Marti Abernathey

When Will The GLB join the T?

Filed By Marti Abernathey | October 14, 2007 4:41 PM | comments

Filed in: Entertainment, Politics, Transgender & Intersex
Tags: Man Who Would Be Queen

You might think I'm going to post about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), but I'm not. I would like to discuss the infamous Northwestern professor, Michael J. Bailey and his book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism". A few of the more outrageous claims Bailey has made in the book is:

1. "Prostitution is the single most common occupation that homosexual transsexuals in our study admitted to.”

2. "The more resourceful and attractive transsexual prostitutes are call girls.”

3. "Nearly all the homosexual transsexuals I know work as escorts after they have their surgery.”

4. "As for shoplifting, homosexual transsexuals are not especially well suited as much as especially motivated. For many, their taste in clothing is much more expensive than their income allows.”

More outrageous claims after the jump...

5. "Do they get married? … homosexual transsexuals are not very successful at finding desirable men willing to commit to them.”

6. "When I began writing this book, I had never known a homosexual transsexual who married.”

7. "They wanted to get their surgery (if they had not had it yet) and meet a nice, attractive, and financially stable heterosexual man who would marry them and take care of them … When I was conducting my study of homosexual transsexuals, I routinely asked them if they knew anyone who had realized this dream. No one did.”

8. "Many of the transsexuals we interviewed in the course of this study were more attractive than the average genetic female.”

9. "Gay transsexuals are boy crazy.”

10. "When I have discussed the theory that homosexual transsexuals are a type of gay man, I have met resistance. I was surprised at this, for the idea is neither new nor, it seemed to me, controversial.”

11. "Homosexual transsexuals tend to have a short time horizon, with certain pleasure in the present worth great risks for the future.”

While the transgender community has been outraged by Bailey's book, gays and lesbians have been relatively silent. Some of Professor Bailey's more outragous claims are that true lesbians don't exist:

Whether women describe themselves as straight or lesbian, “Their sexual arousal seems to be relatively indiscriminate - they get aroused by both male and female images,” Dr. Bailey said. “I’m not even sure females have a sexual orientation. But they have sexual preferences. Women are very picky, and most choose to have sex with men.” -J. Michael Bailey - Pas de Deux of Sexuality Is Written in the Genes

or that: bisexuals don't exist:

Although there are clearly men who call themselves “bisexual” and who have sex with both men and women, both scientists and laypeople have long been skeptical that men with bisexual arousal patterns exist. Kurt Freund, who invented penile plethysmography, related that he was never able to find a subset of men who appeared to be bisexual in the lab. Although their data are less scientific, gay men share Freund’s skepticism. They have a saying: “You’re either gay, straight, or lying.” In contrast, many women are bisexual, at least in their sexual arousal patterns. - Straight, Gay, or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited

or that gays have accents:

It’s not news people believe homosexuality and certain speech styles are related. What is news is there seems to be some basis for the belief. VUE Weekly

or that homosexuality is an evolutionary mistake:

I mean, one thing to realize is that evolutionarily, homosexuality is a big mistake. And, I don’t mean anything bad by saying that because lots of good things, that we would like to have more of, would be evolutionary mistakes. People being extremely kind to strangers and giving poor strangers lots of their money, that would be a great thing. But evolutionarily, it would be a terrible mistake. And when I say something would be a big mistake I just mean I don’t see how it would ever evolve. And I don’t see how homosexuality has ever evolved and remained in our population at relatively high rates: 1, 2, 3, 4 percent?! That’s very high for something that has vastly reduced fertility related to it. And I should…uhh…the flip side of when I say it’s an evolutionary mistake certain things that are evolutionarily clearly adaptive include jealousy, selfishness, the uh willingness to commit infidelity, all those things. Those are very evolutionarily adaptive. But, they’re not good, right? So by saying something is an evolutionary mistake or evolutionarily adaptive that’s not a value judgement. That’s just counting number of descendents one leaves. So the hypotheses that people have raised to explain homosexuality have included all kinds of things like population control. That’s a non-starter because nothing can ever be explained at such a group level because you could always have selfish people who would thwart population control and they would, um, they would win the evolutionary race.
- Liberty Should Win: We May Choose Our Children’s Sexual Orientation

The last quote is so outrageous, I'm shocked that the reaction from the GLB community has been rather quiet. Why do you think that is?


Recent Entries Filed under Entertainment:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


In Short Marti
Bailey's opinions are a non issue.
None of it is based on science.
We could be talking about the views of the tooth fairy for all the difference it would make.

The problem with Bailey continues to be the collective wad his work has inspired in the panties of the male to female transgender community.
Bailey speaks of someone who has a fetish with being involved sexually with a man and who pretends to be a woman, These people Bailey speaks of exist and are not real transsexuals. Which is why you don't see a major part of the TS community upset with Bailey, The transsexual community know he is not talking about them.

Ask yourself why those statements bother you?
we all know there are transgender prostitutes so what is the big outcry about? We all know some people in the GLBT are fetish driven.

Bailey is a nut-job who must justify his teaching position as low tier university.
(he is pitiable you know)

Read the book,
Talked to the man,
belonged to his discussion group.
Just another nut job who wants to make a name for himself.
Jerry
Jerry
Jerry
Jerry

Take Care
Sue Robins


I won't even pretend to know what a "real transsexual" is. My problem with Bailey's work is two fold. It isn't falsifiable, and while it may describe some in the community, it in no way describes a majority of it.

Northwestern is hardly lower tier... that's what bothers me so much.

There is just enough truth in Bailey's work to give it a false sense of credibility.
There are a large portion of transgender folk who engage in sex work. There are a large number of transgender folk engaged in various forms of fetish activity. While you and I may not fall in that category a visible percentage of of the TG and TS communities do. it's like some religious groups labeling gays as pedophiles. The actions of a visible few dictate the perception by others of the group in question. You cannot fight every battle only a carefully chosen few. This battle is not worth the trouble. And that is what spurred the posting of a hit page on me up on TS Road map. Because i wouldn't jump up and down and scream and holler ab out those nasty things Bailey said.

It really isn't worth it.

Bailey really does belong in the same category as Jerry Springer, and i don't see any outrage over what Springer does with his phony transsexuals on TV.


Ray, Michael, Alice and Ann are not relevant anymore, time to move on.


As for what a real TS is?
I defer to Victoria Prince in her first book where she makes the disgintition between the word she coined to discribe a group of people that being Transgender and those who in her own words multilate their bodies through surgury, those Transsexuals.

Call me Old school however that really does separate the wheat from the chaff.


Take care
Susan Robins

HUH??? Susan, I can't even begin to say how many things you've gotten wrong in this thread. Not because I'm incapable of delineating them; but because I'm not willing to take the time and energy to do so. There's important work to be done, and this isn't it.

But I didn't want anyone to be left with the impression that Marti is whistling in the dark out here. 99.99% of the trans people I know, and I know a lot, are completely outraged by Bailey. The only reason it's not 100% is because I happen to be acquainted with Ann Lawrence. So your claim that most trans people aren't upset by him rings completely false.

I don't understand, if you think Bailey is so inconsequential, why you feel the need to refute Marti's arguments. If you don't care about Bailey, what would you care about what Marti thinks of Bailey?

Lastly, in terms of cosmic consequences, for a lack of a better term, I believe Bailey is more dangerous to the trans community than the non-inclusive ENDA. Bailey's book can influence the opinions of therapists, politicians, the public, and yes, the gay community about how they view transsexuals, and how we should be treated. How do you suppose a Congressional hearing on a T-ENDA bill would go if Bailey was called as a witness by the Republicans? And I must remind everyone, that Bailey's book very nearly won the Lambda Literary Award.

HUH??? Susan, I can't even begin to say how many things you've gotten wrong in this thread. Not because I'm incapable of delineating them; but because I'm not willing to take the time and energy to do so. There's important work to be done, and this isn't it.

in other words i am correct and you don't want to have to defend your position.
For starters i happen to know i am right about this; Prove me wrong.
For those who are not acquainted with this three sided debate the response above is typical of a minority of the transgender community who would rather not have to support their position with solid facts

if you think it is so relevant show me one therapist who swears by Blanchard and Bailey's work?
There are none.
They know better it's so much unscientific crap.

Do something constructive; debunk the theory.
There are plenty of holes large enough to drive a semi through in Bailey's book.
just launching adhomine attacks toward Bailey does nothing to support the credibility of the Transgender and Transsexual communities.

One other thing...

Lastly, in terms of cosmic consequences, for a lack of a better term, I believe Bailey is more dangerous to the trans community than the non-inclusive ENDA. Bailey's book can influence the opinions of therapists, politicians, the public, and yes, the gay community about how they view transsexuals, and how we should be treated. How do you suppose a Congressional hearing on a T-ENDA bill would go if Bailey was called as a witness by the Republicans? And I must remind everyone, that Bailey's book very nearly won the Lambda Literary Award.


How can a community or a whole class of people as you say you represent be so insecure to be afraid of a book published by some nut job professor.?
Please answer that for me. As i have said before

So what do you have to worry about?

Bailey's book is the transgender boggy man.
Remember how Anita Briant was going to bring about the end of the gay rights movement?

Your giving Bailey more attention and more credit then he deserves.

If you want to attack my position then do so.
Don't just sit thee and say i am wrong it does nothing for your own credibility.


Take Care
Susan Robins

Susan, I must disagree with you on several points.

Yes, Bailey does belong with Jerry Springer, that's true. But Jerry Springer doesn't have articles in the NYT about his scientific fight against Political Correctness.

if you think it is so relevant show me one therapist who swears by Blanchard and Bailey's work?
There are none.
They know better it's so much unscientific crap.

Anne Lawrence comes to mind, but that's not a fair example. Please have a look at the Amazon.com readers comments. Here are a few:
By Cecilia Smythe (Windsor, Ontario, Canada) -
Here in Canada, Professor Bailey's theories are widely accepted in the mental health community. In fact, his theories are based, in part, on the work of Canadian psychologist Dr. Raymond Blanchard....

Even though Bailey's book does not break new ground, it does manage to explore fundamental concepts of transsexuality. I would guess the primary readership will be those seeking a general overview of transsexuality. It could also serve as a general introduction for psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists needing an overview of the topic. In conclusion, I would describe The Man Who Would Be Queen as a refreshing new look at an old and settled topic.

By Jessica Havens (The Midwest) -
This book explores a topic that has received only modest scholarly exploration: transsexuality. Bailey mines the available literature on transsexuality while conducting his own in depth qualitative research in Chicagoland's large and diverse transsexuality community.
...
The book was published under the auspices of the prestigious National Academies. To date, it is considered the best book on transsexuality in press. It has received critical acclaim.

By Ursula (New York) -
I learned about Bailey's book from an Internet search on transsexuality. I am in the process of writing an annotated bibliography on transsexuality and I plan to feature Bailey's book prominently because it appears to be the definitive work on the subject.

By Alexendra (U.S.A.) -
I speak with some authority: I am an academic psychologist with a sub-specialization in sexual deviancy. I have studied transsexuality extensively. I have carefully reviewed the literature on transsexuality.

The Man Who Would be Queen is the finest work on the subject of transsexuality currently available. ...
It is interesting to note that both kind of transsexuals are motivated by sexuality. I am planning to use excerpts of this book in a class I teach in human sexuality. I recommend this book enthusiastically and without reservation.Please have a look at all the reviews to make sure I'm not cherry-picking. Those were all in the first 20.

My concern is not that those on the coalface, as it were, are being unduely influenced. Except in Canada. My problem is that the next generation of medical practioners with an interest in this area are being taught the veriest codswallop by academics with no clinical experience, and that legislators are influenced by the advice of these academics.

Now would be a good time to issue the obligatory condemnation of your treatment on TS roadmap, so please consider it said. I think the facts speak for themselves, and it saddens me deeply that people I respect have feet of clay.

Yes, Bailey does belong with Jerry Springer, that's true. But Jerry Springer doesn't have articles in the NYT about his scientific fight against Political Correctness.

This is Bailey's straw man argument. His work is not politically correct true enough but he makes this argument to sway attention from the lack of science in his own work. Bailey and Springer do have one thing in common; both have been in the NYT although Springer has been in more times then Bailey.

You have no name for your second review, although your third turns up at least 3 Jessica Havens and she only has 2 amazon reviews both on sex related books and nothing else. no profile information and that in itself leave credibility in question.

Anne Lawrence comes to mind, but that's not a fair example. Please have a look at the Amazon.com readers comments. Here are a few:

By Cecilia Smythe (Windsor, Ontario, Canada) -
Here in Canada, Professor Bailey's theories are widely accepted in the mental health community. In fact, his theories are based, in part, on the work of Canadian psychologist Dr. Raymond Blanchard....


It would have been a good idea to google Smithe before using her as a reference.

Your reference here is suspect because Smithe only reviewed two books on Amazon and both are transsexual books. She could be firmly in Bailey's camp like Lawrence is. She like Lawrence is not a professional in the mental health industry, Lawrence is a medical doctor however that doesn't make her qualified to objectively peer review Bailey's work, Which by the way Has Never been done.

you go on to mention a number of unnamed sources which i have to say are suspect to say the least no names no way to check, no credibility.

You did quote two i know personally

By Ursula (New York) -
I learned about Bailey's book from an Internet search on transsexuality. I am in the process of writing an annotated bibliography on transsexuality and I plan to feature Bailey's book prominently because it appears to be the definitive work on the subject.

By Alexendra (U.S.A.) -
I speak with some authority: I am an academic psychologist with a sub-specialization in sexual deviancy. I have studied transsexuality extensively. I have carefully reviewed the literature on transsexuality.

These people were members of AG Support the group set up for the discussion of Autogynephilia by Willow Arune of Prince George Canada and Lisanne Anderson of Brooklyn New York. Anne Lawrence and J.M. Bailey were members of this group. I have made reference to this now defunct group in the past. The group no longer exists because of Arune's personal attacks on Anderea James and company. My involvement in the group was because of my knowledge of Ray Blanchard's work and my interest in debunking Bailey's work. I had read the book (have you) and saw it for what it is worth nothing more then a biased look at a group of fetishistic homosexual men who desire to have sex reassignment to have sex with men in a female role. These people are not transsexual but are fetishists. Even Bailey himself cannot refute that conclusion. As i have said before AGP's are not real transsexuals.

Show me credentialed reviewers of the book and you may have cause to justify the outrage a minority of people feel about this book.
So far you haven't satisfied that requirement.

My concern is not that those on the coalface, as it were, are being unduely influenced. Except in Canada. My problem is that the next generation of medical practioners with an interest in this area are being taught the veriest codswallop by academics with no clinical experience, and that legislators are influenced by the advice of these academics.

Now would be a good time to issue the obligatory condemnation of your treatment on TS roadmap, so please consider it said. I think the facts speak for themselves, and it saddens me deeply that people I respect have feet of clay.

The book was published under the auspices of the prestigious National Academies. To date, it is considered the best book on transsexuality in press. It has received critical acclaim.


This quote most of all smacks of a snake oil salesman.

as i have said before Bailey's work is not peer reviewed it is a reporting on the work of Ray Blanchard. Since it is not peer reviewed it's not likely to find it's way into the teaching library.

You haven't pointed out any facts that do any speaking. your sighted reviews are of academic credibility. I googled your sources as i have said earlyer.

As for the hit page on TS Roadmap, I have said before that was put up because i wouldn't drink the tranny Kool-Aid and jump up and down, scream and make personal attacks like Lynn Conway and Anderea James have done. This issue has been used by a few insecure transgenders to extend their fifteen minutes of fame. You and others in the past have not proven to me or the vast majority of TS folk that Bailey's fiction is a problem.

Lastly you attack the messenger because you have no real rebuttal for my arguments.

You Like Micheal Bailey will have to do better then that if you expect to have your arguments be credible.

In my opinion:

You base your outrage on the violation of your sense of political correctness.

Let me remind you Political correctness makes a crime out of free thought. Free thought is how we distinguish fact from fiction and dogma.


Take care
Susan Robins


As i thought no real evidence that Bailey's BS is a real threat to TG's or TS folk.


I find it sad that people can just make allegations and fear monger without backing up their statements.

There is not going to be anybody using this book in any Psych Classes.

Time to take off your tin foil hats and just deal with the real issues that effect the lives of everyday TG/TS folk.


Take Care
Susan Robins
sue_ann_robins@yahoo.com