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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:20, 22 May 2008 editMarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs)1,153 edits grammar← Previous edit Revision as of 02:13, 23 May 2008 edit undoPolarscribe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,997 edits revert to known good version; many of these edits are POV/biased. Discuss on talk page.Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
'''''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 ]. '''''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 lays out an argument that male ] is congenital and a result of heredity and prenatal environment. He also suggests that ] is either an extreme type of homosexuality or an expression of a ], known as ].


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 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. Northwestern made it clear that his change in status had nothing to do with the book. 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>


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. Written in a popular science style, the book summarizes research done on the topic that supports Bailey's opinions. Free access to the online version of the book on the Joseph Henry Press site was disabled in February 2006.


==Summary== ==Summary==
Line 9: Line 9:
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 book is divided into three sections: ''The Boy Who Would Be Princess'', ''The Man He Might Become'', and ''Women Who Once Were Boys''.


===The Boy Who Would Be Princess===
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.


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> He discusses Kenneth Zucker's therapy for boys with gender identity "disorder".<ref name=Bailey30">{{cite web|url=30|title=The Man Who Would be Queen|last=Bailey|first=p|accessdate=2007-07-19}}</ref> Zucker recommends family therapy, to treat conflicts that prolong gender identity disorder, individual therapy to help the child adjust to being his biological sex, and taking away anything "feminine" from the child.<ref name=Bailey31">{{cite web|url=31|title=The Man Who Would be Queen|last=Bailey|first=p|accessdate=2007-07-19}}</ref> Although Bailey speculates that a world tolerant of gender-nonconforming boys might "come with the cost of more transsexual adults," he adds that "maybe it would be worth it though".<ref name=Bailey33">{{cite web|url=33|title=The Man Who Would be Queen|last=Bailey|first=p|accessdate=2007-07-19}}</ref>
"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90247842"


⚫ Bailey uses the anecdote to discuss young boys considered to have a psychological condition referred to as ] (GID). This term is used to describe patients, usually children, 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.
"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 Man He Might Become===
"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."


⚫ The second section deals primarily with homosexual men, including a suggested link between GID and male homosexuality later in life. This link was best established by the research of ], but it has been replicated in other prospective studies and many retrospective studies.<ref name="Bailey&Zucker1995">Bailey JM & Zucker KJ. Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. ''Developmental Psychology'', 31, 43-55.</ref> In particular, he discusses whether homosexuality is a ]ly or possibly even genetically related phenomenon. This includes references to his studies as well as those of ] and ]. He also discusses the behavior of gay men and its typically masculine and feminine qualities.
gender specialist — Diane Ehrensaft, a psychologist in Oakland in rebuttal to Ken Zuckers approach :


===Women Who Once Were Boys===
"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."


The third section is primarily about male to female ] and has spurred much controversy surrounding the book and its author. In this section, Bailey uses a psychological model due to ] that male to female transsexuals fall into two categories related to their reasons for a desire to ]. He also discusses the process by which this transition occurs.


When Bailey runs into Danny in the end of the book, he 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 ] in "treating" ] (later proven to be academic fraud). These criticisms are inconsistent with prospective data suggesting that most very feminine boys grow up to be gay men rather than transwomen.<ref name="Bailey&Zucker1995">Bailey JM & Zucker KJ. Childhoood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. ''Developmental Psychology'', 31, 43-55.</ref>
⚫ 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.


⚫ 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.


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).


==Controversy== ==Controversy==
Line 34: Line 29:
{{seealso|Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory}} {{seealso|Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory}}


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: Largely because of a single chapter 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 attracted to the image of their own feminized body (autogynephiles), or
* because they are homosexual and attracted to heterosexual men (homosexual transsexuals). * because they are homosexual and attracted to heterosexual men (homosexual transsexuals).


The ability of these concepts to accurately describe some or all male-to-female transsexuals is at the center of the debate.


Bailey's most vocal critics were ], including two women whose case studies were featured in the book.
⚫ Bailey's critics generally claim that his book presents his speculations, anecdotes, and opinions as ]. Bailey asserts that they are "misunderstanding" the book.


⚫ Bailey's critics generally claim that his book presents his speculations, anecdotes, and opinions as ]. Bailey asserts that they are "misunderstanding" the book. Further, he claims that many of his most prominent critics have seriously misrepresented his actual claims and attempted to defame him because they dislike their own transsexualism being explained as autogynephilia.
⚫ 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."

⚫ 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> Bancroft has subsequently refused to clarify what he meant by this statement. ], 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 ]: Some GLBT rights groups have spoken out about Bailey's claims in various publications, including the ] (GLAAD), the ], ], as well as three prominent ]:
* renowned ] ], * renowned ] ],
* ], to whom Bailey refers in his book by the pseudonym Cher, and * ], 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 ." * 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 them with obscenities.<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>

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.


⚫ While some transgendered people agree with Bailey and Blanchard, many others believe that their 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> 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: Many of Bailey's critics attack not only his book, but his personal integrity. Two of the transwomen in his book and several organizations accuse him of several ethical breaches in his work. 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, completely exonerated him. In 2003, the federal DHHS issued a clarification which formally states that taking ], interviewing people (as if for a piece of journalism), and collecting anecdotes does not constitute ]-qualified research. Furthermore, all available objective evidence shows that Bailey was with his children at his ex-wife's home on the evening of the alleged tryst.


⚫ 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> Email records have suggested that Bailey was at the home of his ex-wife with their children on the date of the alleged contact.<ref name="nytimes"> ]</ref>
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


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." Research conducted by Dr. Alice Dreger of Northwestern University, reported in the New York Times, has concluded that "two of the four women who complained to Northwestern of research violations were not portrayed in the book at all. The two others did know their stories would be used, as they themselves said in their letters to Northwestern."<ref name="dreger">Dr. Alice Dreger, Medical Humanities & Bioethics Program at Northwestern University </ref>


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> 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> 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>


⚫ The controversy surrounding Bailey's book has been cited as an example of infringement of ] and ] and ] by Northwestern ethics scholar, Alice 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... The bottom line is that they tried to ruin this guy, and they almost succeeded."<ref>"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>"Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege," by Benedict Carrey. '']'', August 21, 2007 </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== ==Concerns about academic and intellectual freedom==
The controversy surrounding Bailey's book has been cited as an alarming example of infringement of ] and ] and ]. Charges that Bailey acted "unethically, immorally, and illegally" were investigated by Northwestern University ethicist Alice Dreger, who determined the accusations were unfounded.<ref>"The controversy surrounding ''The Man Who Would Be Queen'': A case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the internet age," by Alice Dreger. ''Archives of Sexual Behavior.'' </ref> "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... The bottom line is that they tried to ruin this guy, and they almost succeeded."<ref>"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>"Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege," by Benedict Carrey. '']'', August 21, 2007 </ref>

⚫ 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==
<small>{{Reflist}}</small> {{Reflist}}


==External links== ==External links==

Revision as of 02:13, 23 May 2008

The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism is a controversial 2003 book by J. Michael Bailey, published by Joseph Henry Press. In it, Bailey lays out an argument that male homosexuality is congenital and a result of heredity and prenatal environment. He also suggests that transsexualism is either an extreme type of homosexuality or an expression of a paraphilia, known as autogynephilia.

The book generated considerable controversy, as well as a formal investigation by Northwestern University, where Bailey was Chair of the Psychology Department until shortly before the conclusion of the investigation. Northwestern made it clear that his change in status had nothing to do with the book. 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 autogynephilia.

Written in a popular science style, the book summarizes research done on the topic that supports Bailey's opinions. Free access to the online version of the book on the Joseph Henry Press site was disabled in February 2006.

Summary

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 Boy Who Would Be Princess

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." He discusses Kenneth Zucker's therapy for boys with gender identity "disorder". Zucker recommends family therapy, to treat conflicts that prolong gender identity disorder, individual therapy to help the child adjust to being his biological sex, and taking away anything "feminine" from the child. Although Bailey speculates that a world tolerant of gender-nonconforming boys might "come with the cost of more transsexual adults," he adds that "maybe it would be worth it though".

Bailey uses the anecdote to discuss young boys considered to have a psychological condition referred to as gender identity disorder (GID). This term is used to describe patients, usually children, who exhibit a large amount of salient gender-atypical behavior such as cross-dressing, 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, 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 a desire to identify as a male.

The Man He Might Become

The second section deals primarily with homosexual men, including a suggested link between GID and male homosexuality later in life. This link was best established by the research of Richard Green, but it has been replicated in other prospective studies and many retrospective studies. 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.

Women Who Once Were Boys

The third section is primarily about male to female transsexualism and has spurred much controversy surrounding the book and its author. In this section, Bailey uses a psychological model due to Ray Blanchard that male to female transsexuals fall into two categories related to their reasons for a desire to transition. He also discusses the process by which this transition occurs.

When Bailey runs into Danny in the end of the book, he 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). These criticisms are inconsistent with prospective data suggesting that most very feminine boys grow up to be gay men rather than transwomen.

Controversy

See also: Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory

Largely because of a single chapter in its third section, the book and its author have been surrounded by a great deal of controversy. The major point of contention is Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory, which is presented favorably. This theory categorizes transsexuals into one of two types labeled "autogynephilic transsexuals" and "homosexual transsexuals." 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).

The ability of these concepts to accurately describe some or all male-to-female transsexuals is at the center of the debate.

Bailey's most vocal critics were trans women, including two women whose case studies were featured in the book.

Bailey's critics generally claim that his book presents his speculations, anecdotes, and opinions as science. Bailey asserts that they are "misunderstanding" the book. Further, he claims that many of his most prominent critics have seriously misrepresented his actual claims and attempted to defame him because they dislike their own transsexualism being explained as autogynephilia.

His prominent critics and defenders both include peers in sexology. Bailey's response was a lecture at the 2003 International Academy of Sex Research titled "Identity politics as a hindrance to scientific truth." Immediately after Bailey's presentation, John Bancroft, then head of the Kinsey Institute, told Bailey: "Michael, I would caution you against calling this book 'science' because I have read it ... and I can tell you it is not science." Bancroft has subsequently refused to clarify what he meant by this statement. Eli Coleman, head of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association 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 Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, GenderPAC, as well as three prominent transwomen:

  • renowned computer scientist Lynn Conway,
  • Anjelica Kieltyka, to whom Bailey refers in his book by the pseudonym Cher, and
  • writer and consumer activist Andrea James. 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 them with obscenities.

While some transgendered people agree with Bailey and Blanchard, many others believe that their behavioral model is not only inaccurate, but a reflection of anti-trans attitudes and a form of defamation.

Originally, the Lambda Literary Foundation nominated the book as a finalist in the transgender 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 transphobic, and removed it from their list of finalists.

Many of Bailey's critics attack not only his book, but his personal integrity. Two of the transwomen in his book and several organizations accuse him of several ethical breaches in his work. Bailey has adamantly denied that he behaved unethically. A top-level investigation at Northwestern University, begun at the instigation of his critics, completely exonerated him. In 2003, the federal DHHS issued a clarification which formally states that taking oral histories, interviewing people (as if for a piece of journalism), and collecting anecdotes does not constitute IRB-qualified research. Furthermore, all available objective evidence shows that Bailey was with his children at his ex-wife's home on the evening of the alleged tryst.

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. Email records have suggested that Bailey was at the home of his ex-wife with their children on the date of the alleged contact.

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." Research conducted by Dr. Alice Dreger of Northwestern University, reported in the New York Times, has concluded that "two of the four women who complained to Northwestern of research violations were not portrayed in the book at all. The two others did know their stories would be used, as they themselves said in their letters to Northwestern."

Following an appearance by Bailey on CBS 60 Minutes, The Advocate published an opinion piece 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.'"

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."The Free Press editor told Editor & Publisher that an e-mail blast to a listserv from Bailey himself was the source of most letters protesting the decision. 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."

The controversy surrounding Bailey's book has been cited as an example of infringement of academic and intellectual freedom and freedom of speech by Northwestern ethics scholar, Alice 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... The bottom line is that they tried to ruin this guy, and they almost succeeded." Bailey called the two years following its publication as "the hardest of my life."

Concerns about academic and intellectual freedom

The controversy surrounding Bailey's book has been cited as an alarming example of infringement of academic and intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. Charges that Bailey acted "unethically, immorally, and illegally" were investigated by Northwestern University ethicist Alice Dreger, who determined the accusations were unfounded. "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... The bottom line is that they tried to ruin this guy, and they almost succeeded." Bailey called the two years following its publication as "the hardest of my life."

References

  1. Bailey, J. Michael (2003). The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. Joesph Henry Press, ISBN 978-0309084185
  2. ^ "Academic McCarthyism". Retrieved 2007-05-15.
  3. Bailey, p. . Retrieved 2007-07-19. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  4. Bailey, p. . Retrieved 2007-07-19. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  5. Bailey, p. . Retrieved 2007-07-19. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  6. Bailey, p. . Retrieved 2007-07-19. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  7. ^ Bailey JM & Zucker KJ. Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 31, 43-55. Cite error: The named reference "Bailey&Zucker1995" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  8. Bailey, J. Michael (2003). "Identity Politics as a Hindrance to Scientific Truth" (pdf). Int. Acad. Sex Research. Retrieved 2007-03-16.
  9. "At the IASR Conference at the Kinsey Institute". Lynn Conway. 2003-07-19. Retrieved 2007-03-16.
  10. Bailey, J. Michael. "Andrea James took pictures of my children off of my website" (pdf). Retrieved 2007-03-07.
  11. Letellier, Patrick (2004-03-16). "Group rescinds honor for disputed book". gay.com. Retrieved 2007-03-16.
  12. "Northwestern U. Psychologist Accused of Having Sex With Research Subject." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 December 2003
  13. Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege New York Times
  14. Dr. Alice Dreger, Medical Humanities & Bioethics Program at Northwestern University "The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History On the Politics of Science, Identity and Sex in the Internet Age"
  15. Stahl, Lesley (March 12, 2006). The Science of Sexual Orientation. 60 Minutes
  16. Ehrenstein, David (April 6, 2006). Kinder, gentler homophobia. The Advocate
  17. Staff editorial (August 9, 2006). "Bad Science." Chicago Free Press
  18. Fitzgerald, mark (August 15, 2006). Chicago Gay Paper Nixes Ad From Controversial Sex Researcher. Editor & Publisher
  19. D'Entremont, Jim (October 2006). Political Science. The Guide
  20. "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege," by Benedict Carrey. New York Times, August 21, 2007
  21. "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege," by Benedict Carrey. New York Times, August 21, 2007
  22. "The controversy surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the internet age," by Alice Dreger. Archives of Sexual Behavior. reprinted on the Northwestern University Medical Humanities and Bioethics Program website
  23. "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege," by Benedict Carrey. New York Times, August 21, 2007
  24. "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege," by Benedict Carrey. New York Times, August 21, 2007

External links

Categories: