Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs) at 18:25, 13 July 2008 (→Titles: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:25, 13 July 2008 by MarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs) (→Titles: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

results of automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

--Hfarmer 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Edit (Dec 2007)

I got more specific about the alleged ethical breaches. I've spent years reading articles on both sides of the controversy, and the major issue that both sides seem to have is that Bailey seems to have cherry picked his research subjects. Almost all of the research subjects are Latina, the amount of which is not reflected by the general population of transgendered people. The races of transgendered people seem to be distributed in the same percentage as the general population. In addition, they all seem to have frequented the same bars. Frankly, going to drag bars and picking women out of the crowd doesn't exactly strike me as ethical research behavior.

That, coupled with the fact that some of his research subjects didn't know they were participating in research leads me personally to suspect that a portion of his findings stem from nightclub conversations. I prefer to stick to the facts and leave POV out of it, so I only edited the content minimally.

There's a statement (which was already there) about how on the date of a purported sexual encounter with a research subject, the "only objective evidence" places Bailey at home with his family. I'm unable to find any evidence of this anywhere, but I have left it in hoping that someone else may have some insight. I have been unable to find anything that puts a specific date on this alleged encounter, nor any evidence supporting or refuting it (other than Bailey's own statements). I don't feel that it's a particularly good passage, but I left it in until I can find sufficient amounts of reference on this. Glamrockboy (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we disagree here about the meaning of research. Would you expect a different approach from a newspaper reporter? That is, if (name your favorite journalist) met a handful of people, said "I'm writing a book about transsexuals, and I'd like to get your views," and they answered question after question after question on the subject, would you claim that then publishing a book which (in part) presents the information from these interviews was horribly unethical?
What if it was a blogger instead of a printed newspaper? Or just an author who writes nonfiction books instead of someone with an official press pass?
The issue is that Bailey's critics have decided to simultaneously assert two things:
  1. It's not scientific research (so it should be ignored), and
  2. It's definitely scientific research -- and it's utterly unethical for university professors, who have a very l-o-n-g tradition of publishing books, to use the same information-gathering techniques that we'd accept from any other author.
Bailey himself has said that this book is not itself scientific research, and the federal regulator that is charged with protecting US research subjects says that interviewing people -- like every journalist does -- isn't research. He may have hoped to illustrate some of the concepts that Blanchard's research indicated, at a level that the average person could grasp, but basic journalism is not research.
BTW, if memory serves, the source for the 'only objective evidence' is the New York Times article. The NYT was provided with copies of the evidence (mostly e-mail messages) and confirmed it with his ex-wife. If you haven't read that article, I recommend it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree about the meaning of research per se, but I feel that when someone is referencing people as "research subjects" they shouldn't be offended that people treat the material as if it were intended to be research. It's also worth noting that he did treat his work as research before the bulk of this backlash started. I've seen his now-infamous lecture at Stanford where he makes fun of transgendered people as well as gays and lesbians (this was right after the book was published). He even makes fun of children in the process, which I find to be incredibly mean-spirited and uncalled for. As a psychology student, his work disturbs me greatly and on so many levels.

I would not rate his work on the level of most journalists. Based on his cavalier attitude and unprofessional lectures, I'm surprised that he even managed to secure a professorship at all.

In a nutshell:

  1. I don't think his work meets the standards of the research community as a whole (and as such it's not really research)
  2. I think that because it was intended to be taken as research, it's ethics should automatically be inspected
  3. I don't think it should be ignored
  4. I would expect any book that accuses a large group of people of being paraphilics would have a bit more "research" and a bit less "anecdote."

Sadly, most newspaper reporters would have gone with the same angle as the book -- transsexuality as a "freak thing" sell more papers than transsexuality as a "brain thing" or "psychological thing." Bailey treats sex as a macguffin for transsexuals, as if they are all motivated by sex and that their transitions are related to their sexuality. In practice, this theory doesn't hold up. Anyone who has worked with transsexuals for a decent amount of time can see that they aren't motivated by sex, but by some sort of psychological and/or biological mechanism.

I think it's interesting that you mentioned blogs. A major psychiatrist from kaiser permanente recently stated that in his experience, all black women are promiscuous and have lots of children. This was stated on someone's blog. Just because he didn't say "this is based on years of research" doesn't make it less inflammatory or less incorrect. The big difference between his statement and Bailey's is that J. Michael Bailey did originally treat his work not only as research, but as the ultimate research piece on transsexualism.

Thanks for letting me know where that NYT statement came from, it's uncited so I was concerned that it was more opinion than fact. If I find a link to the story, I'll reference it.Glamrockboy (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2003/4/25/psychologyLectureLacksSensitivityToSexualOrientation


You'll probably find the article cited in one of the other related articles, like autogynephilia or the Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence theory. Some anon editor is making a billion edits to the one (that I know of) this week. I figure there's no point in cleaning up the mess until the dust settles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Controvery edits (Feb 2008)

The controversy sections in this cluster of articles seems to grow endlessly. Everyone wants to add just one more detail. Could we consider splitting them into two sections? There are actually two parts to the controversy:

  • the criticism of the basic ideas, to be labeled "Criticism" and to include all of the "how dare you define the sexual orientation of transwomen according to their biological sex" and "Blanchard didn't statistically control for this factor" kinds of complaints (about any part of the book), and
  • the scandal surrounding various allegations and bad behavior shortly after publication, to be labeled "Bailey Scandal" and to include nasty websites, allegations that he had sex with a transgendered prostitute, e-mail messages from his ex-wife, NWU's spineless decision to hide behind "employee confidentiality," and so forth.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent POV edits by DarlieB

The edits made to this page over the last two days or so by one editor have dramatically reduced the quality of the article and seriously unbalanced its coverage, which already included significant descriptions of the critical response to Bailey's work. So far no (zero) reliable source references have been introduced to support any of the edits that have converted this article from a neutrally worded piece on this work and its controversy into a unalloyed slam article. I would far rather have a stub, or no article at all, than such a poorly balanced and unreferenced article. Avruch 22:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I've tagged this article with a neutrality tag to reflect my view that this article represents a fairly clear anti-Bailey point of view. I've said in the past and will repeat that I don't have a particular agenda regarding this article other than a neutral treatment of the subject (the book) and its author. This version of the article (contrasting the version from a few weeks ago) is far more critical of Bailey and represents his defence and defenders in a much less rigorous manner, a bias that I believe ought to be corrected. Its hard, though, when editors of the article decline to discuss their edits on the talkpage and make significant edits at a rapid pace. Avruch 19:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Titles

At this point, it seems reasonable to clean up the professional titles for this piece.

In the ==Summary== section, we have these four that need identification:

  • Kenneth Zucker
  • Simon LeVay
  • Dean Hamer
  • Ray Blanchard

In the ==Controversy== section, we have these four that need attention:

  • Clinician Walter Bockting (add academic degree: PhD, MD, PsyD, something else?)
  • Anne Lawrence
  • writer and consumer activist Andrea James (are these titles at all relevant ?)
  • Dr. Alice Dreger (should have academic degree, not "Dr.", and title should be here , not in next section)

Generally, I think everyone with a doctoral-level degree in a relevant field should have that mentioned, and everyone should have a reasonable (and short) title (so "sexologist" or "psychologist" instead of "The John R. Smith and Mary L. Jones Professor of Gender Identity, Sexology and Whatever Else We Thought Of").

Would anyone like to look these up? I don't, BTW, think that we need to source these in the article, but if you want to put a link after the names here in the permanent record on the talk page, then it might prevent future problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wording

The article reads, 'Many of Bailey's critics attack not only his book, but his personal integrity.' I think this could be better worded (I'll leave aside the question of whether it should be in the article at all). Generally, one 'questions' someone's personal integrity, not 'attacks' it. Skoojal (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Another quibble. The article also reads, in part, 'The second section deals primarily with homosexual men...He also discusses the behavior of gay men and its typically masculine and feminine qualities.' I don't think it makes sense for the article to use both the expressions 'homosexual men' and 'gay men'. One or the other should be used, but not both. Skoojal (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Third quibble. The article reads, 'One of these pages - now removed - published pictures of Bailey's young children labeled with obscenities and vicious personal attacks.' Setting aside the accuracy of this description of the website in question, I doubt that the word 'vicious' should be there. Calling something 'personal attacks' is such strong language that adding the 'vicious' qualifier to it hardly seems necessary. Calling something 'vicious' looks more like making a moral judgment than stating a fact. One can make whatever moral judgments one likes, but surely it's unwise to present them in articles? It smacks of self-satisfaction. Skoojal (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fourth quibble. The article reads, 'The text above the pictures reads " Let's replace women in my community with a couple of random photos and see if Baileys words and theories seem as academic ."' Surely past tense should be used here? Skoojal (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fifth quibble. A section of the article is titled, 'Concerns about academic and intellectual freedom.' This could probably be changed to something shorter and more concise; it sounds grandiloquent. Skoojal (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those things need work, and leave it to you. MarionTheLibrarian and I have an agreeement to not touch it. Dicklyon (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
That is correct.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I will change most of these things shortly; in my view, even referring to 'personal attacks' here is unnecessary and gratuitous. Obviously labelling pictures of someone with obscenities is a personal attack; there is no need to spell out the obvious. Skoojal (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've now done what I said I'd do, and I will consider whether further changes should be made. Anything I do to this article will be minor touching up of the kind I've already done. Skoojal (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
One of the additional changes I have made is removing the reference to 'obscenities.' As I wrote in the edit message, implying that someone is a prostitute may be offensive, but strictly speaking it is not an obscenity. The way I reworded this may not be perfect; if someone wants to reword it again, that's fine, so long as the inaccurate 'obscenities' does not go back in. I have also cut down on the number of times the word 'controversial' is used; it doesn't have to be used every other sentence; people get the idea. Skoojal (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Another point

The article reads, '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.' This seems like a rather odd way of putting things. Presumably, if the person who made this accusation had sex with Bailey (I express no opinion either way), the sex was consensual, with both partners equally responsible. So why 'accused Bailey of having sex with her'? Why not 'said she had sex with Bailey'? Skoojal (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The cited source says "A transsexual woman who is described in a book by J. Michael Bailey, chairman of the psychology department at Northwestern University, says he had sex with her while she was an unwitting subject of his research. The woman also says that Mr. Bailey, as a psychologist, supplied her with a letter she needed from a professional..." I think the asymmetry comes from the idea either that he was in a position of power over her, since she needed the SRS letter from him, or that he knew she was a research subject and she didn't. She's not saying it wasn't consentual, but that it was inappropriate. Feel free to reword it to make it more consistent with sources if you feel that's needed. You seem to be doing a good neutral job so far. Here is the whole cited article, as reposted by Lynn Conway. Here is another source about it. And Conway's analysis of it, and more collected stuff in case anything there is useful. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed this part. 'Accused Bailey of having sex with her' was another example of over-excited language. As for the article from the Chronicle of Higher Education, if Conway reposted it, why shouldn't the article link to her repost rather than the original source? Skoojal (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be better to stick closer to the cited source (in full here). It's not encyclopedic to add "As part of this controversy;" just say what happened (I know, this has been around a while; not saying it's from you). And "who was interviewed for his book" misses the point of the article that she was "described in" the book. And the passive "This became the subject of a sexual misconduct complaint" is not nearly as useful as saying WHO filed the complaint (namely, the anonymous woman, according to the article). Finally, the source says "Mr. Bailey has declined to comment on the accusations," not that he has denied the accusations; if he denied them, you should cite a source that says so. I agree that you don't need the word "accuse"; it was only in the headline, which is not properly part of the story since headlines are typically written by editors trying to hype the stories. The bit about quoting Dreger that "the sexual misconduct allegation came 5 years after the fact" misses the point of the article that in the intervening interval the book got published, and she said, ""I would not have participated in the lecture or had anything to do with Dr. Bailey if I was aware of his hypocritical deception in obtaining any and all information about that turned into research for his most maligning book." It might be better to be more balanced on that point, or just leave it out. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
'As part of this controversy' can be removed. I am not going to rush to remove "who was interviewed for his book", or other parts of this article. Input from other editors would be welcome here. My choice of wording was intended to distinguish between two related but distinct facts: the fact that someone claimed to have had sexual relations with a particular person, and the fact that there was a sexual misconduct complaint. 'Accused Bailey of having sex with her' is the language of sensationalism. Skoojal (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
We already agreed on the 'accused' wording. I don't understand why you separate the claim from the complaint that the claim was made in; the cited source doesn't do that. I'm not worried that you're promoting any POV here, just noting that in general it's best to stick close to sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The cited source is OK for the first two sentences, but "She has refused to offer details or discuss the accusation, which Bailey has denied" needs a citation. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it needs a citation. I will look for one. Skoojal (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Bailey has denied absolutely everything on his website, of course. Skoojal (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Titles

There's a hidden comment in ==Controversy==: Why are the critics described with professional titles but the supporters are given no identification other than their name? Do we have a standard set of titles for the untitled people in this section? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're describing a favored tactic on this issue. The criticisms of the book are merely ideological. So, it's long been in the interest of the critics to exaggerate their basis for having an educated opinion and to minimize the qualifications of supporters. If you read Andrea James' or Lynn Conway's websites on the issue, you'll find that rarely is someone simply "a researcher." They are typically "a discredited researcher" or "a recognized expert" according to whether they agree with James/Conway.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
We have no control of tactics used by people on their own publications. In wikipedia, it's generally useful to have a brief description of the named person if the person is not universally known. Of course you're both right that even here a favored tactic of editors is to boost their POV by providing titles or descriptions that sound good on their side and bad on the others. Let's just try to keep them balanced. Not like calling Dreger a "historian" just because she has a degree in history and wrote what she called a history, when her self-description doesn't include historian, which is the tactic that MarionTheLibrarian was pushing in the Lynn Conway article. And of course opinions like "merely ideological" are "pure POV" and should have no effect on the article editing. Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a lovely analysis, guys, but you'll note that neither of you answered my question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we answered the first question, and the answer to the second is implicitly "no". Dicklyon (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you answered someone else's question. (I'm not sure who added the hidden text; it's been there for a while.) So let's start with someone at least slightly easier than Dreger. Can you remind me who Simon Le Vay is? Do I remember correctly that he's a sexologist? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I have discovered his Misplaced Pages article. Any objections to calling him a sexologist instead of the more cumbersome "neuroscientist and author known for his studies about brain structures and sexual orientation"? I don't think there are any particular rules for becoming a sexologist -- it's not like getting a medical license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I know nothing about him, but sounds like neuroscientist would be closer to what he is. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
LeVay by training is a neuroscientist; calling him a sexologist might be misleading. Skoojal (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Any objections to neuroscientist then? Is that good enough, or do we need to say something like "neuroscientist and author"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Author doesn't add much; anyone you refer to is likely to be an author. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Neuroscientist is certainly the least debatable, but it was his article (and subsequent publications) on sex that made him natable. WhatamIdoing is correct that sexologist is not a regulated term, and Dicklyon is correct that author will not add anything. Perhaps something along the lines neuroscientist best known for... might work.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Only if you find a source that indicates that that's what he is best known for. No reason to go beyond neuroscientist, really, as there's an article linked for anyone who wants to know more. Dicklyon (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 Done I've gone with neuroscientist for now. Since the first mention (I hadn't realized he was mentioned twice) is in the context of his research and the second section of the book, I think we can let the reader assume that his LeVay's research area has something to do with sex, at least more or less. Adjustments can be made later if needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Next
Dean Hamer

His Misplaced Pages biography calls him a geneticist. Any objections? Anything better? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of objections, I've made this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Next
Kenneth Zucker

His Misplaced Pages biography calls him a "psychologist and sexologist". Any objections? Anything better? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I've no objection. Go ahead and make the change. Skoojal (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Next
Ray Blanchard

Sexologist seems like the obvious choice. Any objections? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be logical to use "psychologist and sexologist," consistent with Zucker.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

His profile suggests that maybe psychiatrist would be better than psychologist. Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Um...except that he's not a psychiatrist. (Something on that link suggested otherwise?)

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Consideration of Andrea James' 1998 autogynephilia confession

I want to know what other editors think about the inclusion of material concerning a remarkable 1998 email from Andrea James to Anne Lawrence. The email is here, with commentary from James who tries to show that it doesn't mean what Alice Dreger suggests it means:

http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/alice-dreger/hermaphrodite-monger.html#appendix1

In this email, James says that she has found many of Ray Blanchard's scientific insights "valid, even brilliant, especially in distinguishing early- and late- transitioning TS patterns of thought and behavior." Recall that Blanchard is the originator of the scientific theory of transsexualism that James has so assiduously decried. Furthermore, she says: "I readily admit my own autogynephilia." When i first read this, I found these to be explosive admissions. After all, James has dedicated a good part of her time and reputation to trying to destroy J. Michael Bailey for promoting this theory in his book. (The title of the relevant part of her website is: "Categorically Wrong.") Bailey's account of the controversy is that it was a smear campaign waged by unprincipled liars. (Lest anyone accuse me of being inflammatory, the accusations that Conway, James and others have made against Bailey are just as bad.) The contrast between James' 1998 email and her later anti-Bailey and Blanchard campaign surely is consistent with this interpretation. Moreover, it is relevant to the contention that autogynephilia is not consistent with many transsexual women's experience. If it is consistent with the experience of the concept's most vociferous critic, that makes the contention less credible.

This material was mentioned in an earlier version of the Autogynephilia page, but Dicklyon removed it, saying that it was taken out of context. Frankly, I do not find Dicklyon's objection (or Andrea James' objections as related on the above website) at all plausible at negating the obvious facts that she once found Blanchard's theory to be of great interest and she once agreed that she is autogynephilic. Dicklyon has admitted that he has ties with Lynn Conway, but I am sure that he does not want anyone to think that's a primary reason for his edits. Perhaps other editors can weigh in on whether they think there is any other way to read James' 1998 email other than how I read it, and whether they think it is relevant for inclusion in various articles. I think it could be considered for Andrea James, J. Michael Bailey, Autogynephilia, The Man Who Would Be Queen, and BBL controversy.ProudAGP (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this conversation has been unified at Talk:Andrea James (which happily is not on my watchlist, so I cheerfully consider myself exempt from participation). We don't need to have five different versions of the same conversation going, so discuss the issues there, and then come back here and let us know if you all have come to conclusions that might affect this article.
You might, BTW, want to read about our policy on saying anything about living people that they dislike, because I'm sure it will come up repeatedly in that discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Categories: