The J. Michael Bailey Controversy Over Transsexuality

It doesn't hold true for me either.

  And other trans-women that I know. I will never understand what it is with people that assume being transgendered is all about sex, when it has nothing to do with sex. 

  I remember when I came out, my parents asked me to see a psychologist of their choosing so they could be reassured of what I was going through.  I think he asked me about masturbation 10 times, and if I was aroused when I dressed as me. I remember that day well, as it was the same day I was prescribed HRT.  I was asked repeatedly, what gender I am attracted to, which happens to be males, and he kept suggesting that I was wanting to change my gender to deal with my homosexuallity problem.

  It didn't dawn on me until later during transition, and doing research that Bailey's book was what he was referring too.  As I look back to that session with him, I was never asked about the desire to be as one, and not having a conflict with in me.

  I would like to know who these people interview when it comes to transgender issues, as I doubt they interview true transsexuals, M2F of F2M.  And as you note, F2M don't exsist in their worlds.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:13:40 AM CDT

Not Surprising...

While transfolk ultimately have to separate sexual identity and gender identity in coming to terms with their transition, most people (including GLB) do not wind up asking themselves about the relationship between the two threads of identity.

Add to that a rather unfortunate bit of terminology that was coined in an era when "sex" could be used equally for gender as well as intercourse, and you have a situation where it is difficult for the "average" person to deal with.

Bailey/Blanchard and Lawrence ultimately wind up clouding the issue further with a sexually-focused model to begin with.

---

by: Grog @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:25:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sex questions

When I was seeing a therapist prior to starting hormones, he asked me if I thought of myself as a woman when I was having sex. I told him: I think of myself as a woman when I am at my computer, I think of myself as a woman when I am walking down the street, I think of myself as a woman when I am eating dinner, so why would I think of myself any differently when I am having sex?

Idiot.

---

by: Stephanie, in Victoria @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 13:48:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Shorter Michael Bailey

1. All transsexuals are sex perverts.

2. Any transsexual who claims that they are not  a pervert is lying pervert.

But hey, Bailey is not transphobic because he has no problem with men being perverts.

---

by: Stephanie, in Victoria @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:48:43 AM CDT

NPR podcast

Recently  there was radio forum on KQED featuring Bailey, Dreger, Joan Roughgarden and Mara Keisling of the NCTE. It is worth listening to.

Bailey comes off as a complete knob and at one point spends about 5 minutes evading answering a repeated direct question ("Do you still believe that transsexuals are particularly suited to prostitution, as you said in your book?")

Joan Roughgarden is just fabulous and the most logical person in the discussion, presenting nothing but facts and direct quotations from his book and other sources, citing page numbers and sources for everything. She completely destroys Bailey's attempts at spin and he comes off sounding like the least mature and least rational of the four guests.

The show also has good production values with no-one ever talking over top of someone else.

---

by: Stephanie, in Victoria @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:29:37 AM CDT

The KQED podcast was the first link I listed...

...in the Further information regarding J. Michael Bailey, posted at the bottom of the article:

* KQED (Public Radio): Transgender Theories

Further, the second link in the further information section is an article written by Bailey -- Academic McCarthyism is an article he wrote a couple of years ago regarding the backlash to his book.

The third link, Parental Selection of Children's Sexual Orientation, is where Bailey endorsed eugenics for weeding out gay fetuses. From the abstract of that article:

As we learn more about the causes of sexual orientation, the likelihood increases that parents will one day be able to select the orientation of their children. This possibility (at least that of selecting for heterosexuality) has generated a great deal of concern among supporters of homosexual rights, with such selection being widely condemned as harmful and morally repugnant. Notwithstanding this widespread condemnation, and even assuming, as we do, that homosexuality is entirely acceptable morally, allowing parents, by means morally unproblematic in themselves, to select for heterosexuality would be morally acceptable. This is because allowing parents to select their children's sexual orientation would further parent's freedom to raise the sort of children they wish to raise and because selection for heterosexuality may benefit parents and children and is unlikely to cause significant harm.

The remaining links are articles about his controversial research regarding bisexuals, and reactions to the bisexual related research.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:27:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Other resources

[Shameless Plug alert] I'd recommend my own:

Is Alice Dreger to J. Michael Bailey as George W. Bush is to Scooter Libby? Weighing in on an Yet Another Attempt to Pull a ‘Scholarly’ Fast One Against Transsexual Women

Kat

P.S. Sorry about the large font.  The text just copied that way - though that does represent the extent to which I feel the sentiment.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:04:44 AM CDT

No shame in that plug...

I had no idea you were a lawyer and academician. More props to the brainpower commenting on PHB. I'd think that you could get teaching gigs with your combo of degrees - the challenge is to get full time tenure track appointments, hard for everyone - though academia is hiring more law professors than history professors.

Do you know Kylar Broadus? He has taught business law at Lincoln U (historically black college/ university in mid-Missouri) and is on boards of various lgbt political organisations and on translaw organisations. I know him slightly through PROMO, the state lgbt rights lobbying organization, which holds a yearly meeting in central MO for all state activists, who may not meet each other except on lobby day at the state legislature.

---

by: NancyP @ Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:45:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I had the chance to speak directly with

Michael Bailey during an interview on the Michalangelo Signorile show a few years back, when the first incarnation of the controversey surrounding his book was happening. I challenged his theories politely, but squarely. I found him to be wholly evasive and dismissive of anyone who dare think or suggest there is even the slightest possibility that his theories could be in error.

Not being a trans woman myself, I can't speak to what they go through. But my own gender identity issues needed to be dealt with regarding my intersexuality at birth. I can remember being "herded" towards being male by the therapists I dealt with, and insisting that my identiy was then, and is now, only female. I can remember an inner frustration and outrage at someone who could never know what I was going through, sitting back in his or her chair and TELLING me what gender I was supposed to be, becuase he or she had such-and-such degree from (name presitgious university here).

The arrogance of these people sticks with me to this day, and Bailey simply seems to be yet another in a long line of people who are in total denial of even the possibility that there is a component of the human mind, independent of one's sexuality, which espouses a particular gender identification. For these people, all is a perversity. 

A society without religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.

---

by: Jen @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:28:06 AM CDT

Bailey's model doesn't fit me, either

But then again, I'll also admit that trans* folks can be excellent liars.  After all, we learn very early in life to lie to everyone (maybe even including ourselves) about who we really are.

And didn't Bailey get slapped down for his research methodology for the book?  I seem to remember that he never told the subjects that he interviewed for the book that they were going to be utilized in a book at all.

---

by: Jami @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 13:56:09 PM CDT

What's faulty methodology between friends?

"And didn't Bailey get slapped down for his research methodology for the book?  I seem to remember that he never told the subjects that he interviewed for the book that they were going to be utilized in a book at all."

The key 'fault' is that the book is not science on any level - and what is infuriating about Dreger's effort to rehabilitate Bailey is that even she acknowledges this! 

With that admission, there should cease to be any discussion about the 'merits' of Bailey's work - for its tantamount to an admission that the 2007 controversy is qualitative, not substantive; all about the targets of a virulently biased work of anti-science having the nerve not to submit to the decorum demands of the work's perpetrator.

Of course, in the end, all of the whining about 'academic discourse' on the part of Bailey-Dreger (and their apologists) is a lie.  Part of Bailey's overall neo-eugenicist motif is that any transsexual who disagrees with him about what he would declare her to be is a liar.  That isn't exactly an open invitation to civil academic discourse.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 14:11:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bailey and WPATH

I was hoping that next week's conference in Chicago was going to be a professional, academic affair. Apparently not.

 It behooves the organizers to arrange a symposium/panel on this very topic, because otherwise it will poison the entire event.

 I had hoped three years ago that peace had broken out between ISNA (the organized intersex community) and the trans community. I had very good relations with both Cheryl Chase and Alice Dreger then, but it appears that those underlying issues may have led Ms. Dreger into the arms of Dr. Bailey. It seems to me that the intersex community still has problems accepting transsexualism as a form of intersex, even though by definition it certainly is. But the way they have chosen to escape from that logical conclusion is to label all trans women as male perverts. If trans women really aren't women but remain men, then there is no incongruence between male genitals and female brain; hence, trans women are not intersex.

Given the major shift by pediatric urologists against operating on infants, I had hoped the ISNA would have just declared victory and joined with the trans community. As one who is both physically as well as neurologically intersex, it made sense to me. Obviously we all have more work to do next week.

Dr. Dana

---

by: danabeyer @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 14:09:46 PM CDT

?

I was under the impression that the 'intersex community' was, if not at peace with us, then certainly not at war with us.  I'm not getting the impression that Dreger, in reality, represents anyone other than herself and the Fabulous Bailey-Blanchard Boys.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 14:14:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dreger and intersex

Kat,

I hope you're correct. Maybe this is her work alone in her new incarnation as a Northwestern prof. Had it been anyone else, any other historian or philosopher of science, I wouldn't be concerned. And I'll be happy to ask her about this next week.

However, I find the past associations troubling. Her support of Bailey fits in nicely with the old battles. Had she come out now and said plainly that Bailey's work is junk science, but he was treated badly, then I wouldn't have any problem. I think he's flawed as a poster boy for academic freedom, since he started the name-calling. And calling anyone a liar who disagrees with him shuts down any rational dialogue.

It will be interesting to see if the two camps will have any dialogue. The last time I was at a conference with Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence and Zucker, Lawrence refused to speak to me. The other guys were perfectly civil and friendly.

Dr. Dana

---

by: danabeyer @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 17:09:14 PM CDT

The Organisation Intersex International

Just as the gay community isn't a monolithic orgnization/lobby, and the trans community isn't monolithic a monolithic orgnization/lobby, the intersex community isn't monolithic in their viewpoints either.  The Organisation Intersex International (OII) has at least one article up on Dr. Dreger's paper that doesn't support her position.

The OII folk aren't fond of the new Disorders of Sexual Development (DSD) diagnosis -- similar reasons many transsexuals don't like the Disorder in the Gender Identity Disorder (GID) diagnosis.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 18:37:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dialogue? Or Waterlog?

"The last time I was at a conference with Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence and Zucker, Lawrence refused to speak to me."

I answered Zucker's call for responses to Dreger's paper to be included in ASB.

He as yet to respond to me. 

Don't get me wrong - I had no illusions; I figured that even if the thing wasn't rigged he might have a preference for MDs and PhDs over JDs (even ones who are PhD candidates and already have published extensively in the scholarly arena.)  Still, the silence speaks volumes.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 22:55:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OII

I agree that the intersex community in the US is not equivalent to the global community.

 

I also disagree with the new DSD diagnosis. I support Mickey Diamond's simple variation to VSD,Variations . . . 

Dr. Dana

---

by: danabeyer @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 20:23:34 PM CDT

I for one....

As a member of "the intersex community" as it were, do not consider myself at war with anyone except the religious right and the Republican Party. I love transgendered people, and have numerous transgendered friends--just like I have numerous lesbian friends and numerous straight friends. I have always said we all need to work together toward common goals. Division is a sure path to failure. Gay, bisexual, lesbian, trans, intersex, questioning, allied, parents, friends.....whatever. Let's work together against the common enemy.

As far as the DSM, and the "diagnoses" that accompany various gender related conditions, I am deeply offended by the term "GID", as I am any infernce that there is something "wrong" with ANYONE who exhibits gender variance issues, either through a physical variance, or through a mental/identity variance. 

It seems to me that the psychological and psychiatric communities are WAY behind the times in recognizing that nature likes variation in all things. Variation is not necessarily mental illness. "Gender Identity Disorder" implies that something is inherently WRONG with the person who is diagnosed with it. There's nothing wrong with them. The are a normal product of nature. Less common than the norm, but no less precious.

People like Bailey will never understand or accept this fact, but it remains fact, non the less.

 

A society without religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.

---

by: Jen @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 22:39:59 PM CDT

I'm going to be harsh here...

...but, one of the problems that I have with purported academics using their academic credentials (PhD) to get their books published in the popular press is that they are circumventing the peer-review process to make a buck.  I don't like that, and I haven't liked it for decades.

If Mr. Bailey, PhD, wanted to get his theories out, he should have published them in peer-reviewed journals, where they could have been critiqued by others in his field, not in the popular press, where they can be criticized--not critiqued--by laypersons.  It makes a mockery of science that people like Mr. Bailey, PhD, were to do something like this.

BTW, I have my own objections with transgender advocates (less than you might think), but that is a topic for another day.

---

by: raj @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:14:24 AM CDT

There are some fair criticisms

...of the methods used to discredit Bailey.

<>Personally, as a transwoman, I find his theories  alarming, judgemental, and to be honest, nonsensical.

Alarming because they play to stereotypes, and the notion that anything not heterosexual (read a little more about his theories on homosexuality, too...there's less to any gay friendliness on his part than you might think) is somehow a deviation, in this case to the point of paraphilia.  Deviation in our society is somehow considered a bad thing,  even though it is a natural part of evolution!

<>To be honest, transsexualism to me, seems like a normal outcome of a certain confluence of biological factors.  Paraphilias, IMHO, are few and far between, and don't make sense as identities.<>

<>Maybe there are some autogynephiles, and homosexual transsexuals out there.  Fine, I hope they find solace in their lives. The real concern is that his theories will perpetuate needless pain and cause severe stigmatisation for other transwomen (he doesn't address transmen) who do not fit those categories.  Personal I question if Drs. BBL et al know about the null hypothesis, or the possibility that they were measuring something else in their carefully selected for studies?  Such as symptons, not causation?  Or even patterns that are something completely different, but mislabeled due to precognition? Do they know that not that long ago, calling yourself transsexual was as unacceptable as calling yourself a gay man?  To an undiscerning public, a gay man might be a pervert (forgive me) but a transwoman was a freak and a pervert as well!  Welcome to the closet!  I know, because I felt that based on the transsexual lives I saw, and knowing that I was not sexually attracted to men, self destruction was the only answer. I tried to join the army (getting yourself killed also hides your secret forever) yet asthma kept me out (or my poor overworked guardian angel) then tried to do it for myself.  Not because I was a gay man, but because I saw no way to be who I felt I was.   Finally, nearly self destroying myself stopped working. 

<><> But... even for all of the unneeded pain caused transsexuals by such theories, villifying him, and especially attacking his family, is way out of bounds, and only serves to discredit those activists who use that sort of tactic.  I'm not saying that all of the charges against Andrea James, Lynn Conway or Dierdre McCloskey are accurate.  They are very troubling, and some of them do have real evidence behind them. <>I don't care why Bailey's children were brought into this discussion...it's a disgusting tactic, and I resent how it has served to obscure the real debate.  It was a stupid move, period, which has led to sympathy for bad science in a public that pays attention to fireworks before facts. Now we can be accused of being defensive (yes, I understand personally and well about living ones life defensively) and clever propagandists for this "science" will play on this ad nauseum.  Defensive people "must be hiding something."

<><>Learn long term strategy, activists, before you go to war...ad hominen attacks  can be answered, and if you are in a vulnerable position, don't use them...

<>I am a day to day activist...I am living amongst people who knew me before and after, I built up goodwill and acceptance by being understanding and answering their concerns with my own inner truth as I see it.  I was doing very well, yet now I have to fear whether or not all the caring in my relationships will have a subordinate clause attached.  Thanks a heckuva lot, there, some people!

Hate stops a beating heart.

---

by: KarenS @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:46:25 AM CDT