Misplaced Pages

The Man Who Would Be Queen: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:20, 22 May 2008 editMarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs)1,153 edits grammar← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:04, 27 September 2024 edit undoGreenC bot (talk | contribs)Bots2,548,518 edits Rescued 1 archive link. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#timesonline.co.uk 
(748 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|2003 book by J. Michael Bailey}}
'''''The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism''''' is a controversial 2003 book by ], published by ].<ref name="jhp">Bailey, J. Michael (2003). ''The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism''. Joesph Henry Press, ISBN 978-0309084185</ref> In it, Bailey reviews the evidence that male ] is congenital and a result of heredity and prenatal environment. He also reviews the evidence for the controversial idea that there are two forms of ], one that is an extreme type of homosexuality and one that is an expression of a ] known as ].
{{Infobox book| <!-- See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Novels or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Books -->
| name = The Man Who Would Be Queen
| image = TMWWBQjacket.jpg
| caption = Cover
| author = ]
| cover_artist =
| country = United States
| language = English
| series =
| subjects = {{plainlist|
* ]
* ]ism}}
| publisher = ] imprint of the ]
| pub_date = 2003
| media_type = Print (] and ebook PDF)
| pages = 256
| isbn = 978-0-309-08418-5
| dewey = 305.38/9664 21
| congress = HQ76.2.U5 B35 2003
| oclc = 51088011
| preceded_by =
| followed_by =
}}
'''''The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism''''' is a 2003 book by the American psychologist ], published by ].<ref name="jhp">Bailey, J. Michael (2003). ''The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism''. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press (National Academies Press). {{ISBN|978-0-309-08418-5}}</ref>


In the first section of the book, Bailey discusses gender-atypical behavior and ] in children, emphasizing the biological determination of ]. In the second section, he deals primarily with gay men, including the link between childhood gender dysphoria and male ] later in life. Bailey reviews evidence that male homosexuality is congenital (a result of genetics and ] environment), and he argues for the accuracy of some ]s.<ref name="Bailey76">Bailey (2003), p. 76.</ref> In the third section, Bailey summarizes evidence for the ] typology of ] that claims there are two forms of ] that affect transgender women: one as an extreme type of male homosexuality and one that is a sexual interest in having a female body, called ].
The book generated considerable controversy, as well as a formal investigation by ], where Bailey was Chair of the Psychology Department until shortly before the conclusion of the investigation. Bailey insists that he did nothing wrong and that the attacks on him were motivated by the desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about transsexualism, especially ].<ref name="McCarthyism">{{cite web | title = Academic McCarthyism | url=http://www.chron.org/tools/viewarticle.php?artid=1248 | accessdate = 2007-05-15 }}</ref>


The book caused considerable controversy, which led to complaints and a formal investigation by ], where Bailey was chair of the psychology department until shortly before the investigation concluded. Northwestern ultimately found no basis for the complaints,{{r|Dreger 2008}}<ref>Barlow, G. (December 17, 2003). "NU professor faces sexual allegations". ''Chicago Free Press.''</ref> and a university spokesperson said that his departure from the department chairmanship had nothing to do with the investigation.<ref>{{cite news |author=Davis, Andrew |url=http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=6810 |title=Northwestern Sex Researcher Investigated, Results Unknown |newspaper=Windy City Times |date=December 8, 2004 |quote=Bailey resigned as chairman of the university's psychology department in October, Alan K. Cubbage, a Northwestern spokesman, told the ''Chronicle.'' Cubbage added that the change had nothing to do with the investigation. Bailey remains a full professor at the university.}}</ref> According to Bailey, some of his critics were motivated by a desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about the autogynephilia theory of transgender women.<ref name="McCarthyism">{{cite web |author=J. Michael Bailey |title=Academic McCarthyism. For the first time in public, NU Prof. J. Michael Bailey answers allegations of ethical and sexual misconduct |url=http://www.chron.org/tools/viewarticle.php?artid=1248 |access-date=2008-07-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070807075502/http://www.chron.org/tools/viewarticle.php?artid=1248 |archive-date=2007-08-07}}, Northwestern Chronicle, 10-09-2005</ref>
Written in a popular science style, the book summarizes research done on the topic which supports Bailey's opinions. Free access to the online version of the book on the Joseph Henry Press site was available from 2003 but disabled in 2006.


==Summary== ==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 book is divided into three sections: ''The Boy Who Would Be Princess'', ''The Man He Might Become'', and ''Women Who Once Were Boys''.


The second section deals primarily with gay men, including a suggested link between childhood ] 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.
The book 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: "In spring of 1996 Leslie Ryan came to my Northwestern University office to seek yet another opinion."<ref name=Bailey16">{{cite web|url=16|title=The Man Who Would be Queen|last=Bailey|first=p|accessdate=2007-07-19}}</ref> Bailey discusses Kenneth Zucker's therapy for boys with gender identity "disorder". An NPR story on Zuckers "forced maleness" therapy.


In the third section, Bailey summarizes a taxonomy of trans women that was proposed by ] about fifteen years earlier. According to Blanchard, there are two types of trans women: one described as an "extreme form of male homosexuality", the other being motivated by ].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Blanchard |first1=R. |last2=Clemmensen |first2=L. J. |last3=Steiner |first3=B. W. |year=1987 |title=Heterosexual and homosexual gender dysphoria |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=139–152 |doi=10.1007/BF01542067 |pmid=3592961 |s2cid=43199925}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Blanchard |first1=R. |year=1989 |title=The concept of autogynephilia and the typology of male gender dysphoria |journal=Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease |volume=177 |issue=10 |pages=616–623 |doi=10.1097/00005053-198910000-00004 |pmid=2794988}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Blanchard |first1=R. |year=1989 |title=The classification and labelling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |volume=18 |issue=4 |pages=315–334 |doi=10.1007/BF01541951 |pmid=2673136 |s2cid=43151898}}</ref> Bailey also discusses the process by which transition from male to female occurs.
"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90247842"


==Reception==
"So, to treat Bradley, Zucker explained to Carol that she and her husband would have to radically change their parenting. Bradley would no longer be allowed to spend time with girls. He would no longer be allowed to play with girlish toys or pretend that he was a female character. Zucker said that all of these activities were dangerous to a kid with gender identity disorder. He explained that unless Carol and her husband helped the child to change his behavior, as Bradley grew older, he likely would be rejected by both peer groups. Boys would find his feminine interests unappealing. Girls would want more boyish boys. Bradley would be an outcast."
The book elicited both strongly supportive and strongly negative reactions. The controversial aspects included the contents of the book, whether the research was conducted ethically, whether it should have been published by the National Academies Press, and whether it should have been promoted as a scientific work. According to ]'s story in '']'', "To many of Dr. Bailey's peers, his story is a morality play about the corrosive effects of ] on ]."<ref name="carey2007" /> Interviewed by Carey, bioethicist ] argues that "what happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field. If we're going to have research at all, then we're going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we've got problems not only for science but free expression itself."<ref name="carey2007" />


However, critics such as ] think that the pointed criticism, including filing charges, was warranted: "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".<ref name="carey2007" /> The concern over academic freedom was dismissed by ], who wrote: "The death of free speech and academic freedom has been highly exaggerated. Science is not free of politics, never has been, and never will be."<ref name="Moser">{{cite journal |author=Charles Moser |title=A Different Perspective |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |volume=37 |issue=3 |date=June 2008 |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9331-3 |pmid=18431627 |pages=472–475 |s2cid=9182715}}</ref>
"The mistake the other side makes, Zucker argues, is that it views gender identity disorder primarily as a product of biology. This, Zucker says, is, "astonishingly naive and simplistic."


===Positive reactions===
gender specialist — Diane Ehrensaft, a psychologist in Oakland in rebuttal to Ken Zuckers approach :
'']'' concluded: "Despite its provocative title, a scientific yet superbly compassionate exposition."<ref name="napsales"> via ]. Retrieved 6 September 2008.</ref> The book received praise from sexual behavior scientist ],<ref name="napsales"/> from sex-differences expert ],<ref name="Dreger 2008">{{cite journal |last=Dreger |first=Alice D. |title=The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=366–421 |date=June 2008 |pmid=18431641 |doi=10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1 |pmc=3170124}}</ref> and from research psychologist ], who wrote: "The Man Who Would Be Queen may upset the guardians of political correctness on both the left and the right, but it will be welcomed by intellectually curious people of all sexes and sexual orientations."<ref>{{cite book |url=http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10530 |title=The Man Who Would Be Queen: Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism |publisher=The National Academies Press |work=Catalog |access-date=2009-02-21 |isbn=9780309505543 |date=2003-04-02 |doi=10.17226/10530}}</ref><ref name="pinker2003">Pinker, Steven (June 28, 2003). '']''</ref> It also received praise from '']'' magazine's ]<ref name="seligman2003">Seligman, Dan (October 13, 2003). '']''</ref> and from Mark Henderson at '']''.<ref name="henderson2003">Henderson, Mark (December 6, 2003). '']''</ref> Conservative commentator ] said: "a wealth of fascinating information, carefully gathered by (it seems to me) a conscientious and trustworthy scientific observer."<ref name="derbyshire2003">Derbyshire, John (June 30, 2003). '']''</ref> It also received a positive review from writer Ethan Boatner<ref name="napsales"/> of '']'' magazine and Duncan Osborne in '']''.<ref name="osborne2003">Osborne, Duncan (March 2003). 'The Man Who Would Be Queen' (review). '']'', March 2003, Vol. 11 Issue 9, pp. 54–54.</ref> Research psychologist ] also wrote a positive review of the book in the newsletter of ]'s Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues (Division 44).<ref>Cantor, James M. (2003) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727071045/http://www.apadivision44.org/publications/newsletters/2003summer.pdf |date=2011-07-27 }}", APA Division 44 Newsletter 19(2): 6.</ref> ], Northwestern University professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics, also praised the book, stating that "plenty of gay and transgender people" who had read the book, saw it as accurate and "wonderfully supportive of LGBT people".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Dreger |first=Alice Domurat |url=http://archive.org/details/galileosmiddlefi0000dreg_r3w2 |title=Galileo's middle finger : heretics, activists, and the search for justice in science |date=2015 |publisher=Penguin Press |isbn=978-1-59420-608-5 |location=New York |pages=86}}</ref>


In December 2003, the ] (SPLC) reported that many of the early supporters of Bailey's book, including Ray Blanchard, were members of the ].<ref name="splc_20031231">{{Cite web |url=https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/northwestern-university-psychology-professor-j-michael-bailey-looks-queer-science |title=Northwestern University Psychology Professor J. Michael Bailey Looks into Queer Science |website=Southern Poverty Law Center |last1=Beirich |first1=Heidi |last2=Moser |first2=Bob |date=31 December 2003 |access-date=15 October 2022}}</ref>
"To me, this is coercive therapy," Ehrensaft says. "And I don't think we should be in the business of coercing people. ... I would say all the kids I've worked with who have gone through that kind of treatment, they have not come out better; they've come out worse. For Ehrensaft, the lessons of the early therapeutic approaches to homosexuality — therapies that sought to "cure" the patient of homosexual desires — are clear."


===Negative reactions===
The public response of members of the transgender community was almost entirely negative.<ref name="Dreger 2008" /> Among other things, they opposed the book's endorsement of ],<ref name="klein2004">Klein, Julie M. (May 2004). ''Seed Magazine'', May/June 2004</ref> and its publication by the ], by whom it was "advertised as science"<ref name="krasny2007">Krasny, Michael (August 22, 2007). Forum with Michael Krasny, ]</ref> and marketed as "scientifically accurate,"<ref name="roughgarden2003"/> which they argued was untrue. They also claimed the book exploited children with ].<ref name="carey2007">Carey, Benedict (August 21, 2007). . ''The New York Times''. Retrieved September 19, 2007.</ref> Among those criticizing the book were computer scientist ],<ref name="marcus2003">Marcus, Jon (August 1, 2003). Transsexuals Protest. '']'', p. 13</ref> biologists ]<ref name="roughgarden2003">Roughgarden, Joan (June 4, 2004). . ''Times Higher Education''. No. 1643, p.&nbsp;20.</ref> and ],<ref name="holden2003">Holden, Constance (July 18, 2003). , ] mirrored at </ref> physician ],<ref name="wct2003">Staff report (June 25, 2003). ''Windy City Times''</ref> economist ],<ref name="mccloskey2003">McCloskey, Deirdre (November 2003). '']'', November 2003</ref> psychologist Madeline Wyndzen, writers ],<ref name="denny2004">Denny, Dallas (December 13, 2004). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080720161411/http://www.ifge.org/Article244.phtml |date=2008-07-20 }} ''Transgender Tapestry'' #104, Winter 2004</ref> ],<ref name="park2003">Park, Pauline (May 30, 2003). ''Gay City News''</ref> ],<ref name="green2003">Green J (2003). '']''</ref> and ],<ref name="surkan2007">Surkan, K (2007). Transsexuals Protest Academic Exploitation. In Lillian Faderman, Yolanda Retter, Horacio Roque Ramírez, eds. ''Great Events From History: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Events, 1848–2006.'' pages 111–114. Salem Press {{ISBN|978-1-58765-263-9}}</ref> as well as ] of ], and Executive Director Monica Casper of the ].<ref name="tapestry2004">The Ups and Downs of J. Michael Bailey. ''Transgender Tapestry'' #104, Winter 2004, pp. 53–54.</ref> 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.<ref name="carey2007"/>


Negative responses also came from outside the transgender community. Liza Mundy of '']'' thought the book was exceptionally dull despite the potentially interesting topic.<ref name="mundy2003">Mundy, Liza (March 23, 2003). Codes of Behavior. '']''</ref> Sexologist ] referred to the book as "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers,".<ref name="Dreger 2008"/> Eli Coleman was then President of the ] (]).<ref name="Dreger 2008"/> In response to the criticism, Ray Blanchard resigned from his position at HBIGDA on November 4, 2003.<ref name="Dreger 2008"/>
Bailey uses the anecdote about Danny to discuss young boys considered to have a psychological condition referred to as ] (GID). This term is used to describe patients who exhibit a large amount of salient ]-atypical behavior such as ], boys preferring to play with dolls, identification with female characters in stories or movies. This section 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 a desire to identify as a male.


Eli Coleman's colleague, Walter Bockting, wrote that it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community."<ref name="bockting2005">{{cite journal |last1=Bockting |first1=Walter O. |year=2005 |title=Biological reductionism meets gender diversity in human sexuality. |doi=10.1080/00224490509552281 |journal=Journal of Sex Research |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=267–270 |s2cid=216088335}}</ref> ] Director ] said the book promoted a derogatory explanation of transgender identity that would hurt many vulnerable transgender people, and that the book, which was written in a ] style, did not support the material in a scientific manner.<ref name="Dreger 2008"/> Psychologist Randi Ettner said of Bailey, "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned."<ref name="klein2004" />


''The Man Who Would Be Queen'' was originally one of the finalists for the ] for the "transgender" category.<ref name="letellier_20040316">{{cite web |url=http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2004/03/16/3 |title=Group rescinds honor for disputed book |first=Patrick |last=Letellier |date=16 March 2004 |work=Gay.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080505120340/http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2004%2F03%2F16%2F3 |archive-date=5 May 2008 |access-date=26 October 2022 |url-status=dead}}</ref> However, after judicial review, the book was determined to be "]" and "not appropriate for the category", so it was removed from consideration.<ref name="letellier_20040316"/><ref>{{cite web |title=Letter to ''New York Times'', Sept 20, 2007 |url=http://www.lambdaliterary.org/archives/archives.html |publisher=Lambda Literary Foundation |work=Press Room |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080517091559/http://lambdaliterary.org/archives/archives.html |date=20 September 2007|archive-date=17 May 2008 |access-date=26 October 2022 }}</ref>
The second section deals primarily with homosexual men, including a suggested link between childhood GID and male homosexuality later in life. . In particular, he discusses whether homosexuality is a congenitally or possibly even genetically related phenomenon. This includes references to his studies as well as those of Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer. He also discusses the behavior of gay men and its typically masculine and feminine qualities.


===Allegations of malpractice===


Two of the trans women in Bailey's book have accused him of ethical breaches in his work by talking to them about their life stories without obtaining formal written consent.<ref>Wilson, Robin. "Transsexual 'Subjects' Complain About Professor's Research Methods." ''The Chronicle of Higher Education'' 25 July 2003, Vol. 49, Issue 46. ''"The book contains numerous observations and reports of interviews with me", C. Anjelica Kieltyka, one of the transsexual women, wrote in a letter this month to C. Bradley Moore, Northwestern's vice president for research. She added: "I did not receive, nor was I asked to sign, an informed-consent document."''</ref> Alice Dreger alleged that the women were aware that Bailey was writing a book about trans women at the time of the interviews; some of them read the drafts of the book before publication,<ref name="Dreger 2008" /> and several said they felt their stories had been told "accurately and sympathetically."<ref name="nymag.com"/> Bailey has denied that it is unethical for a university professor to talk to people in the same manner that ]s do, or to write books with the resulting anecdotes. He also stated that the book was "popular and not 'scientific'" so it was not required to follow ] rules.<ref name="McCarthyism" />
In the third section Bailey uses a psychological model created by ] that male to female transsexuals fall into two categories, according to their motivations for ]. He also discusses the process by which this transition occurs. When Bailey runs into Danny in the end of the book, Danny has become less feminized. The last paragraph of the book has Danny emphasizing that he needs to go use the ''men's'' room. Critics have suggested parallels with "gay cure" narratives, as well as parallels with the success reported by John Money in "treating" David Reimer (later proven to be academic fraud).


According to Dreger, whether federal regulations required professors to obtain formal approval from a university IRB before interviewing people was uncertain at the time;<ref name="Dreger 2008" /> she points out that shortly after publication of the book, the US Department of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the ] and ], issued a formal statement that taking ], conducting interviews, collecting anecdotes, and similar activities do not constitute IRB-qualified research, and were never intended to be covered by clinical research rules, when such work is "neither systematic nor generalizable in the scientific sense."<ref name="Dreger 2008" /><ref name="OralHistory">{{Cite book |last1=Ritchie |first1=Don |last2=Shopes |first2=Linda |year=2003 |title=Oral History Excluded from IRB Review: Application of the Department of Health and Human Services Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects at 45 CFR Part 46, Subpart A to Oral History Interviewing |publisher=] |url=http://alpha.dickinson.edu/oha/org_irb.html |access-date=31 December 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080117043701/http://alpha.dickinson.edu/oha/org_irb.html |archive-date=17 January 2008}}. See also {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080115224655/http://alpha.dickinson.edu/oha/org_irbupdate.html |date=2008-01-15 }}</ref>
==Controversy==


Also cited as harassment of Bailey were legal complaints that Bailey was ]. The basis for these complaints was that ] in the US requires authorization letters from two psychologists, and Bailey had written a second letter, at no charge and upon request, for some individuals Bailey had spoken with while writing the book. American bioethicist ] notes that there was no legal basis for this claim, as Bailey received no compensation for his services, and was forthright in his letters about his qualifications, even attaching copies of his C.V.: "Presumably all this was why never bothered to pursue the charge, although you'd never know that from reading the press accounts, which mentioned only the complaints, not that they had petered out."<ref name="nymag.com"/> State regulators took no action on these complaints.<ref name="carey2007" />
{{seealso|Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory}}


In her book '']'' (2015), bioethicist ] accused Bailey's critics of attempting to make it look as though virtually every trans woman represented in Bailey's book "had felt abused by him and had filed a charge".<ref name="nymag.com">{{Cite news |last=Singal |first=Jesse |title=Why Some of the Worst Attacks on Social Science Have Come From Liberals |url=http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/12/when-liberals-attack-social-science.html |work=New York |date=30 December 2015 |access-date=1 January 2016}}</ref> One of Bailey's critics, transgender academic ], argued that the critics' actions had not overstepped the boundaries of fair comment about what she saw as an "unscientific" opinion.<ref name="carey2007" />
Largely because of a single chapter<ref></ref> in its third section, the book and its author have been surrounded by a great deal of controversy. The major point of contention is ], which is presented favorably. This theory categorizes transsexuals into one of two types labeled "] transsexuals" and "]s." The basic idea is that these two subtypes of transwomen transition to female for different reasons, both driven by sex:
* because they are attracted to the image of their own feminized body (autogynephiles), or
* because they are homosexual and attracted to heterosexual men (homosexual transsexuals).


== See also ==

* ]
Bailey's critics generally claim that his book presents his speculations, anecdotes, and opinions as ]. Bailey asserts that they are "misunderstanding" the book.
* '']''

His prominent critics and defenders both include peers in ]. Bailey's response was a lecture at the 2003 ] titled "Identity politics as a hindrance to scientific truth."<ref>{{cite web | last = Bailey | first =J. Michael | authorlink = J. Michael Bailey | title = Identity Politics as a Hindrance to Scientific Truth | publisher = Int. Acad. Sex Research | date = 2003 | url = http://www.iasr.org/meeting/2003/abstracts2003.pdf | format = pdf | accessdate = 2007-03-16}}</ref> Immediately after Bailey's presentation, ], then head of the ], told Bailey: "Michael, I would caution you against calling this book 'science' because I have read it&nbsp;... and I can tell you it is not science."<ref>{{cite web | title = At the IASR Conference at the Kinsey Institute | publisher = Lynn Conway | date = 2003-07-19 | url = http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/IASRmessage.html#anchor515114 | accessdate = 2007-03-16}}</ref> ], head of the ] has described the book as "bad science" and an "unfortunate setback" of his own theories on transsexualism. Clinician Walter Bockting noted that "the book fails to offer a balanced and well-cited review of the scientific literature," although this omission is common in books intended for a non-technical audience (Bockting 2005). On the book's jacket, Anne Lawrence, in contrast, praised the book as "wonderful," and Simon LeVay called it "absolutely splendid."

Some GLBT rights groups have spoken out about Bailey's claims in various publications, including the ] (GLAAD), the ], ], as well as three prominent ]:
* renowned ] ],
* ], to whom Bailey refers in his book by the pseudonym Cher, and
* writer and ] ]. James' website includes numerous pages attacking Bailey, his family, his friends, and his professional associates. One of these pages -- now removed -- published pictures of Bailey's young children and labeled with extremely worded text James claimed to be in the style of Baileys book. <ref>{{cite web | last = Bailey | first = J. Michael | title = Andrea James took pictures of my children off of my website | url=http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/Andrea%20James.pdf | format = pdf | accessdate = 2007-03-07}}</ref> The text above the pictures reads " Lets replace women in my community with a couple of random photo's and see if Baileys words and theories seem as academic ."

James wrote in her defense on her website, "It focuses on some deliberately offensive satire I wrote in 2003 about how Bailey tends to reduce sexuality to pseudoscientific binaries. Bailey had no problems with mocking gender-variant children in his lectures (Roughgarden 2003), so I responded in kind. Today, the only place that satire is available is on Bailey’s website."

Sourced from http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/alice-dreger/hermaphrodite-monger.html


Some transgendered people believe that the behavioral model is not only inaccurate, but a reflection of anti-trans attitudes and a form of defamation.


Originally, the ] nominated the book as a finalist in the ] award category for 2003. Transpeople immediately protested the nomination and gathered thousands of petition signatures in just a few days. Under pressure from the petition, LLF's judges examined the book more closely, decided that they considered it ], and removed it from their list of finalists.<ref>{{cite web | last = Letellier | first = Patrick | title = Group rescinds honor for disputed book | publisher = gay.com | date = 2004-03-16 | url = http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2004/03/16/3 | accessdate = 2007-03-16}}</ref>

Many of Bailey's critics attack not only his book, but his professional ethics. Two of the transwomen in his book and several organizations still accuse him of several ethical breaches in his work. Charges of having sex with a research subject and not telling them they were research subjects. Bailey has adamantly denied that he behaved unethically.<ref name="McCarthyism">{{cite web | title = Academic McCarthyism | url=http://www.chron.org/tools/viewarticle.php?artid=1248 | accessdate = 2007-05-15 }}</ref> A top-level investigation at Northwestern University, begun at the instigation of his critics. In November 2003, NU officials announced a formal internal investigation would be conducted into the complaints. The NU investigation committee hearings finally began in March of 2004, and concluded in late June of 2004. Many months later we began to get glimpses into the emerging impact of the investigation within Northwestern, when on November 22, 2004 several of the complainants were mailed form letters informing them that:

source :http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/The%20Daily%20Northwestern%2011-18-03.html
"I have now received the formal report of the committee charged to investigate the matter; and I have taken action that I believe is appropriate in this situation."
- Lawrence B. Dumas, Provost, Northwestern University
source :http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/The%20Daily%20Northwestern%2011-18-03.html

December 1, 2004, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Mr. Bailey had resigned as Chairman of the Psychology Department in October 2004. The findings of the investigation were totally confidential and despite Bailey's claims of exoneration no such exoneration has been verified as the proceedings were in secret and not released to the public.
As part of this controversy, a male-to-female transsexual person who was interviewed for his book accused Bailey of having sex with her while she was his research subject. She has refused to offer details or discuss the accusation, which Bailey has denied.<ref> ], 19 December 2003</ref>

It was also suggested that Dr. Bailey violated scientific standards by, "conducting intimate research observations on human subjects without telling them that they were objects of the study." Bailey countered by stating that, "I interviewed people for a book This is a free society, and that should be allowed."

The accusations printed in The Chronicles of Higher Education:

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Chronicle-7-17-03.html


Following an appearance by Bailey on ] '']'',<ref name="stahl">Stahl, Lesley (March 12, 2006). The Science of Sexual Orientation. '']''</ref> '']'' published an ] that asserted, "Bailey’s insistence on his authority in defining what does and doesn’t qualify as gay and his dedication to discovering a 'cause' for gayness is only temperamentally different from those who insist on finding a 'cure.'"<ref name="ehrenstein">Ehrenstein, David (April 6, 2006). . '']''</ref>

In 2006, the ''Chicago Free Press'' (a GLBT free weekly) announced it would no longer accept ads for studies conducted by Bailey. In an editorial entitled "Bad Science," the newspaper said would not allow itself to be used "to further the dubious agenda of someone who believes he should not be held accountable to our community."<ref name="badscience">Staff editorial (August 9, 2006). "Bad Science." ''Chicago Free Press''</ref>The ''Free Press'' editor told '']'' that an e-mail blast to a listserv from Bailey himself was the source of most letters protesting the decision.<ref name="fitzgerald">Fitzgerald, Mark (August 15, 2006). Chicago Gay Paper Nixes Ad From Controversial Sex Researcher.</ref> Journalist Jim D'Entremont countered that "Bailey's critics follow the familiar patterns of ideologues seeking to discredit scientists whose findings they deem politically wrong."<ref name'dentremont">D'Entremont, Jim (October 2006). ''The Guide''</ref>


Dreger's critics counter that Dreger's defense of Bailey is more than merely defending the academia's right to publish bad "science" , it is about about the right to publish bad science without any regard for the people that misinformation hurts. While no one will dispute the right to discuss scientific theory but " The Man Who Would Be Queen" even Bailey admitted wasn't "hard science".

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Reviews/Psychology%20Perverted%20-%20by%20Joan%20Roughgarden.htm

Transcript of KQED Forum program
http://www.alicedreger.com/kqed_forum_transcript.html

Krasny: " But Ms. Conway did write to us, and I think one of the big arguments seems to be calling this science. You said that it was a book in which you interviewed people for a book, as opposed to it being taken seriously as perhaps science or research, or nothing other than a social or soft science, so let’s maybe distinguish that if we could."

Bailey: I wrote what is commonly understood to be a popular science book in which I reviewed serious academic work by myself and other scholars.

==Concerns about academic and intellectual freedom==

The controversy surrounding Bailey's book has been cited as an alarming example of infringement of ] and ] and ]by Northwestern University ethicist Alice Dreger . Charges that Bailey acted "unethically, immorally, and illegally" were investigated by Dreger, who alleges the accusations were unfounded.<ref name=dreger />"What happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field,” said Dreger. "If we’re going to have research at all, then we’re going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we’ve got problems not only for science but free expression itself "<ref name=carrey>"Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege," by Benedict Carrey. '']'', August 21, 2007 </ref> Bailey called the two years following its publication as "the hardest of my life."<ref name=carrey />

Critics of both Dreger and Bailey like Joan Roughgarden counter that Bailey's misrepresentation of his book with advertisements that read on National Academies’ letterhead, ``Gay, Straight, or Lying? Science Has the Answer", and conclusions promised that ``may not always be politically correct, but… are scientifically accurate, thoroughly researched and occasionally startling." are responsible for his troubles. Pulled from an incredibly limited sampling of transsexuals (6), all from the same "cruising bar " , with no data base, notes or any real research beyond Baileys memories . Academic freedom is balanced by responsibility to produce verifiable , reproducible facts .

"The outrage of transgendered people against Bailey coincides with that of other scholars against psychologists who write about gender while pretending to be scientific." -Joan Roughgarden

Source: The Bailey Affair: Psychology Perverted By Joan Roughgarden , Department of Biological Sciences Stanford University February 11, 2004

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Reviews/Psychology%20Perverted%20-%20by%20Joan%20Roughgarden.htm


==References== ==References==
{{reflist}}
<small>{{Reflist}}</small>


==External links== ==External links==
* Chapter 9 of the book in HTML (about autogynephilia)

* The full book, for purchase or free PDF download
* by author J. Michael Bailey
* via ] * by author J. Michael Bailey
* via Transsexual Road Map
* - S. Alejandra Velasquez
* by Madeline H. Wyndzen * by Madeline H. Wyndzen
*


] {{DEFAULTSORT:Man Who Would Be Queen}}
] ]
] ]
]
] ]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 04:04, 27 September 2024

2003 book by J. Michael Bailey
The Man Who Would Be Queen
Cover
AuthorJ. Michael Bailey
LanguageEnglish
Subjects
PublisherJoseph Henry Press imprint of the National Academies Press
Publication date2003
Publication placeUnited States
Media typePrint (hardcover and ebook PDF)
Pages256
ISBN978-0-309-08418-5
OCLC51088011
Dewey Decimal305.38/9664 21
LC ClassHQ76.2.U5 B35 2003

The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism is a 2003 book by the American psychologist J. Michael Bailey, published by Joseph Henry Press.

In the first section of the book, Bailey discusses gender-atypical behavior and gender dysphoria in children, emphasizing the biological determination of gender. In the second section, he deals primarily with gay men, including the link between childhood gender dysphoria and male homosexuality later in life. Bailey reviews evidence that male homosexuality is congenital (a result of genetics and prenatal environment), and he argues for the accuracy of some gay stereotypes. In the third section, Bailey summarizes evidence for the Blanchard typology of trans women that claims there are two forms of transsexualism that affect transgender women: one as an extreme type of male homosexuality and one that is a sexual interest in having a female body, called autogynephilia.

The book caused considerable controversy, which led to complaints and a formal investigation by Northwestern University, where Bailey was chair of the psychology department until shortly before the investigation concluded. Northwestern ultimately found no basis for the complaints, and a university spokesperson said that his departure from the department chairmanship had nothing to do with the investigation. According to Bailey, some of his critics were motivated by a desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about the autogynephilia theory of transgender women.

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. Bailey discusses psychologist and sexologist Kenneth Zucker's work with children whose parents have noticed significant gender-atypical behaviors. Bailey uses the anecdote about Danny to describe gender identity disorder, a label applied to males with significant feminine behaviors and females with significant masculine behaviors, such as cross-dressing. 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 toy cars and identify with male characters. This section of the book also discusses some case studies of men who were, for varying reasons, reassigned 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 gender identity disorder 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 Simon LeVay and geneticist Dean Hamer. He also discusses the behavior of gay men and its stereotypically masculine and feminine qualities.

In the third section, Bailey summarizes a taxonomy of trans women that was proposed by Ray Blanchard about fifteen years earlier. According to Blanchard, there are two types of trans women: one described as an "extreme form of male homosexuality", the other being motivated by a sexual interest in having a female body. Bailey also discusses the process by which transition from male to female occurs.

Reception

The book elicited both strongly supportive and strongly negative reactions. The controversial aspects included the contents of the book, whether the research was conducted ethically, whether it should have been published by the National Academies Press, and whether it should have been promoted as a scientific work. According to Benedict Carey's story in The New York Times, "To many of Dr. Bailey's peers, his story is a morality play about the corrosive effects of political correctness on academic freedom." Interviewed by Carey, bioethicist Alice Dreger argues that "what happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field. If we're going to have research at all, then we're going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we've got problems not only for science but free expression itself."

However, critics such as Deirdre McCloskey think that the pointed criticism, including filing charges, was warranted: "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". The concern over academic freedom was dismissed by Charles Allen Moser, who wrote: "The death of free speech and academic freedom has been highly exaggerated. Science is not free of politics, never has been, and never will be."

Positive reactions

Kirkus Reviews concluded: "Despite its provocative title, a scientific yet superbly compassionate exposition." The book received praise from sexual behavior scientist Simon LeVay, from sex-differences expert David Buss, and from research psychologist Steven Pinker, who wrote: "The Man Who Would Be Queen may upset the guardians of political correctness on both the left and the right, but it will be welcomed by intellectually curious people of all sexes and sexual orientations." It also received praise from Forbes magazine's Daniel Seligman and from Mark Henderson at The Times. Conservative commentator John Derbyshire said: "a wealth of fascinating information, carefully gathered by (it seems to me) a conscientious and trustworthy scientific observer." It also received a positive review from writer Ethan Boatner of Lavender magazine and Duncan Osborne in Out. Research psychologist James Cantor also wrote a positive review of the book in the newsletter of APA's Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues (Division 44). Alice Dreger, Northwestern University professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics, also praised the book, stating that "plenty of gay and transgender people" who had read the book, saw it as accurate and "wonderfully supportive of LGBT people".

In December 2003, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported that many of the early supporters of Bailey's book, including Ray Blanchard, were members of the Human Biodiversity Institute.

Negative reactions

The public response of members of the transgender community was almost entirely negative. Among other things, they opposed the book's endorsement of Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism, and its publication by the National Academies Press, by whom it was "advertised as science" and marketed as "scientifically accurate," which they argued was untrue. They also claimed the book exploited children with gender dysphoria. Among those criticizing the book were computer scientist Lynn Conway, biologists Joan Roughgarden and Ben Barres, physician Rebecca Allison, economist Deirdre McCloskey, psychologist Madeline Wyndzen, writers Dallas Denny, Pauline Park, Jamison Green, and Andrea James, as well as Christine Burns of Press for Change, and Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America. 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.

Negative responses also came from outside the transgender community. Liza Mundy of The Washington Post thought the book was exceptionally dull despite the potentially interesting topic. Sexologist Eli Coleman referred to the book as "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers,". Eli Coleman was then President of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (World Professional Association for Transgender Health). In response to the criticism, Ray Blanchard resigned from his position at HBIGDA on November 4, 2003.

Eli Coleman's colleague, Walter Bockting, wrote that it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community." Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft said the book promoted a derogatory explanation of transgender identity that would hurt many vulnerable transgender people, and that the book, which was written in a popular science style, did not support the material in a scientific manner. Psychologist Randi Ettner said of Bailey, "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned."

The Man Who Would Be Queen was originally one of the finalists for the Lambda Literary Award for the "transgender" category. However, after judicial review, the book was determined to be "transphobic" and "not appropriate for the category", so it was removed from consideration.

Allegations of malpractice

Two of the trans women in Bailey's book have accused him of ethical breaches in his work by talking to them about their life stories without obtaining formal written consent. Alice Dreger alleged that the women were aware that Bailey was writing a book about trans women at the time of the interviews; some of them read the drafts of the book before publication, and several said they felt their stories had been told "accurately and sympathetically." Bailey has denied that it is unethical for a university professor to talk to people in the same manner that journalists do, or to write books with the resulting anecdotes. He also stated that the book was "popular and not 'scientific'" so it was not required to follow IRB rules.

According to Dreger, whether federal regulations required professors to obtain formal approval from a university IRB before interviewing people was uncertain at the time; she points out that shortly after publication of the book, the US Department of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the Oral History Association and American Historical Association, issued a formal statement that taking oral histories, conducting interviews, collecting anecdotes, and similar activities do not constitute IRB-qualified research, and were never intended to be covered by clinical research rules, when such work is "neither systematic nor generalizable in the scientific sense."

Also cited as harassment of Bailey were legal complaints that Bailey was practicing psychology without a license. The basis for these complaints was that sex-reassignment surgery in the US requires authorization letters from two psychologists, and Bailey had written a second letter, at no charge and upon request, for some individuals Bailey had spoken with while writing the book. American bioethicist Alice Dreger notes that there was no legal basis for this claim, as Bailey received no compensation for his services, and was forthright in his letters about his qualifications, even attaching copies of his C.V.: "Presumably all this was why never bothered to pursue the charge, although you'd never know that from reading the press accounts, which mentioned only the complaints, not that they had petered out." State regulators took no action on these complaints.

In her book Galileo's Middle Finger (2015), bioethicist Alice Dreger accused Bailey's critics of attempting to make it look as though virtually every trans woman represented in Bailey's book "had felt abused by him and had filed a charge". One of Bailey's critics, transgender academic Deirdre McCloskey, argued that the critics' actions had not overstepped the boundaries of fair comment about what she saw as an "unscientific" opinion.

See also

References

  1. Bailey, J. Michael (2003). The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press (National Academies Press). ISBN 978-0-309-08418-5
  2. Bailey (2003), p. 76.
  3. ^ Dreger, Alice D. (June 2008). "The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 37 (3): 366–421. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1. PMC 3170124. PMID 18431641.
  4. Barlow, G. (December 17, 2003). "NU professor faces sexual allegations". Chicago Free Press.
  5. Davis, Andrew (December 8, 2004). "Northwestern Sex Researcher Investigated, Results Unknown". Windy City Times. Bailey resigned as chairman of the university's psychology department in October, Alan K. Cubbage, a Northwestern spokesman, told the Chronicle. Cubbage added that the change had nothing to do with the investigation. Bailey remains a full professor at the university.
  6. ^ J. Michael Bailey. "Academic McCarthyism. For the first time in public, NU Prof. J. Michael Bailey answers allegations of ethical and sexual misconduct". Archived from the original on 2007-08-07. Retrieved 2008-07-27., Northwestern Chronicle, 10-09-2005
  7. Bailey (2003), p. 16.
  8. Blanchard, R.; Clemmensen, L. J.; Steiner, B. W. (1987). "Heterosexual and homosexual gender dysphoria". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 16 (2): 139–152. doi:10.1007/BF01542067. PMID 3592961. S2CID 43199925.
  9. Blanchard, R. (1989). "The concept of autogynephilia and the typology of male gender dysphoria". Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease. 177 (10): 616–623. doi:10.1097/00005053-198910000-00004. PMID 2794988.
  10. Blanchard, R. (1989). "The classification and labelling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 18 (4): 315–334. doi:10.1007/BF01541951. PMID 2673136. S2CID 43151898.
  11. ^ Carey, Benedict (August 21, 2007). "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege". The New York Times. Retrieved September 19, 2007.
  12. Charles Moser (June 2008). "A Different Perspective". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 37 (3): 472–475. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9331-3. PMID 18431627. S2CID 9182715.
  13. ^ The Man Who Would Be Queen via National Academies Press. Retrieved 6 September 2008.
  14. The Man Who Would Be Queen: Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. The National Academies Press. 2003-04-02. doi:10.17226/10530. ISBN 9780309505543. Retrieved 2009-02-21. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  15. Pinker, Steven (June 28, 2003). Pages for pleasure. The Guardian
  16. Seligman, Dan (October 13, 2003). Transsexuals And the Law. Forbes
  17. Henderson, Mark (December 6, 2003). Who's got the brains in this relationship? The Times
  18. Derbyshire, John (June 30, 2003). Lost in the Male. National Review
  19. Osborne, Duncan (March 2003). 'The Man Who Would Be Queen' (review). Out, March 2003, Vol. 11 Issue 9, pp. 54–54.
  20. Cantor, James M. (2003) BOOK REVIEW: "The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey, The National Academies Press, 2003. Archived 2011-07-27 at the Wayback Machine", APA Division 44 Newsletter 19(2): 6.
  21. Dreger, Alice Domurat (2015). Galileo's middle finger : heretics, activists, and the search for justice in science. New York: Penguin Press. p. 86. ISBN 978-1-59420-608-5.
  22. Beirich, Heidi; Moser, Bob (31 December 2003). "Northwestern University Psychology Professor J. Michael Bailey Looks into Queer Science". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 15 October 2022.
  23. ^ Klein, Julie M. (May 2004). Ethical minefields: The sex that would be science. Seed Magazine, May/June 2004
  24. Krasny, Michael (August 22, 2007). Transgender Theories. Forum with Michael Krasny, KQED
  25. ^ Roughgarden, Joan (June 4, 2004). "Twist In The Tale Of Two Genders". Times Higher Education. No. 1643, p. 20.
  26. Marcus, Jon (August 1, 2003). Transsexuals Protest. Times Higher Education, p. 13
  27. Holden, Constance (July 18, 2003). Transsexuality Treatise Triggers Furor., Science/AAAS) mirrored at
  28. Staff report (June 25, 2003). Trans Group Attacks New Book on 'Queens.' Windy City Times
  29. McCloskey, Deirdre (November 2003). Queer Science: A data-bending psychologist confirms what he already knew about gays and transsexuals. Reason, November 2003
  30. Denny, Dallas (December 13, 2004). Viewpoint: Why the Bailey Controversy Is Important. Archived 2008-07-20 at the Wayback Machine Transgender Tapestry #104, Winter 2004
  31. Park, Pauline (May 30, 2003). Sympathy, But Finding Pathology. Gay City News
  32. Green J (2003). Bailey's wick. PlanetOut
  33. Surkan, K (2007). Transsexuals Protest Academic Exploitation. In Lillian Faderman, Yolanda Retter, Horacio Roque Ramírez, eds. Great Events From History: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Events, 1848–2006. pages 111–114. Salem Press ISBN 978-1-58765-263-9
  34. The Ups and Downs of J. Michael Bailey. Transgender Tapestry #104, Winter 2004, pp. 53–54.
  35. Mundy, Liza (March 23, 2003). Codes of Behavior. Washington Post
  36. Bockting, Walter O. (2005). "Biological reductionism meets gender diversity in human sexuality. ". Journal of Sex Research. 42 (3): 267–270. doi:10.1080/00224490509552281. S2CID 216088335.
  37. ^ Letellier, Patrick (16 March 2004). "Group rescinds honor for disputed book". Gay.com. Archived from the original on 5 May 2008. Retrieved 26 October 2022.
  38. "Letter to New York Times, Sept 20, 2007". Press Room. Lambda Literary Foundation. 20 September 2007. Archived from the original on 17 May 2008. Retrieved 26 October 2022.
  39. Wilson, Robin. "Transsexual 'Subjects' Complain About Professor's Research Methods." The Chronicle of Higher Education 25 July 2003, Vol. 49, Issue 46. "The book contains numerous observations and reports of interviews with me", C. Anjelica Kieltyka, one of the transsexual women, wrote in a letter this month to C. Bradley Moore, Northwestern's vice president for research. She added: "I did not receive, nor was I asked to sign, an informed-consent document."
  40. ^ Singal, Jesse (30 December 2015). "Why Some of the Worst Attacks on Social Science Have Come From Liberals". New York. Retrieved 1 January 2016.
  41. Ritchie, Don; Shopes, Linda (2003). Oral History Excluded from IRB Review: Application of the Department of Health and Human Services Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects at 45 CFR Part 46, Subpart A to Oral History Interviewing. Oral History Association. Archived from the original on 17 January 2008. Retrieved 31 December 2008.. See also An Update on the Exclusion of Oral History from IRB Review (March 2004). Archived 2008-01-15 at the Wayback Machine

External links

Categories: