The Man Who Would Be Queen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"The Man Who Would Be Queen"
Controversial dust jacket.
Author J. Michael Bailey
Country United States
Language English
Genre Popular science
Published 2003 (Joseph Henry Press imprint of the National Academies Press)
Media type Print (Hardback & ebook PDF
Pages 256
ISBN 978-0-309-08418-5
OCLC 51088011
305.38/9664 21
LC Class HQ76.2.U5 B35 2003

The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism is a 2003 book by J. Michael Bailey, published by Joseph Henry Press.[1]

In the first section of the book, Bailey discusses gender-atypical behaviors and gender identity disorder (GID) in children, emphasizing the biological determination of gender. In the second section he deals primarily with gay men, including the link between childhood GID 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 stereotypes about gay men.[2] In the third section, Bailey summarizes evidence for a psychological typology of trans women that says there are two forms of transsexualism: one that he describes 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 a formal investigation by Northwestern University, where Bailey was Chair of the Psychology Department until shortly before the conclusion of the investigation. A Northwestern University spokesperson said that his departure from the department chairmanship was not linked to the investigation.[3] Bailey says that some of his critics were motivated by a desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about autogynephilia theory on transsexual women, male to female.[4]

Summary[edit]

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.[5] 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 GID and male homosexuality later in life. Bailey discusses whether homosexuality is a congenitally or possibly even genetically related phenomenon. This discussion includes references to Bailey's studies as well as those of neuroscientist 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 transsexual women that was proposed by Ray Blanchard about fifteen years earlier. According to Blanchard, there are two types of transsexual women: one described as an extreme form of male homosexuality, the other being motivated by a sexual interest in having a female body.[6][7][8] Bailey also discusses the process by which transition from male to female occurs.

On the last page of the book, Bailey meets "Danny", who no longer has gender identity disorder, and is living as a gay man.

Controversy[edit]

The book elicited both strongly supportive and strongly negative reactions. Among the controversial aspects were not only the contents of the book, but 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.

Positive reactions[edit]

Kirkus Reviews concluded: "Despite its provocative title, a scientific yet superbly compassionate exposition."[9] The book received praise from gay sexual behavior scientist Simon LeVay,[9] from sex-differences expert David Buss,[10] 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."[11][12] It also received praise from conservative journalist Steve Sailer,[9] as well as Fortune magazine's Daniel Seligman,[13] and Mark Henderson.[14] Conservative commentator John Derbyshire said: "a wealth of fascinating information, carefully gathered by (it seems to me) a conscientious and trustworthy scientific observer."[15] It also received a positive review from writer Ethan Boatner[9] of Lavender Magazine and Duncan Osborne in Out.[16] 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).[17]

Negative reactions[edit]

The public response of members of the transgender community was almost entirely negative.[10] Among other things, they opposed the book's endorsement of Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism,[18] and its publication by the National Academies Press, by whom it was "advertised as science"[19] and marketed as "scientifically accurate,"[20] which they argued was untrue. They also claimed the book exploited children with gender dysphoria.[21] Among those criticizing the book were computer scientist Lynn Conway,[22] biologists Joan Roughgarden[20] and Ben Barres,[23] physician Rebecca Allison,[24] economist Deirdre McCloskey,[25] psychologist Madeline Wyndzen, writers Dallas Denny,[26] Pauline Park,[27] Jamison Green,[28] and Andrea James,[29] as well as Christine Burns of Press for Change, and Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America.[30] 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.[21]

Negative responses came from outside the transgender community as well. Liza Mundy of the Washington Post thought the book exceptionally dull despite the potentially interesting topic.[31] Psychologist Eli Coleman referred to the book as "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers,"[10] and his colleague, Walter Bockting, wrote that it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community."[32] Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft referred to the book as "not science", later clarifying that "it promoted a very derogatory explanation of transgender identity which most TG people would find extremely hurtful and humiliating….Whether based on science or not we have a responsibility to present scientific ideas, particularly in the public arena, in ways which are not blatantly hurtful. But in addition to that, [Bailey] did not support his analysis in a scientific manner—hence my comment."[10] Psychologist Randi Ettner said of Bailey, "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned."[18]

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, the Foundation withdrew the nomination.[33]

In 2008, Northwestern University professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics Alice Dreger commented on Bailey's response to the negative reactions: "Bailey may claim he was not insensitive, but given the number of people he offended with his prose, he is obviously, objectively wrong—being perceived as insensitive by this many people surely means you have been insensitive. (Especially if you don’t get that.)"[34] Physician Charles Allen Moser, though, believes that Bailey caused his own controversy by being mean spirited. "To call a transsexual who denies Autogynephilia vigorously autogynephilic or an autogynephile-in-denial is also inflammatory and inappropriate. One can convey the same point with more cautious language. In general, researchers should avoid inciting hostility from their subjects. Stating that a subject is in denial or misleading the researcher usually leads to an angry reaction. Ridiculing someone for their beliefs, religious, political, or gender identification is never a good strategy. Ignoring these common courtesies will probably lead to an ugly confrontation, such as this “controversy.” Being a researcher does not confer immunity from the consequences of incivility."[35]

Allegations against Bailey[edit]

Two of the transsexual women in Bailey's book, two who mistakenly thought they were represented in the book, and several organizations have accused him of ethical breaches in his work by talking to them about their life stories without obtaining formal written consent.[36] All of the people were aware that Bailey was writing a book about trans women at the time of the interviews, and some of them read the drafts of the book before publication.[10] 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.[4]

According to Dreger, whether federal regulations required professors to obtain formal approval from a university Institutional Review Board (IRB) before interviewing people was uncertain at the time;[10] she points out that shortly after publication of this 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."[10][37]

Also as 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. Regulators dismissed the complaints.[21]

Academic freedom[edit]

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."[21] Interviewed by Carey, Alice Dreger said 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."[21]

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".[21] 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."[35]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Bailey, J. Michael (2003). The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. Joseph Henry Press, ISBN 978-0-309-08418-5
  2. ^ Bailey (2003), p. 76.
  3. ^ 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. 
  4. ^ a b 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
  5. ^ Bailey (2003), p. 16.
  6. ^ 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. 
  7. ^ 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. 
  8. ^ 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. 
  9. ^ a b c d The Man Who Would Be Queen via National Academies Press. Retrieved 6 September 2008.
  10. ^ a b c d e f g Dreger AD (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". Arch Sex Behav 37 (3): 366–421. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1. PMC 3170124. PMID 18431641. 
  11. ^ "The Man Who Would Be Queen: Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism". Catalog. The National Academies Press. Retrieved 2009-02-21. 
  12. ^ Pinker, Steven (June 28, 2003). Pages for pleasure. The Guardian
  13. ^ Seligman, Dan (October 13, 2003). Transsexuals And the Law. Forbes
  14. ^ Henderson, Mark (December 6, 2003). Who’s got the brains in this relationship? The Times
  15. ^ Derbyshire, John (June 30, 2003). Lost in the Male. National Review
  16. ^ Osborne, Duncan (March 2003). 'The Man Who Would Be Queen' (review). Out, March 2003, Vol. 11 Issue 9, pp. 54-54.
  17. ^ Cantor, James M. (2003) BOOK REVIEW: "The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey, The National Academies Press, 2003.", APA Division 44 Newsletter 19(2): 6.
  18. ^ a b Klein, Julie M. (May 2004). Ethical minefields: The sex that would be science. Seed Magazine, May/June 2004
  19. ^ Krasny, Michael (August 22, 2007). Transgender Theories. Forum with Michael Krasny, KQED
  20. ^ a b Roughgarden, Joan (June 4, 2004). Twist In The Tale Of Two Genders. Times Higher Education No.1643; Pg. 20
  21. ^ a b c d e f Carey, Benedict. (2007-08-21.) "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege." New York Times via nytimes.com. Retrieved on 2007-09-19.
  22. ^ Marcus, Jon (August 1, 2003). Transsexuals Protest. Times Higher Education, p. 13
  23. ^ Holden, Constance (July 18, 2003). Transsexuality Treatise Triggers Furor.[dead link], Science/AAAS) mirrored at [1]
  24. ^ Staff report (June 25, 2003). Trans Group Attacks New Book on 'Queens.' Windy City Times
  25. ^ McCloskey, Deirdre (November 2003). Queer Science: A data-bending psychologist confirms what he already knew about gays and transsexuals. Reason, November 2003
  26. ^ Denny, Dallas (December 13, 2004). Viewpoint: Why the Bailey Controversy Is Important. Transgender Tapestry #104, Winter 2004
  27. ^ Park, Pauline (May 30, 2003). Sympathy, But Finding Pathology. Gay City News
  28. ^ Green J (2003). Bailey’s wick. PlanetOut
  29. ^ 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
  30. ^ The Ups and Downs of J. Michael Bailey. Transgender Tapestry #104, Winter 2004, pp. 53-54.
  31. ^ Mundy, Liza (March 23, 2003). Codes of Behavior. Washington Post
  32. ^ Bockting, Walter O. (2005). "Biological reductionism meets gender diversity in human sexuality. [Review of the book The Man Who Would Be Queen.]". Journal of Sex Research 42: 267–270. 
  33. ^ Letellier, Patrick (2004-03-16). "Group rescinds honor for disputed book". Gay.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-05. Retrieved 2010-01-10. 
  34. ^ Dreger, A. D. (2008). "Response to the Commentaries on Dreger (2008)". Archives of Sexual Behavior 37 (3): 503–510. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9348-7.  edit
  35. ^ a b Charles Moser (June 2008). "A Different Perspective". Archives of Sexual Behavior 37 (3). 
  36. ^ 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."
  37. ^ 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. Retrieved 31 December 2008. . See also An Update on the Exclusion of Oral History from IRB Review (March 2004).

External links[edit]