The Bailey Brou-ha-ha

Articles by Katherine Cummings, Willow Arune, National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (N.T.A.C.), Robyn Williams and Lynn Conway

(The Gender Centre advise that this article may not be current and as such certain content, including but not limited to persons, contact details and dates may not apply. Where legal authority or medical related matters are cited, responsibility lies with the reader to obtain the most current relevant legal authority and/or medical publication.)

Editorial Comment: I cannot recall any book on transgender since Janice Raymond's The Transsexual Empire; the making of the she-male which has caused such a furore of rage and reaction from transgender activists as has the publication of J. Michael Bailey's "The Man Who Would Be Queen" ... There have in the past been essays and events which have brought the warriors out (Germaine Greer's attempt to have Rachael Padman fired from her college teaching position springs to mind) but for a book to create such rage and fury worldwide is truly remarkable. There are a few high profile transgender people who defend Bailey and his peculiar views but I have the feeling they are trying to be more than fair, that they are bending over backwards to show that they are not prejudiced or bigoted, even when they themselves are being attacked. And of course it is difficult in a situation like this not to sound as if one is protesting too much on the one hand, or simply being shrill on the other.

It is to the credit of some of our sisters in academe, notably Lynn Conway & Joan Roughgarden, that they have refuted Bailey's views without resorting to name ­calling or the kind of vilification which is implicit in Bailey's work.

I have gathered together a number of items, mainly from "Transgender News" , which deal with the Bailey brou-ha-ha, including both pro and con and will let you make up your own minds as to the value of Bailey's research and the depth of as his assessments (which, it must be as noted, did not originate with him, but with Ray Blanchard of the Clarke Institute in Toronto, Ontario).

Katherine Cummings

J. Michael Bailey

Controversy Erupts Over Gay and Transsexual Book, N.T.A.C. N.A.S. Review, Independent Research

The gloves have come off, and a scientific brou-ha-ha has developed over J. Michael Bailey's book, The Man Who Would be Queen, published by Joseph Henry Press, imprint for the National Academies, including the National Academy of Science. Respected members of the medical and scientific world as well as transgender activists have decried as worse than junk science a publication that is long on intuition and devoid of original research data.

... Bailey writes, "The two types of transsexuals who begin life as males are called homosexual and autogynephilic.

Such well known and respected transsexual women as Professor Lynn Conway, University of Michigan; Professor Joan Roughgarden; Stanford University Biology Department, Dr. Becky Allison, M.D.; and Christine Burns, Vice President of Britain's Press for Change organization, decry the simplistic Blanchard theory posited as truth by Bailey based largely on his observations of transsexual prostitutes and others who frequent gay bars in Chicago. They have expressed concern over the treatment transsexuals could expect if the Blanchard-Bailey position were taught as fact. Conway, Roughgarden and Burns have called on the National Academy of Science to investigate Bailey's work and to remove the book from under the imprimatur of the National Academies.

The National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (N.T.A.C.) supports this action and calls for independent research into other potential transsexual taxonomies. Many educated, intelligent, and successful transsexuals disagree that "two sizes fit all". The categories of homosexual and autogynephile do not capture these individuals' experience and ignore their self-description and understanding. Bailey's limited definitions turn all other opinions into "self-deception", which strains credulity.

Even Anjelica Kieltyka, portrayed as "Cher", a major character in Bailey's chapters on autogynephilia has disavowed Bailey and Blanchard's all-inclusive categorizations. She has been quoted as writing, "it is most unfortunate that he [Bailey] used me and my case history as the "poster child for autogynephilia" ... using all of my case study (under the pseudonym of "Cher") to support his chapters on "autogynephiliacs". Unfortunate because here was an opportunity to break away from, rather then [sic] give further support to a dead "Freudian" mixture of onanism, narcissism and paraphilic transvestite fetishism. I refused to join this bandwagon of Bailey, Blanchard and Lawrence, to which I would also add Zucker and Bradley of the Clarke Institute."

In a May 3, 2003 letter to the presidents of the National Academy of Science and the National Institute of Medicine, Dr. Joan Roughgarden, Stanford University Professor of Population Biology, states the following: "Many are claiming that the Academy has become complicit in publishing junk science ... The situation is actually worse however. Junk-science at least goes through the motions of science. Junk-science books include references, footnotes, data tables, and statistics to create the semblance of science. Only by tracking down the references can junk science be refuted. Bailey, on the other hand, has written a thin book without references, a book that nonetheless makes exceptionally broad and dubious claims in the name of science, and draws legitimacy from appearing under the Academy's imprint and on the Academy's website. The situation is remarkable. There's nothing in Bailey's book to refute other than hot air - no data tables, no statistics, no knowledge of the principles of classification, no experiments, no controls, no out­ groups, nothing."

Three primary reasons for the opposition of successful transsexual scientists and educators to Bailey's book include a near complete lack of research details or reference; the apparent omission of transsexuals from other than the gay bar, sex worker, and erotic sex scenes; and the insistence that those transsexuals who strongly disavow being homosexual or autogynephilic are simply in a state of self-deception or are lying. In placing all M.T.F. transsexuals in one of two narrowly defined categories that don't match the reported feelings of many transsexuals, Bailey is deemed guilty of faulty research, faulty conclusions, sensationalism, and perhaps, of promoting a homophobic and transphobic approach to treatment.

Bailey, Blanchard and Lawrence contend that transsexuals coming from a heterosexual life who deny eroticism as the primary reason for their transition are not being truthful. Since they consider the feelings of such transsexuals to be false by presumption, then all such transsexuals must be autogynephilic. Q.E.D. No need for further research.

Bailey, an Associate Professor of Psychology at North-Western University, contends that early onset M.T.F.s - those who have known since childhood that they are "women trapped in a man's body" - are extremely feminine homosexual men.

He identifies only one other classification of M.T.F. transsexuals: autogynephilics. These, he contends, are men who are so erotically obsessed with the image of themselves as women that they live as women, undergoing sex reassignment surgery, if possible.

Thus, Bailey reiterates the twenty year-old conclusions of Ray Blanchard at the Clarke Institute in Toronto, who first developed the model of autogynephilia to explain transsexuals who transition later in life, often following a long-term and successful male role.

Blanchard's theory on autogynephilia and his categorization of only two types of transsexual received little lasting notice until resurrected by several articles written by Dr. Anne Lawrence M.D. and PhD. of Seattle a few years ago.

On page 146 of his book, Bailey writes, "The two types of transsexuals who begin life as males are called homosexual and autogynephilic. Once understood, these names are appropriate. Succinctly put, homosexual male-to-female transsexuals are extremely feminine gay men, and autogynephilic transsexuals are men erotically obsessed with the image of themselves as women."

In a recent note to an autogynephilia discussion list, however, Bailey said, "I have never written that transsexuals who transition from men to women are still men. Nor has Ray Blanchard. Nor has Anne Lawrence. The phrase "men trapped in men's bodies", which applies to autogynephilic transsexuals, means simply that they are not naturally feminine in the way that homosexual M.T.F. transsexuals are. It doesn't mean that they do not achieve femininity, and regardless of how feminine they are, once they decide to become women and enter that role (regardless of genital status), they are women, in my opinion."

Bailey posits that transsexuals who lived in the role of straight men suffer from sexual aberrations (paraphilias) rather than from the more commonly accepted mismatch between body and the brain's gender identity. Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence seem to discount the role of gender in Gender Identity Disorder (G.I.D.), assigning the role instead to either homosexuality or sexual obsession. Bailey states (page 176), "With luck, the next revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (D.S.M.) will distinguish "homosexual" from "autogynephilic" transsexualism." Outspoken critics hope not. A Pacific Northwest gender counsellor and a post-operative medical doctor recently stated - in private - words to the effect that "this bad idea will die off as it deserves to do if we just don't make a big deal of it"

Dr. Ben Barres, M.D. PhD., professor of Neurobiology and Developmental Biology at Stanford University and a female to male transsexual puts it this way. "Bailey truly doesn't get the gender identity dissonance that transsexuals experience - it really is hard for people to understand what they haven't experienced themselves. I have talked with many M.T.F.s who have contacted me and have listened to the feelings they have gone through their whole lives and it is always an exact mirror of what I have experienced as an F.T.M.. These M.T.F.s have no reason to lie to me, as I have no power over what treatment they receive. For Bailey to say that most M.T.F.s are primarily doing the gender change because of a fetish rather than a true gender identity issue just doesn't ring true to me or to many other people that have worked in clinics taking care of many M.T.F.s."

The danger of teaching incomplete results as fact can be seen in Bailey's own comments (page 206). "They [my undergraduate students] are especially hesitant to support [sex reassignment] surgery for non-homosexual transsexuals, once they learn about autogynephilia. When I press them, they say something like the following: "But they don't have the wrong body; they are mentally ill." Bailey notes that Paul McHugh, then Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins used a version of that argument to close the John Hopkins gender identity clinic many years ago.

Thus, Bailey seems to realize that – despite his avowed support of transsexuals and of gay men - he is developing a generation of potential gender counsellors, legislators, and doctors who will see sex reassignment as a bad solution to a sexual aberration rather than as an effective "cure" for matching body and the brain's gender identity.

Dr. Sarah Fox, who attended graduate school with Bailey at the University of Texas and was briefly a teaching assistant under one of Bailey's most influential professors says that Bailey's apparent lack of concern comes as little surprise to her. Says Fox, "[The professor under whom she and Bailey studied] was a noted authority on supposed intelligence differences between the races and sexes. Irrespective of whether such differences may exist, I was very uncomfortable with how his teachings might be used and/or abused by those with social and political agendas. I discussed my apprehensions with him on at least two occasions. He stood firm that a scientist's job is to do the research and that it is up to others to sort out the ramifications. Bailey seems like a chip off the old block."

In her opinion concerning Bailey's book, Dr. Julie Maverick, N.T.A.C. Vice-Chair, said, "This book is supported chiefly through "proof by blatant assertion". "The lack of scholarship and unwillingness to discuss opposing views strongly diminishes the scientific credibility of this book immediately. I rather doubt it would have passed rigorous peer review." Dr. Maverick noted, for example, the lack of credence afforded by Prof. Bailey to valid, peer-reviewed papers published in the 1990s that showed gay men and male-to-female transsexuals to have different brain chemistries and structures from each other (e.g. Zhou, et al., 1995, Nature). Those studies showed that the brain chemistry and structure of the transsexuals studied were much more like those of women than those of gay men.

Dr. Maverick also noted that studies of intersex biology and behaviour clearly demonstrate a wide range of physiological and psychological conditions within a transgender framework that do not fit the Prof. Bailey's scheme.

Dr. Robyn Walters, N.T.A.C. Media Director notes that, following a half dozen or more email exchanges in recent weeks on an international autogynephilia news list that counts Anne Lawrence and Michael Bailey as members, she has yet to receive an answer to the question of why many supporters of Blanchard's theory and Bailey's book are adamantly opposed to even the possibility that there could be another theory. A more comprehensive theory might include gender identity as well as autogynephilia and homosexuality as special cases.

This would be akin to the General Theory of Relativity including the Special Theory of Relativity. "Responses to this line of questioning have merely repeated the mantra that there are only two types of M.T.F. transsexual and that those who consider other explanations are "self-­deceptive liars", Walters reported. "Relying solely on an unproven presumption of massive self-­deception does not appear to be good science."

N.T.A.C. considers the National Academies' imprimatur assigned this book to be misplaced and ultimately harmful. Reliance on Bailey's work will likely hurt our community in terms of health care and in terms of legal, medical, and societal acceptance. N.T.A.C. considers that questionable science - potentially incomplete science - cannot remain unchallenged and must not alone form the basis on which future generations of transsexuals will be judged and treated. Therefore, N.T.A.C. urges the National Academies to review the research credibility behind "The Man Who Would Be Queen". In addition, N.T.A.C. urges the National Academies and such organizations as the Gill Foundation, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Rikki Swinn Institute, Human Rights Campaign, and others to join forces in organizing and funding an independent study to analyse and categorize transsexuals who disavow a history of homosexuality and who disavow eroticism as the reason for making their bodies anatomically congruent with their sense of gender identity. The results of such a study, coupled with the theory of Ray Blanchard and the anecdotes of Michael Bailey, could well lead to a "Unified Theory of Transsexualism" and better represent and serve the diversity of our community.

Copyright © National Transgender Advocacy Coalition

Willow Arune, in Canada, is one of the more articulate transgender people who is supporting the Blanchard/Bailey view. Her piece has been edited to fit the available space, but the gist of her argument has been preserved.

I suppose that I am disappointed. The first obvious error is that Bailey was presenting his own research. I do not know how many times Bailey has to say that he is reporting on Blanchard's research, not his own. He has stated it here, on his web page, and in his book. What Bailey is doing is, in essence, reporting on Blanchard's theory. There is no original research to speak of save for anecdotes. To me, that seems a rather large error to make. To put it another way, and not intending any disrespect, are you critical of the monkey or the organ grinder about the choice in music? According to the N.T.A.C., you deal with the monkey (no offence to Bailey).

I do not know how many times Bailey has to say that he is reporting on Blanchard's research, not his own. He has stated it here, on his web page, and in his book.

A reference to an email list in the news release refers to posts from Robyn (of N.T.A.C.) regarding her questions as to further research. The quote reads as follows:

"... following a half dozen or more email exchanges in recent weeks on an international autogynephilia news list that counts Anne Lawrence and Michael Bailey as members, she has yet to receive an answer to the question of why many supporters of Blanchard's theory and Bailey's book are adamantly opposed to even the possibility that there could be another theory ..." - Responses to this line of questioning have merely repeated the mantra that there are only two types of M.T.F. transsexual and that those who consider other explanations are self-deceptive liars," Walters reported. "Relying solely on an unproven presumption of massive self-deception does not appear to be good science".

Well now, is that really an accurate statement? I do not believe it is. This is not a course, but a voluntary list where members participate as they wish. Not replying to any post is not a positive or negative vote. It simply means that members elected not to respond for whatever reason. Those few that did may not be taken as representative - a large jump in reasoning, I believe. Had I replied to the "many posts of Robyn", I most certainly would have supported further research - as would many ­the majority - here I suspect. This implies that we on this list are very close-minded. I do not think that is true. Again, I suggest Robyn do the homework I suggested to another member. Use a false name, go to any other transsexual lists, and say you support the theory 100%. See how "open minded" the "other side" is. These are, in fairness, quibbles. But this press release came from N.T.A.C. and was intended to go national. Should it not be accurate? Further, if these two small points are not accurate, what reliance can be placed on the rest. I, like Robyn and am glad she participates here, but each reference to this list was either wrong or used without consent. That says something about the overall release, in my opinion. ... (and anything in this post, indeed, is my opinion) Now, several other matters that seemingly confirm the bias I see in these press releases ... "Joan Roughgarden reports on the lecture in San Francisco". She has every right to do so, in public as she did. But there are other views, some referred to on Bailey's web page. It is shading to report only the views you wish to support. I also look to the emotional rants of Ms. Conway. She may well be "well known". As to respect, not on this issue, not after her tirades and not while her own agenda remains undisclosed.

"Devoid of original research data". No question, the book is anecdotal. Bailey affirms this, again and again, and many times states that he is giving his opinion. He has stated again and again that it is not his research, but Blanchard's. This error comes up repeatedly.

As to this list, a jump in logic. If I post to this list, I do not draw any conclusion if nobody replies. This list is not a university course where one has to study and prepare. It is a drop-in kind of place and replies depend upon who is bored enough to participate and the phases of the moon.

All of us have other things to do, and we reply to those posts that catch our eyes and minds. I can write five pages of emotional angst and get no replies at all - that is the manner of lists such as this.

"Well known and respected transsexual women". Perhaps so. And so are several transsexual women who line up on the other side. Anne Lawrence, Maxine Peterson, and more. Granted, if you have a bias, you are entitled to mention only those that support what you are saying. Fair game - and I play it often. But do not leap to the conclusion that you have all the marbles.

"Cher speaks". – and did so first regarding this matter on Conway's webpage. Now, not to be unkind, but even in the book, Cher was not really "my cup of tea". No doubt she has changed after S.R.S., and she does do many good things. She served as an example, not a role model. That simply plays nicer than it really is.

"That don't match the reported feelings of many transsexuals". Indeed. Now, if we gather all those who think they are Napoleon, or God, or St. Michael, or Bill Gates, would those agree with how they are described by the professionals who treat them? The issue of "lying" has been raised over and over again by many writers, including Anne Bolyn. It is not a first with Bailey and indeed is so commonplace that almost any book on transsexuality mentions the concept and at least one is totally concerned with that issue.

"The Academy's imprint". Yes, and I assume they have a selection and peer review policy. A rigid one, I suspect. But no, the "Well known and respected" transsexual women differ from that and they should know better. No matter that they come from other disciplines and have the condition or that those transsexual professionals within the field such as Lawrence and Peterson support the theory. "The inmates rule" seems to be the new rule. Only those who have the condition can understand? Unless you support the Raymond school of logic, there is not vast conspiracy at work here, no Matrix.

"little lasting notice". Well, not so fast. Support for Blanchard is present in many places, not just in Anne's office. Not to put too fine a point on it, Galileo's theory and Darwin's both took time to gain support. I am told that the theory has considerable support amongst those that treat us. Perhaps what was meant here was little lasting notice by the patients.

"they are women, in my opinion". I feel badly about this one. Bailey was responding to certain issues that occurred on our support group. Specifically that the Conway's tend to call those of us who accept autogynephilia in our lives "Males" or "men". That was the point being addressed. On another list, I wrote that I was legally a woman and was then accused of distorting the law as I also acknowledge my autogynephilia/transsexuality.

"A Pacific Northwest gender counsellor and a post-operative medical doctor recently stated, in private, words to the effect that "this bad idea will die off as it deserves to do if we just don't make a big deal of it.". Had the publisher selected another title and cover art, had Conway restrained her emotions, and had the stampede not started, the concepts might well have been given" little lasting notice". Reap as ye sow, or words to that effect?

Barnes offered a valuable opinion. He is to be commended.

"who will see sex reassignment as a bad solution to a sexual aberration rather than as an effective "cure". This is the case now and has been since Jorgensen touched back down in New York. To attribute this solely to Bailey is erroneous. The vast majority of medical doctors still see us that way and always have. Take a read through ""How Sex-Changed" or other each histories. It may not be right, but it is true.

Well, dear hearts, this is what N.T.A.C. has to offer on this matter. This is presumably the best of the best. As a politically motivated piece, it is good, in fact excellent. As a serious attempt to rebut Bailey, it is better than the rants of Conway, nicer than the web pages of Andrea, and about as neutral as Great Britain in the Iraq Invasion.

Yes, there are issues with the theory and Bailey's book. I can tear into those as well, and have. The point I see clearly is the effect this continuing war is having on our community and it's members. Would it not be better to drop the emotion of a Conway and the cleverly disguised bias of the N.T.A.C. and try to address the real issues it raises? Much seems to be made by Bailey's refusal to "come out and play". Andrea James is mad that he did not talk to her, for she lives only blocks away. Much is made of the apparent fact that Bailey did not reply to posts or suggestions for others, the well known and successful types. So? Firstly, Bailey wrote his book, not theirs. Secondly, after the "rabid" (my characterization) attacks he has faced, I would not go near them either!

Now, in closing, I like Robyn and the N.T.A.C.. I have done what I could to support the N.T.A.C. with the development of a new Canadian sister group. I am not attempting to demean anyone. But as I have since this war started, I am urging reflection and civility. Now this is not to say that I disagree with all of this release or agree with all of Blanchard. From the very first of this issue, I suggested different names for the classes and different placement in D.S.M.-IV. Type A and Type B seemed neutral to me, both under the designation of "Transsexual". There are other comments I would add to these. Oh yes, I favour more research into the subject. I also like apple pie.

Willow Arune

Two Transsexual Women Say Professor Didn't Tell Them They Were Research Subjects.

The Man Who Would Be Queen

Two Transsexual Women who are featured in a controversial new book by the Chairman of North-Western University's Psychology Department have filed complaints with the University, saying that the Professor did not get their consent as participants. At issue is a book by J. Michael Bailey, "The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism", which was published this year by the National Academies Press.

"The book contains numerous observations and reports of interviews with me," Anjelica Kieltyka, one of the transsexual women, wrote in a letter this month to Bradley Moore, Northwestern's vice president for research. She added: "I did not receive, nor was I asked to sign, an informed-consent document."

In her letter, Ms. Kieltyka wrote that she unwittingly became a "recruiter for [Mr. Bailey's] research subjects." During the 1990s, she brought several men who wanted to get sex-change operations to Mr. Bailey's office, where he agreed to sign the letters they needed to proceed with sex reassignment surgery.

After their surgeries, Ms. Kieltyka said in an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Bailey befriended the women, socializing with them at Chicago bars and even attending one of their weddings. Stories about several of the transsexual women then appeared in Mr. Bailey's book, where they were identified by pseudonyms.

"At no time were any of us aware of our status with Dr. Bailey as research subjects," wrote Ms. Kieltyka, who is called "Cher" in the book and agreed to allow The Chronicle to print her real name.

Another transsexual woman who wrote a letter of complaint to North-western this month provided a copy of it to "The Chronicle" on the condition that she remain anonymous. When she visited Mr. Bailey in 1998, she wrote, "my sole purpose ... was to obtain the most important PhD. ­level letter for my surgery."

Mr. Bailey, she charged, is guilty of misconduct because of his "misuse of the [sex-reassignment] interviews as research."

Many transsexual women have harshly criticized Mr. Bailey's book, saying it mischaracterizes their motives for changing their sex. The common medical diagnosis, ­gender identity disorder, holds that men who want to become women are women trapped in men's bodies. But Mr. Bailey writes that men who become women are really either extremely gay or sexual fetishists.

Under federal law, research universities must have institutional review boards that oversee all research involving human subjects. Even if a professor's work is not financed with federal funds, North-western requires all research "involving the collection of data from human subjects" to be submitted for possible I.R.B. scrutiny, according to guidelines posted on the university's website.

The I.R.B. determines whether a professor needs to obtain the informed consent of research subjects. That involves telling the subjects the purpose of the research, as well as its potential risks and benefits to them.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Bailey said he did not want to talk about the two women's assertions. But in an e-mail message to "The Chronicle", the professor wrote that he had "never considered Anjelica et al. research subjects." He added: "I was writing about my own life experiences among transsexual women."

The jacket of Mr. Bailey's book, however, directly contradicts that statement. It says the work is "based on his original research" and is "grounded firmly in the scientific method."

According to federal regulations, a human subject is someone from whom a researcher obtains data through "interaction", which includes "communication or interpersonal contact between investigator and subject." As long as the identity of the subject is known to the researcher - even though the researcher may not make the person's identity public - the participant may be considered a "human subject."

William J. Skane, a spokesman for the National Academy of Sciences, which directs the National Academies Press, would not comment on the complaints.

A North-western spokesman said the university would "respond to the complaints using its established policies and procedures."

Many scholars believe that I.R.B.s, which were originally established to oversee medical research, have overstepped their bounds. "My concern is the mission creep of I.R.B.s into the social sciences and even the humanities," says Matthew Finkin, a professor of law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Mr. Finkin says that applying a biomedical model to other disciplines creates problems.

Joan C. Sieber, a professor of psychology at California State University at Hayward and an expert on how I.R.B.s operate, shares Mr. Finkin's concerns. She says it sounds as if Mr. Bailey's critics are using I.R.B. regulations "as a tool" to attack him.

But, she says, Mr. Bailey should have let North-western decide whether his work constituted research, whether people like Ms. Kieltyka should have been considered "human subjects," and whether he needed subjects' consent. If he did not inform the I.R.B.s members of his project, the professor "is on very shaky ground."

Copyright © 2003, Robyn Wilson, Chronicle of Higher Education.

Still more on the Barnum, Bailey and Blanchard Show!

In intellectual and paradigmatic battles, as in all wars, a moment can occur when the tides shift and the ultimate victors become apparent to those in the struggle. Such a moment occurred on July 19,2003 in the struggle of transgender women to defeat "Baileyism", as reported by a source who came forward and sent the e-mail below.

The pivotal moment occurred when John Bancroft, the Director of the Kinsey Institute, confronted J. Michael Bailey in front of the entire International Academy of Sex Research (I.A.S.R.) conference audience and threw down the gauntlet: "Michael, I would caution you against calling this book "science" because I have read it ... and I can tell you it is not science."

This moment was eerily reminiscent of a similar moment back in 1954 when Joseph Welch faced Senator Joseph McCarthy and threw down the gauntlet with the statement: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?"

The moment occurred at the high-water mark of Bailey's career as an academic psychologist. He had just been promoted as Chairman of the Psychology Department at North-western University. He had just had a book published by the National Academy Press, and was achieving considerable fame and notoriety due to the book being called the "latest science on transsexualism" by the National Academies. He was newly elevated to Secretary/Treasurer of the I.A.S.R., a major research community of sexologists. And he was the I.A.S.R. Conference Chairman on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Kinsey Institute in Bloomington, Indiana.

And yet, at the moment of his confrontation by John Bancroft described in the message below, Bailey was toppled from this peak. His fate was sealed. As our inside source tells us in a later e-mail, the similarity of Bailey to McCarthy is striking:

Lynn, I'm serious ... the rhetoric Bailey used in his presentation was almost McCarthyistic ... as in, "if you are a sexologist and you do not agree with my "science" then you are siding with the "identity radicals" and you are not "really" a sexologist." As Bancroft so eloquently noted, though, where is the science?

As is the case of all bullies, once openly challenged such McCarthyist types crumble. Anjelica Kieltyka had predicted this fate for J. Michael Bailey in her recent essay "The Sinking of the Queen". And now Bailey's colleagues, many of whom he has dissed over the years, will take him down for us. They are no longer afraid of him. In time he will fall as McCarthy fell, into ignominy.

The same fate will also inevitably befall the Blanchard-­Lawrence-Zucker clique of sexologists who spawned the despicably homophobic and transphobic scientific virus that Bailey was trying to spread, with the help of his homophobic collaborator John Derbyshire, actively assisted by the publicist Robin Pinnel at the National Academies.

We owe a lot to Anjelica Kieltyka for having the courage to travel to Bloomington and valiantly attempt to alert I.A.S.R. attendees to the controversy surrounding Bailey's work. Although Bailey called the police and prevented Angie from giving our materials to all but a tiny handful of attendees, our words nevertheless got out, leading to John Bancroft's confrontation of Bailey.

We also owe a lot to our "I.A.S.R. Friend" who courageously tells the story below of the inside events at the conference. Her message will undoubtedly open many minds among the scientists who have been standing at the sidelines as the news of these events now spreads, thanks to her.

Many scientists have been mesmerized up to now by the one ­sided war of institutionalized National Academy science used as terror against transgender women, uncertain of what to do to stop the obviously unfair assault on our very humanity. We predict that many more scientists will now come forward to confront Bailey, to confront the Blanchard-Lawrence-Zucker clique of sexologists, and indeed to confront the National Academies - declaring themselves instead for honesty and fairness in science, and insisting on honourable behaviour among the community of research scientists.

Lynn Conway July 28, 2003

Email Subject: I.A.S.R. Agrees ... "not science"
To: Lynn Conway

Dear Dr. Conway,

I am writing to you as a member of the International Academy of Sex Research, as a woman, and as a friend. Due to the volatile political situation in my field at this moment, I cannot reveal my identity. I can, however, offer my support to you in your ongoing effort to reveal the "truth" behind J. Michael Bailey's recent book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen". Please understand that the following observations are my own personal ones, and are not meant to be on behalf of I.A.S.R.:

First and foremost, I wish to thank you for all the time and energy you have spent in your investigation. I promise you that we, as sex researchers, are also taking this issue very seriously. I wish to thank Anjelica for her attempt to distribute information at the recent I.A.S.R. conference in Bloomington. Unfortunately, I was not able to get a hold of her materials as I understand she was impolitely removed from the building before I had a chance to meet her. However, I can tell you what ensued behind closed doors at the conference during Bailey's "scientific" presentation "Identity Politics as a hindrance to Scientific Truth" on Saturday afternoon.

Obviously shaken from the recent events, Bailey offered a nearly­ unintelligible thirty minute outline of Blanchard's theory of transsexualism. He then briefly mentioned the transgender "attack" on science. He also tried to get sympathy from the audience by showing pictures of his children. Bailey ended his talk abruptly by walking away from the podium, stating there was not time for the scheduled "question and ­answer" period. The audience, however, was not in agreement with him.

John Bancroft, director of The Kinsey Institute and one of the most respected sexologists in the world, was the first to cross-examine Bailey. His words (which I directly quote) were: "Michael, I would caution you against calling this book "science" because I have read it ... and I can tell you it is not science."

Complete silence fell over the room. It was obvious that, indeed, a new era has finally dawned on sexual science and the study of transsexualism. While several people in the room at the meeting, including Ken Zucker, support Bailey and his "scientific" speculations, I can tell you that the vast majority of the scientific community does not. In fact, at the end of the meeting in Bloomington, it was mysteriously announced that Bailey has "vacated" (?) his position as Secretary of I.A.S.R. The new incoming Secretary will be renowned psychologist Lucia O'Sullivan who specializes in adolescent sexuality, including G.L.B.T. Is this a sign that the "good old boys" days in academe are numbered? You tell me.

In short, Lynn, I want you to know that many - if not most - current sexologists support a move away from the archaic views of transsexualism that Bailey represents. Please know that we are with you in your quest for the truth. I hope to someday be able to thank you in person for everything you have done but, in the meantime, please accept my silent and sincere support until that day comes. Thank you sister.

Footnote:

Several of the subjects referred to in "The Man Who Would Be Queen" are suing J. Michael Bailey for having used them as subjects for research without informing them of his intention to do so. Use of human subjects for research in this way is a serious breach of academic and research ethics.

One of the subjects who is taking action is the one referred to in the book as "Cher".

Polare is published in Australia by The Gender Centre Inc. which is funded by the Department of Community Services under the S.A.A.P. Program and supported by the N.S.W. Health Department through the AIDS and Infectious Diseases Branch. Polare provides a forum for discussion and debate on gender issues. Advertisers are advised that all advertising is their responsibility under the Trade Practices Act. Unsolicited contributions are welcome, though no guarantee is made by the Editor that they will be published, nor any discussion entered into. The editor reserves the right to edit such contributions without notification. Any submission which appears in Polare may be published on our internet site. Opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor, The Gender Centre Inc.I, the Department of Community Services or the N.S.W. Department of Health.