirely out of context. I haven't read the ''whole'' book, which I thought would imply that I'm working on it now. And that's also not the full sentence; it ends with, "...look through the reviews, which seem to be another point of contention". I figured I'd take out that first, then get through the book itself. I won't revert again on this article. I suspect that if you tone down your posts, you'll get a much better response. I don't especially mind the invective, but most people do. In addition, I took it upon myself to read through the talkpage ''before'' I reverted, so I would know what I was getting into. WhatamIdoing had nothing to do with my coming here; I'm here entirely of my own accord. ] (]) 18:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, and I also didn't say you were spewing venom, I said that the talkpage was full of venom. If you want to quote me, quote me correctly; this is sage advice that's applicable elsewhere. ] (]) 20:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === WP:TALK === | |||
| Can you guys and gals stop '']'' Bailey, James and whoever else here? See header at the top of this talk page for the purpose of this venue. ] (]) 14:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, a suggestion. Could you point out ''specifically'' what sentences you have a problem with? Put the sentences you take exception to on the talkpage, then explain why exactly you're so bothered by them. Right now, I can't tell what it is you so strongly object to because your post quickly veers from being about the article to being about WhatamIdoing's faults. If we (read, 3rd parties) know what it is you're having a problem with, we can sort it out much more efficiently here. Start by taking ''one'', and let's see what happens. ] (]) 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have an open mind, OK? Please don't ] with tl;dr posts, keep it short and concise. I'll have a look within the next few days. ] (]) 23:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ===Summary=== | |||
| ''The Man Who Would Be Queen'' is divided into three sections: ''The Boy Who Would Be Princess'', ''The Man He Might Become'', and ''Women Who Once Were Boys''. | |||
| It starts with an anecdote about a child Bailey calls "Danny." Bailey writes of Danny's mother, who has been frustrated by other therapists she has seen about her son's "feminine" behavior.<ref name="bailey16">Bailey (2003), p. 16.</ref> Bailey discusses psychologist and sexologist ]'s work with children whose parents have noticed significant gender-atypical behaviors. Bailey uses the anecdote about Danny to describe ], a label applied to males with significant feminine behaviors and females with significant masculine behaviors, such as ]. For example, this class includes boys that prefer to play with dolls and regularly identify with female characters in stories or movies, and girls that prefer to play with ]s and identify with male characters. This section of the book also discusses some case studies of men who were, for varying reasons, ] to the female sex shortly after their birth, and emphasizes the fact that, despite this, they tended to exhibit typically male characteristics and often identified as men. | |||
| The second section deals primarily with gay men, including a suggested link between childhood GID and male homosexuality later in life. Bailey discusses whether homosexuality is a congenitally or possibly even genetically related phenomenon. This discussion includes references to Bailey's studies as well as those of neuroscientist ] and geneticist ]. He also discusses the behavior of gay men and its stereotypically masculine and feminine qualities. | |||
| In the third section, Bailey summarizes a taxonomy of transsexual women that was proposed by ] about fifteen years earlier. According to Blanchard, there are two types of transsexual women: one described as an extreme form of male homosexuality, the other being motivated by ].<ref>Blanchard, R., Clemmensen, L. J., & Steiner, B. W. (1987). Heterosexual and homosexual gender dysphoria. ''Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16'', 139–152.</ref><ref>Blanchard, R. (1989). The concept of autogynephilia and the typology of male gender dysphoria. ''Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 177'', 616–623.</ref><ref>Blanchard, R. (1989). The classification and labelling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias. ''Archives of Sexual Behavior, 18'', 315–334.</ref> Bailey also discusses the process by which transition from male to female occurs. | |||
| On the last page of the book, Bailey meets "Danny", who he alleges no longer has gender identity disorder, and is living as a gay man. | |||
| ===References=== | |||
| {{Reflist|2}} | |||
| ===External links=== | |||
| * Chapter 9 of the book in HTML (about autogynephilia) | |||
| * by author J. Michael Bailey | |||
| * by Madeline H. Wyndzen | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ===Editing conflicts=== | |||
| :Dispute resolution is ]; take it there. ] (]) 19:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think DR would be good, and I would support you going that direction if you so desire. ] (]) 23:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Listen, if you want to talk about these problems at ANI or some other dispute-resolution forum, then feel free. I recommend reading ] first, but it's up to you. | |||
| :You will want to get your facts straight before doing so: | |||
| :* I have not accused you of vandalism; I and many other editors accuse you of POV pushing. | |||
| :* I do not accuse you of malice; I accuse you of POV pushing. | |||
| :* I do not accuse you of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts"; I accuse you of POV pushing. | |||
| :* I do not dispute the reliability of apparently good sources; in fact, every single one of the many discussions at RSN have upheld my concerns over the misuse of sources to promote a POV beyond what the sources support. | |||
| :Again, if you want to discuss whether I'm justified in accusing you of POV pushing when, for example, you add the ] words "he alleges" to the sentence "On the last page of the book, Bailey meets "Danny", who no longer has gender identity disorder, and is living as a gay man", then feel free to pick any noticeboard you'd like. I'm confident that the community will recognize your POV pushing for what it is. ] (]) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, your turn; exactly how do you ''know'' otherwise? Unless you're omniscient (which you've proven you're not), you don't know the subject here either; the whole point is that ''Bailey himself, in his book, says it''. The article here should report on what Bailey says in the book, not wildly guess based on some Misplaced Pages user's ]. It's on you to come up with a reliable source to prove otherwise. ]? ] (]) 13:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::What I was getting at is that it's not our job to comment on the truth value of what he says. At the risk of violating ] here, the ] article doesn't state whether his viewpoint (Holocaust denial) is correct or not, it just states what it is, then speaks about what historians and other people have done to refute Irving. You won't find "Irving used to purportedly prove "; instead, the article states how he used the source, followed by the reactions and responses of others. Yes, I know there's no psychiatric test one can do to determine if someone's "cured" of GID (at least for now), but the idea here is to present what Bailey himself put forward without pushing ]. If other people question whether this "Danny" was cured of and/or ever had GID, that can go in the reception section. I suspect you already know this, and are simply trying to wear WhatamIdoing and I down by using a combination of tactics (namely ] and deliberate ]), but to be ''absolutely, 100% clear'' I'm laying it out in plain text and leaving nothing to inference. ] (]) 15:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The level of ] exhibited here is unsurprising, but disappointing. Being someone with mild PDD-NOS, I know all about missing the forest for the trees on occasion, but even I'd have to try pretty hard for this. If you want more examples, I can give you ''many'', most of which you've probably never heard of. I don't know, nor frankly do I really care, whether he's telling the truth; the point is that he said it himself. What part of "it's not our job to tell ]" isn't sinking in here? I'd say more, but WhatamIdoing has pretty well taken care of it below. And yes, attempting to ] by stating your opinion over and over again is a hallmark of ]. I'm honestly tempted to take this to ], but I'll hold off on that for a while. At the very least, I'd like DanielKlotz to have a say in this rather lively discussion. ] (]) 22:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't have to prove that Danny no longer has GID, or even that Danny is a specific individual rather than a composite portrait intended to show what apparently happens to the overwhelming majority of GID boys, regardless of any "treatment" or lack thereof. I only have to prove that Bailey directly said this in the book, and say that ] bans the use of the words "he alleges" in this context. ] (]) 16:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah so that is to show "what apparently happens to the overwhelming majority of GID <s>or</s> boys"?! Do you mean those with GID in children or adults with GID WAID ? Which group, given Bailey makes a distinction.. Quite the large assumption given that the diagnosis is by the patient and not the doctor and the distinction made between adult and childood GID. If you are going put such a random thought in it might as well be comprehensible. So that is the summary. Bailey meets Danny and can tell it's gone. Miraculous! By the way, do you consider drag transgendered WAID? Given so many gay men live dual lives in drag? Just curious. You can try and ban the word but the dictionary defines alleges to mean "To assert to be true; affirm: alleging his innocence of the charge." There is no other implication but that Dr Bailey believes it to be true and in the case of an anonymous patient without verification. ] (]) 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have corrected your misquotation of my comment. When you read the sentence again, without the superfluous ], and perhaps reflect on the dictionary definition of the word "boys", I think you will figure out whether my statement refers to children or adults. ] (]) 03:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, correcting your misquotation of my own words is permissible, and strikethrough text (the method I used) is Misplaced Pages's preferred method for such corrections. You may seek other opinions, e.g., at ANI, but it won't help: Nobody believes that you have a right to misquote me and then make false claims about my statement based on your misquotation, regardless of whether that content-changing misquotation was an intentional lie or merely a careless typo. (For the record, my money's on the second.) ] (]) 23:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| This is a side note: Listen, I don't know if you're familiar with this idiom, but "low-hanging fruit" means "easiest issue to address". See ]. Or . I don't think that any literate person is going to think that this is an insult, and as everybody has rejected your version, then getting a formal agreement that your version is unacceptable ''is'' certainly the easiest achieved objective. | |||
| Also, as a point of fact, the previous mediation efforts were not initiated by me. I recall that your refusals to participate were noticed by a lot of editors, however. ] (]) 16:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe that there have been four formal mediation efforts related to this dispute in the past. Zero out of four were initiated by you. Your sole contribution to any of them was , in which you indicate your belief that "low-hanging fruit" is a transphobic slur intended to classify you as a gay man. In all other cases, you failed to participate. This is hardly the behavior of a person who "was open to mediation" and "asked for it". ] (]) 03:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Deleted posts in this section? ==== | |||
| The above doesn't make a lot of sense as a dialogue. Were some posts deleted from this section as well? I'm too lazy to look that far back in the talk page's history. Apparently the answer is yes . In the future, when removing only parts of a thread or post, could the person doing the removal substitute the problematic text with some neutral indicator that something existed there, so it doesn't look later that some other editor is just arguing with himself? Thanks. ] (]) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Protection== | |||
| I've fully protected the article to stop the edit warring; please work it out here on the talk page. ] <small>]</small> 19:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === "Others disagree" === | |||
| ::Regarding "while others disagree"--is there a source we can cite of someone in addition to Moser who refutes Bailey's statements about how the motivations of his critics? I've yet to see anything that takes it from "while an other disagrees" to "while others disagree. If you've got that source, it would be a big help. -- ] (] · ]) 02:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::And Moser doesn't actually disagree about the motivation. Moser actually places Bailey in an all-star line up of historically important sexologists that have been personally attacked to discredit their academic work. Moser directly says that this single scandal didn't actually kill academic freedom, but I'm not sure ''anyone'' says that it did, or even that any single event could have. Moser doesn't, however, say that Bailey is completely wrong in his view of some people's motivation. | |||
| :::If you'd like to read Moser's letter for yourself, I'm sure that someone here could point you to a copy. Then you could make up your own mind about what it says. ] (]) 03:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Danielklotz: I don't see "while others disagree" in the current article, but it is certainly true that numerous objections were about its claims of being science. The book was marketed as science, as the book's subtitle suggests. However, several prominent clinicians and sexologists took issue with that assertion. | |||
| ::::*Kinsey Institute head ] was among those who said it was the unscientific nature of the book that was a source of problems. He declared the book "not science" at a 2003 conference, which is when the tide really shifted in the debate. When Ray Blanchard revisited his concepts in 2005 after the controversy, Blanchard said that all, none, or some of his concept may be true and required additional evidence. In response, Bancroft wrote, "This is a welcome contrast to Bailey's unscientific 'certainty.'" Source: John Bancroft (2009). ''Human Sexuality and Its Problems'', p. 291. Elsevier Health Sciences, ISBN 9780443051616 | |||
| ::::*"...though members of the Kinsey Institute challenged Bailey's viewpoint as unscientific, it remains echoed throughout much of the American transsexual clinic." Source: Jillian St. Jacques (2007). Retrotranslations of Post-Transsexuality, Notions of Regret. ''Journal of Visual Culture,'' April 2007 6: 77-90, doi:10.1177/1470412907075070 | |||
| ::::*Written by J. Michael Bailey, chair of Northwestern University's psychology department, the book–which includes assertions that transsexuals are really just homosexuals with gender identity issues–has been called unscientific. Source: Patrick Letellier (April 27, 2004). Gay? Trans? Whatever, p. 18 ''The Advocate'' | |||
| ::::Bailey's "they hate my ideas" claims of a transsexual conspiracy to suppress his book don't really hold up to scrutiny. Let me know if you need additional info or sourcing. ] (]) 04:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Certainly many people disagree with Bailey's book (although I believe that Bancroft has publicly regretted his candid statement, as it is being misinterpreted as meaning that the ideas in the book are unscientific, rather than a pop sci book not being a work of science). | |||
| :::::However, she wants to amend the last sentence of the lead to say something like, "Bailey says that some of his critics were motivated by a desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas...and others disagree that any of his critics had this motivation." These sources do not address that question. So far as I can tell, no source makes this claim. ] (]) 05:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That's more or less what I'm seeing here- certainly people have said the book wasn't scientific, but I'm not seeing anything in the sources given to support the second part of that sentence. If there are sources saying this, ''kindly'' (note the emphasis) enlighten me. ] (]) 08:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::People (myself included) initially went after Bailey for two reasons: his attacks on trans and gender-variant children (his "Danny Ryan" cure narrative and his 2003 Stanford and Emory lectures), and his marketing of the book as science. Quoth ], "Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment on a book and an author who stepped into the public arena with enthusiasm to deliver a false and unscientific and politically damaging opinion." (Source: 2007 Carey piece cited in article). See also my 2008 paper (which one of Bailey's supporters attempted to suppress) and Wyndzen MH (2008). '']'' (which ] has sought to suppress on Misplaced Pages, despite being a published peer-reviewed response to an academic target article in a notable sexology journal). See also the ] response in the same issue: . ] (]) 08:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Listen, the opposition to your badly written, poorly sourced, biased efforts can't be a "boy's club", because I'm a cis-gendered natal female. ] (]) 05:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Okay, from the top: | |||
| * Bailey says that some critics wanted to suppress the theory. | |||
| There are only two ways to disagree with this statement: | |||
| # You can disagree that Bailey said this. | |||
| # You can disagree that what Bailey said is true. | |||
| To do the second—to disagree about the truth of Bailey's statements—you '''must''' (by the basic rules of logic) disagree with ''what Bailey actually said'', which is that <u>some</u> critics tried to suppress the theory. To disagree with this Bailey's statement, you must claim that ''zero'' critics wanted to suppress the theory. | |||
| Less contentious example: "I ate ''some'' apples yesterday." To disagree with this statement, you must say that I ate ''zero'' apples yesterday. It is not enough to say, "You ate a banana yesterday." After all, I could have eaten ''both'' some apples ''and'' a banana, right? It's also true that a critic (such as Conway) could have been motivated ''both'' by the desire to suppress the theory ''and'' by outrage over the stereotyping ''and'' by feeling betrayed by the publisher ''and'' by a dozen other things. The fact that the other motivations exist does not prove that the one Bailey named doesn't exist. | |||
| # Moser '''does not''' say that ''Bailey didn't say'' that some critics were trying to suppress the theory. So our first way of "disagreeing" is out. | |||
| # Moser also '''does not''' say that ''zero'' of Bailey's critics were trying to suppress the theory. Moser offers the possibilities of ''additional'' motivations and of different motivations for ''other'' critics, but never says that ''none'' of critics wanted to suppress the idea. So our second way of "disagreeing" is out. | |||
| In analogy, Bailey says "some of them ate apples", and Moser says "some of them ate bananas." Therefore, Moser '''does not''' actually disagree that what Bailey said about ''some'' critics might be accurate: Moser simply doesn't consider Bailey's statement to be the ''sole'' motivation for ''all'' critics. (Nor, by the way, does Bailey, as the article was recently clarified to indicate.) | |||
| Consequently, this claim is badly sourced: The named source does not actually contain the material it is alleged to contain. It is not actually possible to name a worse source than one that does not contain the material that it is alleged to contain. | |||
| As for badly written, I point out as only one example the ] that you repeatedly introduced into the article: "Concluding that the real author of the controversy was Bailey himself by his insensitive and inflammatory manner." A ] cannot stand on its own as a complete sentence. ] (]) 22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're exceeding the source. Moser doesn't disagree with Bailey's assessment. Moser says "some other people had motivation A", but Moser does not say "no people at all had motivation B". To say that someone disagrees with Bailey's claim that ''some'' people had motivation B, you must produce a source that actually ''says'' that no people had motivation B. It is not sufficient to produce a source that says some people had motivation A, because (1) people can have more than one motivation, and (2) not all people have exactly the same motivation. ] (]) 01:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} There are some quotes from Moser's letter in the ]. ] (]) 23:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| It's entirely uncontroversial that a lot of people disagree with Bailey's or rather Blanchard's theory, which Bailey basically just popularized. On the other hand, the "others disagree" part was written in a poor way, as to narrowly mean that they disagree with a specific statement of Bailey—that specific disagreement may be impossible to cite, so it's best if we just refocus on writing something sufficiently broad, NPOV, and ] instead of wasting megabytes on that issue. ] (]) 23:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Danny at end of book== | |||
| I'm trying to educate myself about the subject of this article, so that (hopefully) I can be more useful here. I just downloaded the Kindle version of TMWWBQ and jumped to the Epilogue to read about Bailey's encounter with "Danny", which is the basis for this sentence in the article: "On the last page of the book, Bailey meets 'Danny', who no longer has gender identity disorder, and is living as a gay man." In the Kindle edition at least, at this encounter "Danny Ryan" is an 8-year-old boy. Am I missing another bit in the book? I wouldn't consider an 8-year-old a "man" in this context. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :That's one of several factual errors introduced by ]. In her interpretation of events, a gender-variant youth like "Danny" is an adult gay man at age 8, but Bailey's son and daughter are "innocent children" when promoting a book dedicated to them while about ten years older. ] (]) 03:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::If it is wrong, we should fix it. Bailey certainly reports in other sources that "Danny" is now an adult and now living as a gay man. ] (]) 05:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are going to let someone change something? That is funny, when I tried to get this part expanded and clarified you just kept reverting. Wasn't it you that said "the truth isn't important, it is a quote in the book". Why don't we just add a section on here explaining that this was a "factual error" or perhaps, just perhaps you could add the word "alleges". This article does nothing to describe the contents at all. The book itself had become secondary and the controversy section a cause to champion. Thank you Daniel for researching.] (]) 20:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] isn't particularly helpful right now- could you just focus on the content? ] (]) 20:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ah, the summer of 2009. That was when that "Danny" be described as a "daughter" rather than a "son" in the summary of the book, despite the book never doing anything of the sort. | |||
| :::::From Dreger's description of the book: | |||
| :::::{{quote|"Indeed, Bailey refers to data showing that nearly all boys like Danny diagnosable with GID turn out not to be transsexual women, but to be gay men (pp. 17–20). Given the outcomes data on boys treated for GID, and given the self-reports of gay men with regard to their childhoods, Bailey speculates that Danny will end up a non-transsexual gay man (pp. 17, 34). This, of course, is part of what infuriated certain trans critics who adhere to the feminine essence story of MTF transsexualism—especially those who are attracted to women; they wanted to claim personal histories just like Danny’s, yet here was Bailey saying, in fact, that the vast majority of boys like Danny would just end up as fairly run-of-the-mill feminine gay men."}} | |||
| :::::So there ''has'' been research done on this point, and "nearly all boys" with GID don't become transwomen. In fact, it typically reports that somewhere between 2% and 6% of children with GID become adults with GID, and a very substantial majority become gay men. It is not merely my "personal interpretation". ] (]) 23:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suggest that you look at Green's study, paying careful attention to the bit that runs "...66 clinically referred boys whose behaviors were consistent with the diagnosis of ]," instead of guessing what it might have been about. ] (]) 02:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So "consistent" to you is like a "diagnosis of "? How scientific! They were not GID and a study of GID kids , teenagers or adults has never been done.] (]) 01:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| And to your bad link WAID (doesn't work) , claiming I "insisted" that Danny be referred to as "her", that was based on the idea that Bailey was actually working with actual GID patients, not just gay men who Bailey misidentified as having GID. Given than neither of you seem to understand that Gender Identity Disorder actually requires the person to identify with the opposite gender I can understand your resistence. ] (]) 00:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Danny was profiled in the book specifically because he definitely had GID. Bailey writes in the book, "Danny is not even a close call, diagnostically speaking.... According to the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV-TR)—which represents a kind of official list of mental disorders—Danny has a mental illness: childhood gender identity disorder (or GID for short)." | |||
| ::::GID among children is not the same as GID among adults. Additionally, having GID and undergoing the process of transitioning are not the same thing. It is entirely possible for a person to have GID and decide ''not'' to spend a year living in the target sex (e.g., for fear of persecution). You don't stop having GID simply because you decide not to transition publicly, or to postpone the transition until a later date. (Although, fascinatingly, a small number of adult GID patients do stop having GID, per PMID 10929795.) ] (]) 02:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| A | |||
| :I'm sorry, but I just don't know how else to explain this to you. The fact is that GID exists in children, and GID exists before the person transitions, and may exist even if the person never takes even the smallest step towards a public transition. This is true whether you define transitioning in physical terms, like taking hormones, or in social terms, like asking family, friends, and co-workers to correct the gender markers they use in dealing with the person. | |||
| :GID is not, and has never been, a medical term for gay men. | |||
| :You might want to read about this (perhaps ] is a reasonable place to start), or ask someone whom you trust and who is more educated than yourself about this (e.g., Jokestress, who wrote most of Misplaced Pages's article about GID in children). | |||
| :As for whether Bailey knew "Danny", the quotations above prove that Bailey did meet Danny. It is not possible for Bailey to have had a face-to-face meeting with Danny and Danny's mother, without Bailey meeting Danny and Danny's mother. Furthermore, Bailey must have had long-term contact with Danny and/or his mother, because Bailey reported in 2006 that Danny was no longer a little boy, but a young gay man. ] (]) 19:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since it appears neither of you is going to stop bickering here... | |||
| ::98.149.114.34, please cite quotations from the book when discussing the book, and please connect it with the content in the article that you are discussing. You have posted so much material lately that it's impossible to grasp what you'd like to address. I feel we should do them one at a time, perhaps starting with Bailey's account of why he came under fire, contrasted with other accounts. As WAID points out, "while others disagree" is a vague and problematic way to cover this. It's clearer to say Bailey says this, others say this. ] (]) 20:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fine, I have n problem with a larger statement. I started a separate section to discuss Greens study. WAID was using it to support Bailey saying that Danny was no longer a victim of gender identity disorder. Greens study was about homosexuality, the term GID meant effeminate gay men at the time, not transsexual. It was the 70's and people just assumed anyone who was effeminate and gay was transsexual.Lets start with this. | |||
| ::@WhatamIdoing, I continue to have concerns that the article says "Danny" is a "gay man" at age 8 in 1998 (and according to you is a man at age 15/16 in 2006), but Bailey's son and daughter are "children" (and according to you "innocent children") despite being years older than "Danny." It's this double standard regarding depictions of trans and non-trans children that caused much controversy in the first place, and the article should be consistent. I'm fine with "Danny" being described as a gay man (as in adult human male) in 2006 when he is 15/16, as long as we describe everyone that age consistently in the article. ] (]) 20:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you have a source that says Danny is 15 or 16? The source I'm looking at says nothing more specific than "young gay man". His mother talked to Bailey in 1996, but Danny's age at that time is not given. To assume that Danny is five or six at that time is a NOR violation; saying that Danny turned out to be a gay man is nothing more than following our sources. | |||
| :::On the other hand, saying that Bailey's offspring are somehow no longer his children defies common sense. You are still your parents' child, even when you are fifty years old. ] (]) 20:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::According to the book, "Danny" asked for and was denied a pink bike for his 5th birthday (p. 10), so his mom took him to a therapist for a few months, as well as a second opinion (p. 11). After "Danny" had difficulty adjusting in kindergarten (pp. 11-16) that fall, "Leslie" went to see Bailey in spring 1996 (p. 16). "Danny" was still in kindergarten, making him 5 or 6. Using your simple arithmetic from earlier, if he's 5/6 in 1996, he is 15/16 in 2006, and 20/21 in 2011. Again, we shouldn't have a double standard if we are discussing ages in the article. If we can do simple arithmetic to determine ages for one person, we should be able to use it for all. Of course, there's a concern that "Danny" is a fabrication, but in the book he is 5/6 in 1996. Certainly not a "man" a couple of years later at age eight. | |||
| ::::Re "children": please don't try to obfuscate things by adding "his." Bailey's offspring remain his offspring, but they are not children and were not at the time the book was published. ] (]) 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't actually see anything that cleanly indicates that Danny's mother appeared in Bailey's office while Danny was in Kindergarten. It's plausible, but beyond what the source says (if memory serves; if not, feel free to provide the relevant direct quotation). | |||
| :::::As for "obfuscation", the text in the article says, "Andrea James, a transgender advocate, attacked Bailey by constructing a website with pictures of Bailey's children taken from his public website beside sexually explicit captions." | |||
| :::::There is nothing inaccurate about this sentence. The pictures certainly were "of Bailey's children"; you even put their names on them to make sure they were identified as Bailey's kids. They were not stock photos or pictures of someone with no relationship to Bailey. They were pictures "of Bailey's children", and labeled as such. ] (]) 00:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::OK. Let's try this again. | |||
| ::::::*"Danny" is at the youngest 8 (p. 214) in 2003 (publication year) | |||
| ::::::*"Danny" is at the oldest 8 in 1996 (p. 16), assuming Bailey witnessed his "curing" shortly after meeting "Leslie." | |||
| ::::::*That means "Danny" is between 8 and 15 when the book came out. | |||
| ::::::*"Danny" turns 5 (p. 10) before "Leslie" seeks out therapists. | |||
| ::::::*"Leslie" sees a psychiatrist who blamed her. (p. 11) | |||
| ::::::*"Leslie" then sees a school psychologist "because Danny was about to start kindergarten" (p. 11). The psychologist says "Danny" will develop a homosexual preference without intervention. (p. 12) | |||
| ::::::*"Leslie" then learns her gay brother outgrew his doll-loving cross-dressing childhood ways. (p. 12) | |||
| ::::::*"Danny" starts kindergarten. (p. 13) | |||
| ::::::*"Danny" agrees to see a child psychologist. (p. 15) | |||
| ::::::*"Leslie" sees Bailey in spring 1996 to get yet another opinion. (p. 16) | |||
| ::::::*"Danny" is at least 5 in Spring 1996, according to the book. | |||
| ::::::Numerous factual inaccuracies in the description you wrote: They were not sexually explicit captions. One caption repurposes a quote from his book (not explicit) and the other gives an either/or psychosexual pathology that echoes his taxonomy of trans people (and is explicit). And the website was not constructed at the time of publication (it had been around in various iterations for many years). And Bailey had constructed a book and lecture mocking and attacking transgender children, which was the impetus for all of it. ] (]) 07:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think we're pretty much stuck with "sexually explicit captions", since it's a direct quotation from the named reliable source: | |||
| :::::::"The site also included a link to the Web page of another critic of Dr. Bailey’s book, Andrea James, a Los Angeles-based transgender advocate and consultant. Ms. James downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, '''with sexually explicit captions''' that she provided." | |||
| :::::::Or, on re-reading, perhaps your objection is that you only consider the one caption to be sexually explicit, and that the other sexually explicit items, e.g., on whether the children had been sodomized by their father, were not technically captions? | |||
| :::::::I agree that it might be slightly more precise to say that you posted a web<u>page</u> with this particular bit of content, but the distinction seems fairly trivial to me, and certainly there were (and are) many other pages. ] (]) 00:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Ah, summer 2007. The years have flown by since the first time I explained to you that the other caption was not explicit and was a quote from page 142 of Bailey's book: "There are also transsexuals who work as waitresses, hairdressers, receptionists, strippers, and prostitutes, as well as in many other occupations," but with his son's name replacing "transsexuals." I'm fine with the existing citation of the Ben Carey article per "verifiability, not truth," but Carey is regurgitating Dreger there and was doing a little payback for my getting him in trouble in 2005 and for getting that 2007 piece delayed for a few weeks. As the subject of a standalone paragraph in this Misplaced Pages article, I believe we should note the point I was making (per NPOV) about the double standard of Bailey's mocking and pathologizing trans children while using his own son and daughter to promote and defend his own actions. I know I have also explained the "two types" analogy to you at considerable length, and more than once as well, on your talk page, and in emails to you directly, I believe. Your idiosyncratic interpretation of events may be unshakable in the face of facts which contradict it (e.g. "Danny" the 8-year-old happy gay man), but the article should reflect all points of view in a neutral manner, not the version that exists in your mind which has found its way into this article. ] (]) 08:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Journalists can be biased SOBs and may well have had a grudge on you for past run-ins with them. But frankly, if we throw Carey's (and Dreger's) reporting out, there isn't much in the way of ] sources left in this article, except for the book reviews, which don't address those events. The ''Times Higher Education'' reports are not substantively different on that issue—I think ] already. ] (]) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, since the dispute seems to gravitate around the use of "children" now (and not just "sexually explicit captions"), we could use the ''Times'' wording "teenage son and daughter" instead. ] (]) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Has anyone read Charles Moser's paper claiming that autogynephilia occurs in women? "To test the possibility that natal women also experience autogynephilia, an Autogynephilia Scale for Women (ASW) was created from items used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic in other studies. A questionnaire that included the ASW was distributed to a sample of 51 professional women employed at an urban hospital; 29 completed questionnaires were returned for analysis. By the common definition of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93% of the respondents would be classified as autogynephilic. " | |||
| == Revised article structure == | |||
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19591032 | |||
| It seems obvious to me that minor tweaks here and there to this article will not solve the years-long disputes that continue to this day. A more comprehensive approach needs to be taken to the revising. If there is interest, I am volunteering to spearhead a rewrite of this article, seeking frequent input from all sides. The goal would be to arrive at a version we are all comfortable with, which can then be instated and the article can be unlocked. Material in this current article that is broadly accepted should certainly be kept. I know a lot of energy has gone into it. | |||
| If this is true does this not completely discredit Blanchard and Bailey? ] (]) 23:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I'm interested in reactions to this proposal for a rewrite. If it's a worthwhile idea, the first step will be to agree upon a structure for the article. I've looked at the guidelines within ], as well as Featured Articles and Good Articles within that project. It seems to me that WikiProject Books is the most relevant WikiProject when it comes to article structure, and ] has good standards, too. (I believe ] and ] will be great resources a little later, when it comes to the actual content of the article. They don't seem to have much to offer in terms of ideal structures for an article about a book.) Based on the guidelines of WikiProject Books, along with consideration of the debates that have taken place here, here is the article structure I would like to offer for your feedback: | |||
| :The unregistered user has also asked the same question at ]. Perhaps one location is sufficient. ] (]) 00:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Intro | |||
| 1 Synopsis | |||
| 2 Commercial and critical reception | |||
| 2.1 Positive reception | |||
| 2.2 Negative reception | |||
| 2.3 Bailey's response to critics | |||
| 3 Publication | |||
| 4 Historical context | |||
| 5 See also | |||
| 6 References | |||
| 7 External links | |||
| Perhaps not. It concerns both articles and perhaps many more, but different aspects. Since you watch both so very closely you can oversee, making sure there is no duplication of discussion. Perhaps cross posting by link relevant to this books article. ] (]) 19:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| To add a little detail to this... | |||
| * Per WikiProject Books guidelines, the synopsis will be held to under 900 words, with 600 as the ideal. | |||
| * In the "Critical reception" section, the flow will be like this: "Some critics praised the book, and here is some of what they said. Others criticized the book, and here are the main themes of their critiques and some of what they said. The author responded to some of the criticism and here is some of what he said." (The charge that the book was marketed as "a work of science" but is not belongs in this section, as do allegations that the author did not follow IRB protocol etc. Information regarding the Northwestern University investigation would also go here, since it was negative reception that prompted it.) | |||
| * The "Publication" section gives the facts about when the book was published and by what entity. | |||
| * The "Historical context" section would be the place to talk about how Bailey follows/endorses Blanchard, what the state of transgender studies was at the time of publication, as well as to note any significant changes or developments since then. (For instance, it is useful for Misplaced Pages readers to know about the ongoing debate about whether GID is in fact a mental illness belonging in the DSM.) | |||
| * "See also" begins with a link to Bailey's biographic Misplaced Pages article, which is where some of the controversy (including details of his tenure at Northwestern) belong. | |||
| ::The question was valid , if it is peer reviewed should it not be included in the controversy section on the book. The entire premise of this theory was that having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman was unique only to these MTF's. No study was ever done on women, men or FTM's to this point. 93% of the regular women being tested coming out autogynephilic is an amazing blow against the entire theory and needs to be included. This information is from 2011, why is it not included?] (]) 21:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| So... thoughts? -- ] (] · ]) 21:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think the point stands as a counter point to the books conclusions. A new section should be created citing Moser's published article demonstrating the alleged" affliction occurs in women. Are there any disagreements with this ? ] (]) 11:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == The Man Who Would be Queen == | |||
| ::The scandal is the only reason the book is notable. Lots of people publish books; only a few of them get written up in dozens of media outlets because someone tried to get the author fired, put in jail, etc. over the book The scandal, rather than the book itself, and specifically the big-picture effects on academic research, are what the sources focus on (inhibiting academic freedom and discouraging research on the one side, and scaring away research subjects on the other side), and if there hadn't been this big scandal, then our sources would almost certainly be limited to routine press releases announcing the book's publication. Consequently, we really can't leave out the scandal and restrict the article to the contents of the book alone; it wouldn't be ]. | |||
| The piece clearly violates the policy of a neutral point of view. It is strongly slanted in favor of Bailey and against his critics. The slant is obvious, which may make it less dangerous in encouraging the enemies of queers. But some readers are naive, and need the policy of neutrality to be enforced. | |||
| ::Also, we don't mention, but probably should, the fact that the scandal was ultimately empowering to the trans activists. | |||
| ::My basic reaction to the proposed outline is that (except with the addition of the section on publication), it's not very different from what we've got here, except that the section headings are a bit vaguer. I think that the "historical context" section is doomed: it will be an endless battleground for The Truth™ vs Verifiability. | |||
| ::BTW, it looks like the current summary is half the "ideal" length. ] (]) 00:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Deirdre McCloskey <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Folks interested in the above comment would likely want to know of Dr. McCloskey's long-standing campaign against the book and filing of charges against its author. | |||
| :::I agree that the outline I'm proposing is not much different from what's in place now. Instead of viewing these new section headers as more vague, I view them as more standardized with FAs and GAs about books. Thoughts on that? | |||
| :Excerpted from http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/12/when-liberals-attack-social-science.html: | |||
| :::I also agree with 98 that section 2.3 doesn't really belong. Responses (and responses to responses) can be summarized in 2.1 and 2.2. | |||
| ::"Before the full weight of the controversy descended, ''The Man Who Would Be Queen'' had been nominated for the Lambda Literary Award’s 2004 prize in the transgender/genderqueer category for its textured, supportive portrayal of its transgender subjects. As a result of immense pressure — Deirdre McCloskey, a respected scholar of economics and history who wrote a memoir about her male-to-female transition, and who helped Conway and James go after Bailey, said nominating the book for the award “would be like nominating ''Mein Kampf'' for a literary prize in Jewish studies” — the organization voted to yank the nomination." | |||
| :::While I understand that a Historical context section could be inviting a continuation of the edit war, I don't see how at least some of the information could be left out. This book is within a field (transgender studies) that has been rapidly changing. To have knowledge of this book (which is what this Misplaced Pages article is meant to provide), I think knowledge of the context is necessary. That said, can the summaries of the book's critical reception provide enough historical context? I think it's possible. Thoughts? -- ] (] · ]) 19:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::"To get a flavor of the quality of the evidence amassed against Bailey by his critics, consider one charge: that Bailey had practiced psychology without a license. Conway, James, and McCloskey filed a formal complaint with the state of Illinois claiming that, since Bailey lacked a license as a clinical psychologist, he had violated state regulations by writing those letters in support of the young trans women seeking to transition. Not only was there no legal basis to the claim — if you don’t receive compensation for your services, which Bailey didn’t, you don’t even need a license to provide counseling in Illinois — but Bailey was completely forthright in his letters supporting the women, both about the fact that he had only had brief conversations with them (as opposed to having provided them with extensive counseling) and about his own qualifications and expertise — he even attached copies of his CV. “Presumably all this was why never bothered to pursue the charge,” writes Dreger, “although you’d never know that from reading the press accounts, which mentioned only the complaints, not that they had petered out.”" | |||
| :] (]) 16:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Readers please note that James Cantor is a completely bias source , a cohort of Dr Bailey and an advocate pushing Baileys ridiculous theories. This article is now completely compromised and worthless. Dr Bailey might as well have written it himself] (]) 00:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreed that 2.3 can be incorporated into other sections. Also agree that sections on context and publication are important. This book and the response is a watershed moment in trans history, described by one historian as a "transgender tipping point." It's included in a book listing great moments in transgender history, discussing academic exploitation of trans people. ] (]) 19:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::2.3 can definitely mesh with other parts, and the publication section makes perfect sense. As to the historical context... I think it could work, but we're going to have to keep a pretty tight lid on it. The scandals are also significant as well, so we obviously can't leave those out, and WhatamIdoing's note about the larger picture should definitely be mentioned, as it does seem like a pretty obvious omission. ] (]) 14:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I also want to add that Bailey's book is not considered as a "textured, supportive portrayal of its transgender subjects" by transgender people. For example, deconstruction's of the book's science and ideas have been put out and - both of whom are trans, and could be considered as valid representatives of the community view ] (]) 20:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Dividing reception into "positive" and "negative" tends to make my skin itch. Also, I'm not sure that all of what should be covered is really about the reception of the book, e.g., filing legal complaints about Bailey writing letters. I wonder whether it would be possible to organize it by timeline (initial reception, scandal, long-term) or by affected groups (reception from psychologists, trans people, others). ] (]) 20:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree that the division in two sections along those lines is a bad idea; soon enough we'll end up with something resembling ], where editors cram non-descriptive lists of those "for" and "against" the "analogy", which <s>is</s> was usually done by cajoling the sources to say what they want. (Someone removed those since last time I checked that article , progress in Misplaced Pages is possible after all). ] (]) 21:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm also a bit concerned about us trying to pigeonhole people into "negative" or "positive". It's sometimes obvious, but it would not be unreasonable for a single individual to be simultaneously glad that the subject was considered worth publishing a book on, disappointed at the tone taken towards transwomen, supportive of the notion of diversity among transsexuals, concerned about an anti-trans political backlash, interested in what academics make of the then-existing research, and heartened by the recognition that feminine behavior is measured on a continuum, rather than as a strict binary. Many of the people I might call critics have found something positive (however small) to say about it, and most of the people I might call supporters have identified flaws. A "love it/hate it" split isn't necessarily as accurate as other options. ] (]) 22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion of SPLC report about J. Michael Baily and The Man Who Would Be Queen == | |||
| {{od}} I agree. Dreger for instance, while generally being sympathetic to Bailey as the "cornered academic" (my expression), was also critical of him for having a tin ear. (Both issues are mentioned in the current version of the article.) Where should we pigeonhole her views?! ] (]) 23:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| This has happened a number of times now, and we all know why: association with HBD looks bad to some people. But that is not a good reason to delete well-sourced materials from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC is one of Misplaced Pages's perennial sources, and reports reliably for hate groups and anti-LGBT activities. The materials are directly relevant to the positive reviews cited in the article, because as the SPLC report notes, many of those reviews were done by members associated with HBD. Trying to constantly remove that link and delete it with silly claims about it being ] when the report is directly addressing the book that this article is about, is an abuse of the editing process. ] (]) 01:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Protection extended== | |||
| I've extended protection on the article due to concerns that the edit warring might continue after the current protection expired tomorrow. From the looks of the talk page, unless clear ] can be found, I suggest editors here take the next steps in the ] and engage a mediator or file an RfC. | |||
| :I agree that this report should go in the article: Dreger directly mentions it in her article about criticism of the book, so obviously it's relevant to the article and not a ]. Outside that context, I'd have some serious qualms about sourcing BLP material to a single source, even a reliable source, but since the important details have been confirmed by Bailey's side of the controversy that makes me lean much more on the side of including it. ] (]) 02:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I also strongly suggest that everyone stop making comments about other contributors and focus solely on the editorial content of the article, per ]. ] <small>]</small> 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't necessarily have an issue with the sentence {{tq|In December 2003, the ] (SPLC) reported that many of the early supporters of Bailey's book, ''The Man Who Would Be Queen'', were members of the ]}} because it seems to me that it's at least kind of relevant. Contrary to {{U|Hist9600}}'s edit summary , I didn't remove that part. Nevertheless, I agree with {{U|Springee}} that the rest of the paragraph, at the very least, is ]. It's irrelevant and takes up circa 1/3 of the section about positive reactions. ] (]) 02:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: Mediation didn't fly per "not enough arguing among yourselves first" . ]. ] (]) 21:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::] I can see what you mean about the length of the paragraph before your edit, and unnecessary amount of detail. The shortened version better fits the article. ] (]) 18:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Do us all favor and read the article. Your lack of knowledge is hampering the discussion of the book.] (]) 14:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :My concern is largely two parts. The first is much of this section is sourced to the SPLC and we need to be careful how the views of an advocacy group are used. Second, this all appears largely undue. It's a combination of coatrack and simply not sufficiently associated with this article's subject to merit inclusion here. Starting with the SPLC part. The RSP entry notes that we need to be careful when deciding how much weight to give SPLC claims. Are their any 3rd party sources that mention the opinions/views of the SPLC here? If yes they I will retract most of my concerns. If something is going to be purely cited to the SPLC we really need to make sure it's either a generalized attributed claim or very clearly significant to the primary topic. In this case it's not a critique of the book, rather a critique of some people who liked the book based on, presumably, the contents of the book. That seems like a very weak justification for inclusion here. Again, it's not about the book but it does suggest some level of guilt by association. Once that basic link is made, as {{U|Antiok 1pie}} noted the rest of the paragraph diverts from talking about the book and starts talking about HBD. At that point it is a coatrack, especially since it starts listing names etc. I will also note, the section reads like it was meant to be in a different article. For example, why say, "...supporters of Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, were..." Isn't the subject of this article ''The Man Who Would Be Queen''? Why mention it as if we were talking about several books and several authors? Citation #25 is an AOL link. The rest of this seems like way to much to leave to just the views of the SPLC. While two books are referenced, they seem to only be there to say what HBD is. The links between the Baily and HBD are sourced to SPLC and an AOL link. Given the claims that HBD is, "pseudoscientific race theories and neo-eugenics under the euphemism "human biodiversity"" this becomes a BLP issue and thus needs stronger sourcing. I don't think it's due but a revised version of the first sentence ''might'' be OK or will be if a third party source can be found. The rest is a HBD coatrack and should be included. ] (]) 03:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::The AOL citation is a primary source supporting the SPLC citation. It's not needed. The rest of your objection is basically saying we can't provide context for the book. If you think it's being given undue weight, there are other options than deleting the whole 'graph. The SPLC is a perennial source, you don't really have a leg to stand on as far as deleting all references to it. ] (]) 15:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't agree but the reduced paragraph is probably an acceptable compromise ] (]) 19:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{quote|For example, why say, "...supporters of Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, were..."}} | |||
| ::That's part of the point. According to the SPLC, many of the prominent positive reviews for the book were authored by people who were involved in the same HBD group as J. Michael Bailey. They were effectively helping to promote his book. The Misplaced Pages article uncritically quotes some of those positive reviewers. Giving some context is appropriate to point out their affiliation. The roster of HBDG members helps provide some details about that context, for interested readers. But it is not strictly necessary, since the statements are otherwise still well-sourced. ] (]) 16:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :@] @] I restored to the version that's just one sentence about the SPLC. As it is now, I think it should be reworded and maybe given another sentence to explain what the HBI is, and why this is relevant. As it is now, readers can gain the context from clicking on the blue link to the HBI article. That can be improved, we just don't want too much overlap between this article and the HBI one. | |||
| :I also removed the weird long block quotes. ] (]) 19:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Block quotes from the book might be a good laugh tho. I won't object to that. The quotes pulled in the Seed magazine article are incredible stuff. /s ] (]) 19:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your help and attention in cleaning up the article, including some of the other parts. ] (]) 22:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::No objections. Good job on cleaning up the massive blockquotes too. ] (]) 01:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Emphasis on Alice Dreger == | |||
| ::Listen, I have not read the article or the book and I don't care about either. But I've read the talkpage here and I have to tell you that your behavior is not helpful or collaborative, and it is in conflict with several core policies among them ] and ]. You need to step back take a deep breath and find a different attitude if you want to continue editing here in our collaborative encyclopedia. I fully endorse Deadstar's decision to protect the page, this is clearly the only way you and the other editors here will realize that you have to collaborate, compromise and behave as adults in order to get anywhere with this article.] 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| There are two citations used a total of 11 times. One of the citations is to the "Archives of Sexual Behavior," which looks pretty plainly like a junk journal to me (editorial board full of people promoting a fringe theory). I don't think there will be consensus for removing the reference entirely. Still, I think this article is clearly relying too heavily on Dreger's defense of the work. Mentions should be trimmed, and better sources should be used where possible. ] (]) 20:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why is this article still under protection? I'm not editing on it so what exactly is your excuse now DREADSTAR? And please spare me the "collaborative" speech Maunas, what was done here was not done to help the article at all. Based on reversions alone DREADSTAR comes in and , without any conversation , without any attempt to resolve the editors differences on the articles issues, without knowledge of the article all, blocks it. Adults , yes , people so often react to that kind of abuse of authority as "adults". And I could care less whether you agree with it or WAIDs friends parade in here claiming what a "reasonable editor" WAID is ( not in my experience at all) . That seems to be a common theme on this article, people , never having read the book,not knowing what the article is about suddenly , for no reason at all, showing up, reverting, blocking ,pontificating on the side of one editor, fascinating don't you think? Oh sorry, that must be a "the conspiracy theory" talked about in the "WRONG VERSION" ! Claiming to be "protecting it" ,protecting it from what?! You've never read it ! How would you know what protecting it is?! The versions were never really that different to start with with but what I'm totally sure of now is , you never read a single thing. | |||
| :'']'' isn't junk, it actually has a quite good impact factor. Regarding the citation itself, most of the sentences where Dreger is cited seem to be uncontroversial and on the "Negative reactions" section. If you insist though, I guess we could cite her ''sources'' instead. ] (]) 01:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is troubling because the basis for wikipedia was not a bad idea really. The real problem is people like you, editors with too much power , a hand full of rules that they apply to suit their desires, or the desires of their friends without any knowledge beyond those rules . You having the power to block anyone or anything is a travesty. Unblock the article and let the real editors go on with it, I wont have a thing to do with it, that is a promise. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6660646/Wikipedias-Jimmy-Wales-denies-site-is-losing-thousands-of-volunteer-editors.html ] (]) 13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed that Alice Dreger should not be used too much, to follow ]. In some cases it depends on what type of statement is being made. If the statements are uncontroversial statements of fact, that is one thing. But if we are heavily relying on Dreger to frame the narrative, that would represent undue weight. ] (]) 04:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Actually everything here seems to be working perfectly. One person (you) seems determined to have a fight, and the minimum technical measures have been taken to prevent that. Once an article is protected, changes have to be proposed on the discussion page and consensus achieved. In Misplaced Pages's version we use "rough consensus" which means that lone dissenting voices can be ignored. This has worked well for us for ten years and it seems to be working just fine here and now. In my experience, people who start threatening to throw their toys out of the pram can usually be ignored but sometimes we have to block them. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| And for any of you "REAL" editors on this article you will find some fascinating articles out there on the GID conflict of terms in the DSM-III. Wasn't my imagination at all, it was huge! It should definitely be a part of the discussion of TMWWQ in the future. Reparative therapist Kenneth Zucker even wrote an article trying defuse the controversy and everything I thought about Baileys misconception about Greens studies was correct. I'm writing a blog that will be dedicated to David Reimer, I think you will like it.Good luck on the article. ] (]) 13:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:17, 12 June 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Man Who Would Be Queen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Man Who Would Be Queen. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Man Who Would Be Queen at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Reference ideas for The Man Who Would Be QueenThe following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Autogynephilia in Women.
Has anyone read Charles Moser's paper claiming that autogynephilia occurs in women? "To test the possibility that natal women also experience autogynephilia, an Autogynephilia Scale for Women (ASW) was created from items used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic in other studies. A questionnaire that included the ASW was distributed to a sample of 51 professional women employed at an urban hospital; 29 completed questionnaires were returned for analysis. By the common definition of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93% of the respondents would be classified as autogynephilic. "
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19591032
If this is true does this not completely discredit Blanchard and Bailey? 75.84.159.117 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- The unregistered user has also asked the same question at Talk:Feminine_essence_concept_of_transsexuality#Autogynephilia_in_Women.. Perhaps one location is sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps not. It concerns both articles and perhaps many more, but different aspects. Since you watch both so very closely you can oversee, making sure there is no duplication of discussion. Perhaps cross posting by link relevant to this books article. 75.84.159.117 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- The question was valid , if it is peer reviewed should it not be included in the controversy section on the book. The entire premise of this theory was that having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman was unique only to these MTF's. No study was ever done on women, men or FTM's to this point. 93% of the regular women being tested coming out autogynephilic is an amazing blow against the entire theory and needs to be included. This information is from 2011, why is it not included?76.93.64.21 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think the point stands as a counter point to the books conclusions. A new section should be created citing Moser's published article demonstrating the alleged" affliction occurs in women. Are there any disagreements with this ? 24.24.142.155 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The Man Who Would be Queen
The piece clearly violates the policy of a neutral point of view. It is strongly slanted in favor of Bailey and against his critics. The slant is obvious, which may make it less dangerous in encouraging the enemies of queers. But some readers are naive, and need the policy of neutrality to be enforced.
Deirdre McCloskey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.185.221 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Folks interested in the above comment would likely want to know of Dr. McCloskey's long-standing campaign against the book and filing of charges against its author.
- Excerpted from http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/12/when-liberals-attack-social-science.html:
- "Before the full weight of the controversy descended, The Man Who Would Be Queen had been nominated for the Lambda Literary Award’s 2004 prize in the transgender/genderqueer category for its textured, supportive portrayal of its transgender subjects. As a result of immense pressure — Deirdre McCloskey, a respected scholar of economics and history who wrote a memoir about her male-to-female transition, and who helped Conway and James go after Bailey, said nominating the book for the award “would be like nominating Mein Kampf for a literary prize in Jewish studies” — the organization voted to yank the nomination."
- "To get a flavor of the quality of the evidence amassed against Bailey by his critics, consider one charge: that Bailey had practiced psychology without a license. Conway, James, and McCloskey filed a formal complaint with the state of Illinois claiming that, since Bailey lacked a license as a clinical psychologist, he had violated state regulations by writing those letters in support of the young trans women seeking to transition. Not only was there no legal basis to the claim — if you don’t receive compensation for your services, which Bailey didn’t, you don’t even need a license to provide counseling in Illinois — but Bailey was completely forthright in his letters supporting the women, both about the fact that he had only had brief conversations with them (as opposed to having provided them with extensive counseling) and about his own qualifications and expertise — he even attached copies of his CV. “Presumably all this was why never bothered to pursue the charge,” writes Dreger, “although you’d never know that from reading the press accounts, which mentioned only the complaints, not that they had petered out.”"
- — James Cantor (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Readers please note that James Cantor is a completely bias source , a cohort of Dr Bailey and an advocate pushing Baileys ridiculous theories. This article is now completely compromised and worthless. Dr Bailey might as well have written it himself172.115.128.79 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I also want to add that Bailey's book is not considered as a "textured, supportive portrayal of its transgender subjects" by transgender people. For example, deconstruction's of the book's science and ideas have been put out by Contrapoints and iconic author Imogen Binnie - both of whom are trans, and could be considered as valid representatives of the community view Ninquelosse (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Deletion of SPLC report about J. Michael Baily and The Man Who Would Be Queen
This has happened a number of times now, and we all know why: association with HBD looks bad to some people. But that is not a good reason to delete well-sourced materials from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC is one of Misplaced Pages's perennial sources, and reports reliably for hate groups and anti-LGBT activities. The materials are directly relevant to the positive reviews cited in the article, because as the SPLC report notes, many of those reviews were done by members associated with HBD. Trying to constantly remove that link and delete it with silly claims about it being WP:COATRACK when the report is directly addressing the book that this article is about, is an abuse of the editing process. Hist9600 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that this report should go in the article: Dreger directly mentions it in her article about criticism of the book, so obviously it's relevant to the article and not a WP:COATRACK. Outside that context, I'd have some serious qualms about sourcing BLP material to a single source, even a reliable source, but since the important details have been confirmed by Bailey's side of the controversy that makes me lean much more on the side of including it. Loki (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily have an issue with the sentence
In December 2003, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported that many of the early supporters of Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, were members of the Human Biodiversity Institute
because it seems to me that it's at least kind of relevant. Contrary to Hist9600's edit summary here, I didn't remove that part. Nevertheless, I agree with Springee that the rest of the paragraph, at the very least, is WP:COATRACK. It's irrelevant and takes up circa 1/3 of the section about positive reactions. Antiok 1pie (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)- @Antiok 1pie I can see what you mean about the length of the paragraph before your edit, and unnecessary amount of detail. The shortened version better fits the article. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- My concern is largely two parts. The first is much of this section is sourced to the SPLC and we need to be careful how the views of an advocacy group are used. Second, this all appears largely undue. It's a combination of coatrack and simply not sufficiently associated with this article's subject to merit inclusion here. Starting with the SPLC part. The RSP entry notes that we need to be careful when deciding how much weight to give SPLC claims. Are their any 3rd party sources that mention the opinions/views of the SPLC here? If yes they I will retract most of my concerns. If something is going to be purely cited to the SPLC we really need to make sure it's either a generalized attributed claim or very clearly significant to the primary topic. In this case it's not a critique of the book, rather a critique of some people who liked the book based on, presumably, the contents of the book. That seems like a very weak justification for inclusion here. Again, it's not about the book but it does suggest some level of guilt by association. Once that basic link is made, as Antiok 1pie noted the rest of the paragraph diverts from talking about the book and starts talking about HBD. At that point it is a coatrack, especially since it starts listing names etc. I will also note, the section reads like it was meant to be in a different article. For example, why say, "...supporters of Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, were..." Isn't the subject of this article The Man Who Would Be Queen? Why mention it as if we were talking about several books and several authors? Citation #25 is an AOL link. The rest of this seems like way to much to leave to just the views of the SPLC. While two books are referenced, they seem to only be there to say what HBD is. The links between the Baily and HBD are sourced to SPLC and an AOL link. Given the claims that HBD is, "pseudoscientific race theories and neo-eugenics under the euphemism "human biodiversity"" this becomes a BLP issue and thus needs stronger sourcing. I don't think it's due but a revised version of the first sentence might be OK or will be if a third party source can be found. The rest is a HBD coatrack and should be included. Springee (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- The AOL citation is a primary source supporting the SPLC citation. It's not needed. The rest of your objection is basically saying we can't provide context for the book. If you think it's being given undue weight, there are other options than deleting the whole 'graph. The SPLC is a perennial source, you don't really have a leg to stand on as far as deleting all references to it. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't agree but the reduced paragraph is probably an acceptable compromise Springee (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
For example, why say, "...supporters of Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, were..."
- That's part of the point. According to the SPLC, many of the prominent positive reviews for the book were authored by people who were involved in the same HBD group as J. Michael Bailey. They were effectively helping to promote his book. The Misplaced Pages article uncritically quotes some of those positive reviewers. Giving some context is appropriate to point out their affiliation. The roster of HBDG members helps provide some details about that context, for interested readers. But it is not strictly necessary, since the statements are otherwise still well-sourced. Hist9600 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- The AOL citation is a primary source supporting the SPLC citation. It's not needed. The rest of your objection is basically saying we can't provide context for the book. If you think it's being given undue weight, there are other options than deleting the whole 'graph. The SPLC is a perennial source, you don't really have a leg to stand on as far as deleting all references to it. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Hist9600 @Antiok 1pie I restored to the version that's just one sentence about the SPLC. As it is now, I think it should be reworded and maybe given another sentence to explain what the HBI is, and why this is relevant. As it is now, readers can gain the context from clicking on the blue link to the HBI article. That can be improved, we just don't want too much overlap between this article and the HBI one.
- I also removed the weird long block quotes. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Block quotes from the book might be a good laugh tho. I won't object to that. The quotes pulled in the Seed magazine article are incredible stuff. /s Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help and attention in cleaning up the article, including some of the other parts. Hist9600 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- No objections. Good job on cleaning up the massive blockquotes too. Antiok 1pie (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Emphasis on Alice Dreger
There are two citations used a total of 11 times. One of the citations is to the "Archives of Sexual Behavior," which looks pretty plainly like a junk journal to me (editorial board full of people promoting a fringe theory). I don't think there will be consensus for removing the reference entirely. Still, I think this article is clearly relying too heavily on Dreger's defense of the work. Mentions should be trimmed, and better sources should be used where possible. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Archives of Sexual Behavior isn't junk, it actually has a quite good impact factor. Regarding the citation itself, most of the sentences where Dreger is cited seem to be uncontroversial and on the "Negative reactions" section. If you insist though, I guess we could cite her sources instead. Antiok 1pie (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed that Alice Dreger should not be used too much, to follow WP:DUE. In some cases it depends on what type of statement is being made. If the statements are uncontroversial statements of fact, that is one thing. But if we are heavily relying on Dreger to frame the narrative, that would represent undue weight. Hist9600 (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)