The Man Who Would Be Queen

"The Man Who Would Be Queen"

Controversial dust jacket.
Author	J. Michael Bailey
Language	English
Genre	Popular science
Publisher	Joseph Henry Press imprint of the National Academies Press
Publication date	2003
Publication place	United States of America
Media type	Print (Hardback & ebook PDF
Pages	256
ISBN	9780309084185
OCLC	51088011
Dewey Decimal	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. Bailey reviews evidence that male homosexuality is congenital (a result of heredity and prenatal environment), and he argues for the accuracy of some stereotypes about gay men. He also reviews evidence for a theory that says there are two forms of transsexualism in transsexual women, one that is what is described as an extreme type of homosexuality and one that is an expression of a paraphilia known as 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. Bailey says that some of his critics were motivated by a desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about autogynephilia theory on transsexuals. though others reject this assessment.

Summary

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

It starts with an anecdote about a child Bailey calls "Danny." Bailey writes of Danny's mother, who has been frustrated by other therapists she has seen about her son's "feminine" behavior. Bailey discusses psychologist and sexologist Kenneth Zucker's work with children whose parents have noticed significant gender-atypical behaviors. Bailey uses the anecdote about Danny to describe gender identity disorder, a label applied to males with significant feminine behaviors and females with significant masculine behaviors, such as cross-dressing. For example, this class includes boys that prefer to play with dolls and regularly identify with female characters in stories or movies, and girls that prefer to play with toy cars and identify with male characters. This section of the book also discusses some case studies of men who were, for varying reasons, reassigned to the female sex shortly after their birth, and emphasizes the fact that, despite this, they tended to exhibit typically male characteristics and often identified as men.

The second section deals primarily with gay men, including a suggested link between childhood 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. Bailey also discusses the process by which transition from male to female occurs.

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

Controversy

The book elicited both strongly negative and strongly supporting 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

Kirkus Reviews concluded: "Despite its provocative title, a scientific yet superbly compassionate exposition." The book received praise from gay sexual behavior scientist Simon LeVay, from sex-differences expert David Buss, and from research psychologist Steven Pinker, who wrote: " The Man Who Would Be Queen may upset the guardians of political correctness on both the left and the right, but it will be welcomed by intellectually curious people of all sexes and sexual orientations." It also received praise from conservative journalist Steve Sailer, as well as Fortune magazines Daniel Seligman, and Mark Henderson. Conservative commentator John Derbyshire said: "a wealth of fascinating information, carefully gathered by (it seems to me) a conscientious and trustworthy scientific observer." It also received a positive review from writer Ethan Boatner of Lavender Magazine and Duncan Osborne in Out. Research psychologist James Cantor also wrote a positive review of the book in the newsletter of APA's Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues (Division 44).

Negative reactions

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

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. Psychologist Eli Coleman referred to the book as "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers," and his colleague, Walter Bockting, wrote that it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community." Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft 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." Psychologist Randi Ettner said of Bailey, "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned."

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.

Andrea James, a transgender advocate, attacked Bailey by constructing a satire website with publicly published pictures of Bailey's children from his public website beside captions reflecting Baileys own assertions about transsexuals. For example, in his book TMWWBQ Bailey writes "Cross-dressing has also been linked to sexual sadism - although most autogynephiles are not sexual sadists, they are more likely to be sadists compared with men who are not autogynephilic" p. 172 . James has said that she was echoing the disrespect that Bailey's work shows for vulnerable people, including children.

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.)" Charles 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. "

Allegations against Bailey

Two of the transsexual women interviewed for Bailey's 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 , though according to Alice Dreger the two women were not used in the final version of Bailey's book. Referring to the other two transsexual women of the four interviewed Dreger said "The two others did know their stories would be used, as they themselves said in their letters to Northwestern. " 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. The issue came down to whether the book was "hard science" or "popular science". One needs to follow the rules of the IRB if it is serious science, the other has no such requirements.

According to Alice 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; 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." \

Also as cited as harassment of Bailey were charges that Bailey was practicing without a license. "They also wrote to the Illinois state regulators, requesting that they investigate Dr. Bailey for practicing psychology without a license. Dr. Bailey, who was not licensed to practice clinical psychology in Illinois, had provided some of those who helped him with the book with brief case evaluation letters, suggesting that they were good candidates for sex-reassignment surgery. A spokesman for the state said that regulators took no action on the complaints."

Alleged Attempts to Suppress Academic Freedom

Benedict Carey's wrote an article 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." None of Baileys supporters were named. Alice Dreger, who appears as Baileys only supporter to be quoted in Carey's article , 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."

However, critics such as Deirdre McCloskey think that the pointed criticism, including filing charges, was warranted: "Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment on a book and an author who stepped into the public arena with enthusiasm to deliver a false and unscientific and politically damaging opinion". The concern over academic freedom was dismissed by Charles Allen Moser, who wrote: "The death of free speech and academic freedom has been highly exaggerated. Science is not free of politics, never has been, and never will be." He later went on to say: "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." Concluding that the real author of the controversy was Bailey himself by his insensitive and inflammatory manner.

External links

• Men Trapped in Men's Bodies Chapter 9 of the book in HTML (about autogynephilia)
• Book Controversy FAQ by author J. Michael Bailey
• The World according to J. Michael Bailey inside "The Man who would be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism" by Madeline H. Wyndzen