The American Spectator is a conservative American media organization that publishes consistently anti-transgender articles.
For the British newsmagazine that publishes a US version, see The Spectator.
Background
The American Spectator was founded in 1967 by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., who remains its editor-in-chief, with Wlady Pleszczynski its managing editor since 1980.
Contributors
The following authors have published anti-trans pieces.
Lou AguilarÂ
Elyse ApelÂ
Bruce Bawer
Adam Carrington
Itxu DĂazÂ
Daniel J. Flynn
Ellie Gardey
David Keltz
Libby KriegerÂ
Melissa Mackenzie
Scott McKayÂ
Mary Frances Myler
Evan PoellingerÂ
Tom RaabeÂ
Debra J. Saunders
Irit Tratt
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
References
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. (ed.), Orthodoxy: The American Spectator’s 20th Anniversary Anthology, Harper & Row, 1987. ISBN 0-06-015818-2
Michael G. Riley is an American writer and anti-transgender activist. Under Riley’s editorship, academic trade publication The Chronicle of Higher Education favorably covered contributor Alice Dreger’s anti-trans activism on several occasions. This ethically questionable arrangement is part of the publication’s pattern of bias favoring academics in the academic exploitation of sex and gender minorities.
Background
Michael George “Mike” Riley was born on February 10, 1959. Riley earned a bachelor’s degree from Wake Forest University in 1981 and a master’s degree from Harvard Universityâs Kennedy School of Government in 1985.
Riley’s first journalism job was at The Dispatch in Lexington, North Carolina. Riley was editor of The Roanoke Times, editor and senior vice president of Congressional Quarterly, and editorial director of Bloomberg Government as well as senior correspondent and bureau chief for TIME magazine.
Riley lives in Arlington, Virginia with spouse Arline and their two children.
Riley was named president and editor in chief of The Chronicle of Higher Education in 2013.
Tom Bartlett is an American writer whose puff piece on Chronicle of Higher Education contributor Alice Dreger appeared in that same publication. This questionable ethical arrangement was apparently greenlit by editor Michael G. Riley.
In addition to helping sexologist J. Michael Bailey cover up the fabricated “Danny Ryan” case report that got Bailey tenure, Dreger is one of history’s foremost pathologizers of sex and gender minorities. Dreger is a key figure in promoting widely outlawed anti-transgender reparative “therapy” techniques developed by fired sexologist Kenneth Zucker. Dreger was named an inaugural member of the right-wing intellectual dark web for these anti-transgender views. Dreger later used connections at TheChronicle to renounce that association.
As is typical with biased reporters, Bartlett rarely reaches out to trans experts and academics for comment, choosing instead to frame any writing on trans issues within what biologist Julia Serano calls the Dregerian narrative.
Thomas Edwin Bartlett was born on July 20, 1974 and grew up in New Mexico. Bartlett earned a bachelor’s degree from Baylor University in 1997 and a master’s degree from the University of Texas at Austin.
Bartlett lives in Austin with spouse Kellie Jo Maxwell Bartlett (born 1973), an artist who creates the Little Niddles and Happily comics and publishes a newsletter titled Pleasant Fluff.
Bartlett’s coverage of academic misconduct started with an article on sex allegations against Indiana State University professor Jerome August “Jerry” Cerny. Bartlett sought comment from J. Michael Bailey, who said, “There’s clearly a politically vocal group who think that sex should not be studied.”
Bartlett then covered Alice Dreger on several occasions, first with Dreger’s spin of ethics allegations against anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon. Bartlett then profiled Dreger as part of promotional press for Dreger’s 2015 book. Because Dreger’s self-promotion represents a sort of wish fulfillment for a certain type of academic or journalist, Dreger became a Chronicle contributor as well as a subject of their reporting. Dreger fell out of favor after requesting a retraction of a 2018 Chronicle article mocking the entire field of academic archivists. In the same way Dreger betrayed Bari Weiss and the intellectual dark web at the first sign of trouble, Dreger threw Chronicle editor Jenny Ruark under the bus when academics objected to Dreger’s attacks on archivists.
Reluctant Crusader: Why Alice Dregerâs writing on sex and science makes liberals so angry (2015)
[excerpt from Tom Bartlett’s article]
So how did Dreger, a person who ditched a tenured professorship to devote herself to full-time advocacy on behalf of those marginalized by the medical establishment, mutate into a torrent-unleashing hatemonger?
The short answer is J. Michael Bailey. Her support of his 2003 book, The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, embraced a disputed theory of transsexualism that divides male-to-female transsexuals more or less into two categories: those who identify as female and wish to attract men (women “trapped” in male bodies) and those who are sexually aroused by being perceived as female and wish to attract women as well as men. The latter, the theory goes, inhabit a category called autogynephilia, a term that is offensive to some transsexuals who see it as creating a division between “real” transsexuals and those who are merely turned on by the idea. “When they felt that Bailey was fundamentally threatening their selves and their social identities as women â well, itâs because he was,” Dreger writes. “Thatâs what talking openly about autogynephilia necessarily does.”
Dregerâs defense of Bailey â and of transgender women who see themselves as autogynephiles â put her in the cross hairs of those who believe that the theory Bailey helped popularize is bigoted junk science. For the record, Dreger did ding Bailey for insensitivity, including for using a photo on the cover of his book that depicts a manâs muscled legs in a pair of pumps. But she defended him initially on grounds of academic freedom, and has since become persuaded that heâs right on the science of autogynephilia. That was sufficient for some to deem her a transphobic right-winger.
The Bailey business was complicated by an accusation that he had slept with a research subject â though whether she was a research subject at the time and whether they actually slept together remain hazy. Dreger made an effort to pin down what happened, going so far as to examine emails sent on the night of their alleged congress and to contemplate whether it matters. The publication youâre reading now covered the hubbub back then, and itâs necessary to note that Dreger thought that the coverage missed the mark. Actually she hated those articles and thought they demonized Bailey, though I have to say, reading them now, I donât see that. (Full disclosure: Iâm friends with the reporter and think sheâs extremely fair.)
Ancient quarreling aside, the overÂarching theme of the Bailey episode for Dreger was whether or not a scholar should be allowed to present evidence for a theory that some find profoundly threatening and deeply offensive. The critiques of Bailey often revolved around whether his book was “invalidating to transwomen” â which seemed like a separate question from whether the argument itself had any merit, a question that continues to be debated.
Glenn, David and Bartlett, Thomas (December 3, 2009). Rebuttal of Decade-Old Accusations Roils Anthropology Meeting Anew.Chronicle of Higher Education https://www.chronicle.com/article/rebuttal-of-decade-old-accusations-against-researchers-roils-anthropology-meeting-anew/
Bartlett, Thomas (October 24, 2003). Did a University Let a Sex Researcher Go Too Far? Chronicle of Higher Education https://www.chronicle.com/article/did-a-university-let-a-sex-researcher-go-too-far/
Note: In 2025, this site phased out AI illustrations after artist feedback. The previous illustration is here.
Charlotte Allen is an American author and anti-transgender activist. A conservative Catholic, Allen has written articles critical of the transgender rights movement, including a puff piece on transphobic psychologist J. Michael Bailey for The Weekly Standard. Joseph Epstein from that publication had previously characterized Bailey as a “pimp” who arranges voyeuristic sex tours and demonstrations for people like Allen. Bailey earned Epstein’s opprobrium and Allen’s interest after arranging a live “fucksaw” demonstration for a since-cancelled human sexuality class.
Background
Charlotte Irene Low Allen was on born April 7, 1943 in Jacksonville, Florida. Allen’s parent Elmer Carlton Low (1907-2000) was born in New York City and practiced personal injury law there before moving to Pasadena in 1943. Low was president of the California Trial Lawyers Association and wrote two books and some opinion pieces for the Los Angeles Times.
Allen’s spouse Donald Fraser Allen (born May 1, 1945) graduated from University of Toronto Faculty of Law and was a member of the California Bar from 1981 through 1997.
Charlotte Allen’s education and credentials:
Stanford University (B.A. 1965) classics and English
Harvard University (M.A. 1967)
University of Southern California (J.D. 1974)
State Bar of California (1974 through 1992)
Catholic University of America (Ph.D. 2011) medieval and Byzantine studies
Allen served as Law Editor for The Los Angeles Daily Journal from 1980 to 1985, then was appointed Senior Editor, Law at conservative publication Insight on the News at its founding in 1985. That publication closed in 2008. Allen has worked as a freelance writer for publications including:
Los Angeles Daily Journal
Insight on the News
Weekly Standard
Lingua Franca
Washington Post
Wall Street Journal
Atlantic Monthly
Commentary
New Republic
American Spectator
Los Angeles Times
New York Times
Washington Times
Insight
City Journal
Washington Monthly
First Things
Allen’s 2011 dissertation is titled Thirteenth-Century English Religious Lyrics, Religious Women, And the Cistercian Imagination. Allen is author of the 1998 book The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus.
My 2015 letter to Allen’s editors
Dear Weekly Standard editorial team:
Charlotte Allen contacted me for a story profiling J. Michael Bailey, a controversial psychologist with whom she was recently socializing in Chicago. You may recall a 2011 piece about Bailey in your publication which characterizes him as a “pimp” who arranges voyeuristic sex tours and demonstrations for interested parties like Ms. Allen. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/lower-education_554092.html?page=1
For your records, I told Ms. Allen that understanding and reporting her story hinges on speaking directly with Danny Ryan, a child whose case report Bailey published in his 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism.
My condition for participating was that Ms. Allen speak with Danny Ryan directly. I fear that is not going to happen. I’m concerned she’s going to mischaracterize both the controversy and my involvement in it, given that her attached questions to me contain inaccurate interpretations of events.
I provided her the attached article explaining why both Bailey and his book have been widely condemned. Bailey had published an earlier version of his book without incident, and the 2003 response happened because:
1) it was fraudulently marketed as science by the National Academy of Sciences.
2) it became a cure narrative about gender-nonconforming children.
Bailey’s attacks on my children in his book were just part of his concurrent attacks on gender-nonconforming children, which also included “academic” presentations where he displayed videos and images of young children without their knowledge or consent in a manner that generated laughter from his audiences. Bailey also boasts that he can categorize these children sexually and can tell the kinds of sexual partners they will like. Ms. Allen seems focused on a long-deleted satire in which I showed how Bailey’s leering depictions and two-type sexualized categorization of my children would seem inexcusable if done to his own.
Bailey’s colleagues believe that gender-nonconforming children require “curing” in order to prevent what they consider a “bad outcome,” a gender transition. Most children who display gender-non-conforming behavior do not seek a gender transition later, and this outcome occurs without any intervention. Bailey’s colleagues make money by selling anxious parents on services they claim will cure many children. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health has stated such services are “no longer considered ethical.” Others are more pointed, condemning such services as “disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals” and “simply child abuse.”
Hundreds of children have been through these aversion programs championed by Bailey’s friend Kenneth Zucker, and not one has later come forward to talk about how it helped them. Danny Ryan is the most famous report of a cured child, yet no one has ever followed up directly with him to confirm Bailey’s published claims independently.
Danny Ryan has remarkable parallels to David Reimer, a case report by Bailey’s ideological nemesis John Money. The David Reimer case proved to be false when independently investigated. Some reporters continue to repeat Bailey’s claims about Danny Ryan uncritically, with no independent confirmation. Science and journalism proceed from evidence and facts, and there is no independent evidence that Bailey’s published facts about Danny Ryan are true.
Given that other case reports in Bailey’s book turned out to be inaccurate upon independent follow-up, the Weekly Standard has a unique opportunity to report this story accurately instead of taking Bailey at his word. Similar hard-hitting reporting on David Reimer brought John Money’s work into disrepute and made the career of the journalist who broke the story. A generation of children suffered because no one bothered to confirm Money’s claims, and I can’t sit by as another reporter is poised to miss the point of why Bailey has been criticized by people of every political persuasion.
Thanks for your time, and I would very much appreciate confirmation that you have received this note.
Sincerely, Andrea James [email protected] cc: Charlotte Allen Attachments (2):
2. Fair Comment, Foul Play: Populist Responses to J. Michael Bailey’s Exploitative “Controversies” (PDF)
Allen’s puff piece about Bailey ran with no mention of his exploitation of our children and a lawyerly defense of his “fucksaw” demonstration.
The Man Who Would Be Queen was deemed âsalacious bigotryâ by Andrea James, a 48-year-old Hollywood consultant who is the most persistently aggressive of the transgender activists. James spearheaded campaigns to have Northwestern censure and perhaps fire Bailey (unsuccessful), and to discredit Bailey as a credible academic expert on transgender subjects (extremely successful).Â
Allen claims I declined to be interviewed “in a prolific series of Bailey-dissing emails.” Allen notes my criticism of Anne Lawrence, Ray Blanchard, and Kenneth Zucker. Zucker was fired later that year, and the clinic where Zucker and Blanchard were employed was closed following an investigation spurred by legislation that made anti-transgender reparative therapy illegal.
Allen, Charlotte (March 2, 2015). The Transgender Triumph.Weekly Standard. https://www.weeklystandard.com/charlotte-allen/the-transgender-triumph
Allen, Charlotte (March 4, 2019). Trans men erase women.First Things https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/03/trans-men-erase-women
Hawkins, JA (January 1951). Elmer Low Family of Pasadena.Pasadena Museum of History https://calisphere.org/item/8de4632c37e661ae4ba402f4006bf984/
Hess, Amanda (March 12, 2008). Charlotte Allen Interview.Washington City Paper https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/blog/13054285/charlotte-allen-interview
Note: In 2025, this site phased out AI illustrations after artist feedback. The previous illustration is here.
Jeffrey Paul Robbins (born circa 1950) is an American editor best known for editing and fact-checking one of the most transphobic books ever written, The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey.
My editor, Jeff Robbins, at Joseph Henry Press, made my writing better than I could. (pp. xii-xiii)
Correspondence
Below is the letter I sent Robbins on May 17, 2003.
Jeffrey Robbins, Senior Editor The Joseph Henry Press 36 Dartmouth St. #810 Malden, MA 02148 Tel. 781-324-4786 Fax 781-397-8255 E-mail: [email protected]
Mr. Robbins–
I maintain an âOur Bodies, Ourselvesâ type website for transsexual women called tsroadmap.com.
After my business partnerâs boyfriend Barry Winchell was beaten to death with a baseball bat because he was dating her, I expanded my efforts from practical matters of gender transition to improving media depictions of our condition.
I am writing to you today because of your involvement in J. Michael Baileyâs The Man Who Would Be Queen. In it, Bailey states that you edited this book and “made my writing better than I could.” (xii-xiii)
Mr. Robbins, you are complicit in the publication of what many in my community believe is the most defamatory book on transsexualism written since 1979. You are responsible for allowing us to be associated with depraved murderers (p. 142) and to be described as little more than socially stunted deviants generally unable to form long-term relationships or even hold âconventional jobs.â (p. 188). Imagine if the following were said about women you know:
â[They] work as waitresses, hairdressers, receptionists, strippers, and prostitutes, as well as in many other occupations.â (p. 142)
I intend to see that you remain clearly linked to this historical document and are held accountable for this outrage during the remainder of your career. I also plan to secure your shameful place in the history of our communityâs struggle to enjoy the same basic rights afforded other women. Make no mistake: you will have helped to hurt a great many women and children before we get those rights, and I can assure you your efforts will not go unnoticed.
I will be re-reading the entire text as well and making a painstaking record of all the ways you and Bailey have hurt all of us by bringing out such bigotry in the name of “science.” I will be sending my full findings to the National Academies leadership later this year.
The fact that any publisher allowed this to be printed under the auspices of “science” raises serious concerns about the process by which books are subjected to review at Joseph Henry Press. I intend to assist with the full investigation into how you personally allowed this to happen.
Though I doubt you are, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.
[signed]
cc: Barbara Kline Pope, Director Phone: 202-334-3328 E-mail: [email protected]
Robbins did not respond. Below is the form letter sent out by Suzanne Woolsey to anyone who wrote to them. I received my copy on May 22, 2003.
We have received your message about the book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, by J. Michael Bailey, and I am responding on behalf of the National Academies. We appreciate knowing of your concerns and recognize that the contents of this book are controversial. The copyright page of the book carries the following notice: “Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this volume are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences or its affiliated institutions.” This statement applies to all books published by the Joseph Henry Press. Joseph Henry Press publications are not reports of the National Academies, but are individually authored works on topics related to science, engineering, and medicine.
In our opinion, the best response to writing with which one disagrees is more writing. Those who hold views contrary to those expressed in this book are encouraged to present and publish the evidence and reasoning in support of their conclusions.
Sincerely, Suzanne H. Woolsey, Ph.D. Chief Communications Officer
Publishers Weekly is an American weekly trade news magazine targeted at publishers, librarians, booksellers, and literary agents.Â
Bailey’s publisher Joseph Henry Press has been using an excerpt of this review in its publicity, including an ad that ran in The Advocate. The bold part is the selective quotation they use, wisely avoiding the critical part after.
An associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University, Bailey writes with assuredness that often makes difficult, abstract material-the relationship between sexual orientation and gender affect, the origins of homosexuality and the theoretical basis of how we discuss sexuality-comprehensible. He also, especially in his portraits of the women and men he writes about, displays a deep empathy that is frequently missing from scientific studies of sexuality. But Bailey’s scope is so broad that when he gets down to pivotal constructs, as in detailing the data of scientific studies such as Richard Green’s about “feminine boys” or Dean Hamer’s work on the so-called “gay gene,” the material is vague, and not cohesive. Bailey tends towards overreaching, unsupported generalizations, such his claim that “regardless of marital laws there will always be fewer gay men who are romantically attached” or that the African-American community is “a relatively anti-gay ethnic minority.” Add to this the debatable supposition that innate “masculine” and “feminine” traits, in the most general sense of the words, decidedly exist, and his account as a whole loses force.
Choice is a publication by the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of the American Library Association (ALA). In September 2003, an unnamed reviewer at Choice wrote one of the few positive reviews for the transphobic book The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey. This led to several academic libraries spending limited resources on a hardcover book that was available for free online from the publisher Joseph Henry Press.
Marketing Director Ann Merchant quoted Choice in revised promotional material for the book:
“Bailey is a sympathetic and compassionate believer who wants to convert others. This is a fascinating read… Summing up: Highly recommended.”
CHOICE, September 2003, via Joseph Henry Press (PDF)
2004 Stonewall Book Award nomination
In December 2003, Cecil Hixon, Chair of ALA’s 2004 Stonewall Book Award Committee, announced that Bailey’s book was one of 39 books shortlisted as a nonfiction nominee. The winner was John D’Emilio’s Lost Prophet: The Life and Times of Bayard Rustin.
The National Academies Press (NAP) was created to publish the reports issued by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). It publishes nearly 200 books a year on a wide range of topics in the sciences.
Mark Henderson (born 1974) is a British journalist and communications executive. Henderson was a science correspondent at The Times of London when he recommended the anti-transgender 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey.
Background
Henderson graduated from Oxford in 1996 with a bachelor’s degree in modern history. He worked as a science correspondent for The Times from 2000 to 2006, then as a science editor from 2006 to 2011. In 2012, Henderson became Director of Communications for the Wellcome Trust.
He has also published books:
50 Genetics Ideas You Really Need to Know (2009)
The Geek Manifesto (2012)
Bailey book review (2003)
Henderson recommends a number of hereditarian titles in the same article, including:
Matt Ridleyâs Nature via NurtureÂ
Simon Baron-Cohenâs The Essential Difference
Bill Brysonâs A Short History of Nearly Everything
Peter Atkins’ Galileoâs Finger
James Watson’s: DNA: The Secret of Life
Brenda Maddox’s Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA
Maurice Wilkins’ The Third Man of the Double Helix
Robert Mashâs How to Keep Dinosaurs
J. Michael Bailey’s The Man Who Would Be Queen
Much language in Henderson’s Bailey review below echoes Steven Pinker‘s review in The Guardian.
Whoâs got the brains in this relationship?
The Man Who Would Be Queen (Joseph Henry, ÂŁ17.95; offer ÂŁ14.36) by J. Michael Bailey, looks at the psychology and physiology of male transsexualism and homosexuality. Compassionate without attempting to be politically correct, Bailey examines the science behind sexual orientation and identity, using original and rigorous research. It will interest anyone with curiosity about the variety of human sexuality.Â
After voting to uphold the nomination on 24 February, LLF announced on 12 March 2004 that they were rescinding the nomination, an unprecedented step in the history of the awards. Marks said of the decision:
“The specific issue was whether the book was transphobic. The judges looked at the book more closely and decided it was.” (Letellier 2004)
In 2005, LLF accepted Marks’ resignation in June (Smith 2005) and closed their website in September, removing all materials about the controversy in the process (LLF 2005a). LLF eventually opened a new site at a new web address that makes no mention of the debacle (LLF 2005b).
Jim Marks GenderTalk interview, 9 February 2004
Below are excerpts from Marksâ comments during his interview with Gordene MacKenzie and Nancy Nangeroni on GenderTalk. (Nangeroni 2004a)
âThis is the first time an issue like this has come up because people generally donât nominate or suggest titles that are not sympathetic to our point of view.â
âWe are definitely an activist organization that believes in equal rights for gay people, lesbians, transgender people, so we donât get nominations from Focus on the Family kind of books.”
âWe have a nominating period in which books are nominated, mostly by publishers. We submit a whole list of titles to a finalist committee⊠They donât caucus with each other. They vote individually, and we compile the results, and thatâs how a book is selected as a finalist.â
âMost of them are bookstore owners or people who have a very broad awareness of the GLBT publishing world⊠so they do have a big overview. Theyâre almost all in the book business, which means that theyâre all overworked with much too much work and much too little time.â
âIt was pretty dramatic. We got an outpouring of emails when I came into the office on Tuesday February 3.â
Marks identified two issues that needed to be paramount: the âintegrity of the [selection] process and our mission.â
âWeâre trying to get a cross-section of the community and make sure the awards are representative of what the community in a larger sense than one person sitting at a desk here in Washington thinks⊠If the awards are going to be representative of that then what the community tells us, we have to say thatâs OK⊠We donât want to do something that going to interfere with the process and violate the process. But our mission is important to us as well.â
âWeâre going back to the whole finalist committee. I have been distributing emails as they come in, and weâre going to ask if we should keep this book on the finalist list or not⊠Iâve been distributing them to the finalist committee, asking if they should keep the book on the list or not.â
They want to take no more than two weeks from Friday, February 6 to reach a decision.
âIf the committee says âYouâre rushing us,â weâll take a little more time and let everybody talk about the issues⊠It needs to be something weâre happy with, that the process is fair and considered⊠The new members of our board of trustees are getting a close look at this⊠We are planning to give the whole process a step back and look at it and see what other ways we can do this.â
âThere is a pretty wide range [on the committee]. There are former winners and authors involved⊠One possibility is to set up some committees [for different categories] and start working much sooner.â
âThe other step in the process is that once the finalists are selected, they go to a separate set of panels. So the trans committee, there would be four people who are voting on the finalists in that category. We never say who was on one committee, but we do release the judges at the end of that process.â
Marks ended the interview by pointing out:
âItâs not just the trans community that Iâve heard from. I mean, there are more than transactivists who have said things to us and written.â
Jim Marks response of 13 February 2004
Below is the text of an “open letter” that I am publishing in the issue of Lambda Book Report that went to press today. I plan on posting this letter on our website on Monday.
Thanks to everyone for their input.
Jim
One thing about living in the Internet Age: When you hit a raw nerve, you learn about it quickly.
Late Monday, February 2, we posted the 16th annual Lambda Literary Award Finalists on our web site and sent out a press release announcing the finalists. Tuesday, February 3, when I opened my e-mail, I found my inbox stuffed with messages about one finalist. It was The Man Who Would Be Queen by Michael J. Bailey, chair of the department of psychology at Northwestern University, and published by Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academy of Sciences. The correspondents were alternately anguished and outraged by the bookâs selection as a finalist.
Caitlyn Antrim, for instance, wrote: “I believe this must have been a mishap because the content of [The Man Who Would Be Queen] represents the worst of stereotyping, outdated scientific opinion and misrepresentation. Even its appearance on your list of nominees contributes to harm of modern studies of transsexualism and femininity in boys.
“This is a book of anecdotes, not science. Its stories were obtained by stealth and misrepresentation. It engages in the worst of stereotyping of both transgender and gay and lesbian people. Prof. Bailey has admitted to falsifying, to the point of reversal of the truth, a key story of a young boy who he claimed to have been turned away from his transgender feelings by parental guidance. He has now admitted that he created that ending because it illustrated the point he wanted to make and that it Never Happened.”
Lynn Conway wrote, “I suspect that this must have been either an incredible oversight, or else by intrigue on the inside by transphobic members of Lambda.
“Whatever the case, I hereby alert you to the fact that Bailey’s book has generated perhaps the greatest crisis transsexual women have ever faced, for the book proclaims as âscienceâ that transsexual women are either (i) gay men who have sex changes so as to have many sex partners, and who are âespecially suited to prostitution,â or they are (ii) sexual paraphilics who change sex for autosexual reasons, in a severe paraphilia related to pedophilia…”
Perhaps most succinctly, Professor Deirdre McCloskey, whose book Crossing: A Memoir was a 1999 Finalist in this category, wrote: “Whoever made this decision needs to do a better job. A much better job. It would be like nominating Mein Kampf for a literary prize in Jewish studies.”
Many of these letters came with extensive documentation. McCloskey, a well-known economics professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago, sent in a lengthy critical review of The Man ⊠and two letters to the editor of another publication concerning the inaccuracies of another review of the book.
On the other hand, as we go to press we are receiving comments such as this from Bradley University Associate Professor of Psychology David P. Schmitt, Ph.D.: ” I would like to express my opinion, as a sex researcher and scientist, that Mike Bailey’s book is based on sound scholarly evidence and reasoning, and certainly deserves recognition as a solid contribution to sexual science.”
This outpouring of concern raised the question, Should the book be taken off the list of finalists? As I examined that question, I came up with four different considerations:
1) The integrity of the process. The selection of The Man⊠was made not by Lambda Literary Foundation staff but by a finalists committee made up of a bakerâs dozen of the most knowledgeable GLBT book industry professionals. It would fly in the face of that process to summarily replace their decision with the judgment of a single administrator.
2) Censorship. The Lambda Literary Foundation believes in the free expression of ideas. It is not uncommon for us to publish reviews in Book Report that the editors might disagree with, but we respect the authorâs viewpoint and the honesty of their discussion. Similarly, it seems inappropriate for us to remove a book from consideration for a Lambda Literary Award because it doesnât meet some arbitrary standard of political correctness.
3) Mission. Hereâs where it gets complicated. Our mission is furthering GLBT literacy and understanding. A book that was frankly opposed to the rights of GLBT people would be in conflict with our mission, and we would be under no obligation to highlight with a Lambda Literary Awards finalist selection a book that is contrary to our reason for existence.
4) Ethics. As many of our correspondents noted, charges have been filed against Professor Bailey with his institution, Northwestern University. One person who has a leading role in Baileyâs book, Anjelica Kieltyka, called our office and spoke with us about how the book used her as a subject without her consent. It is at the least troubling to think that an ethically challenged work could be a Lammy finalist.
Whatever the ethical concerns, the LLF is not the appropriate forum for making a judgment: This must be done by a body of Professor Baileyâs peers. Similarly, censorship is not a key consideration: Weâre not preventing a book from appearing in the marketplace of ideas if we choose not to highlight it. Therefore, out of the concerns about the process and the LLFâs mission, we will further extend the process. In choosing the finalists to begin with, the procedures we have set up call for the finalist committee members to vote for their preferred titles in each category independently of each other. In any one category, there may be many books nominated, and our procedures are designed to highlight consensus, not have the equivalent of a runoff vote from the top contenders.
As far as I know, this is the first time a Lammy finalist book has been challenged as completely inconsistent with our mission. Therefore, in this new situation we will follow the suggestion of one finalists committee member and submit the question to the whole committee for reevaluation. They will consider all the issues and evidence presented, and then vote to keep or remove the book from the list. Weâll announce the results in the March issue of Lambda Book Report, and online as soon as they arrive at their decision.
âJim Marks
Jim Marks announces LLF’s decision to uphold nomination
Below is a letter sent on 24 February 2004.
Dear all,
Below is the text that has been posted on the Lambda Literary web site concerning The Man Who Would Be Queen. I know that you may be disappointed with the results of the finalists committee deliberations. The committee was aware of the depth of feeling about this book, and wrestled seriously with the issues that have been raised. We welcome comment and dialogue on this and other issues of importance to the glbt community.
Jim
Man Who Would Be Queen to Remain on Lambda Literary Awards Finalists List
After two weeks of discussion, the Finalists Committee for the Lambda Literary Awards voted to retain The Man Who Would Be Queen as a finalist for the 2003 Transgender Award.”This was a very difficult decision, and I appreciate the seriousness and integrity with which the committee considered the issues raised by the opponents and supporters of The Man Who Would Be Queen,” said Jim Marks, Executive Director of the Lambda Literary Foundation, which organizes the annual Lambda Literary Awards (Lammys). “They have been very sensitive about the depth of feeling on this matter.”
When the 2003 Lambda Literary Award finalists were announced, the selection of The Man Who Would Be Queen touched off a firestorm of protest that the book was transphobic, poor science and that the author, J. Michael Bailey, was the subject of ethics charges at Northwestern University, where he chairs the Department of Psychology.
The book also drew equally strong expressions of support from other transgender activists and from colleagues in the field of study.
Given the range of opinions heard by the Finalists Committee, it agreed to focus on whether the content of the book was at odds with the Lambda Literary Foundationâs mission of supporting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people through cultural literacy. The viewpoint that received the majority vote was that “Bailey has not set out to intentionally do harm to gay men and transsexuals. He doesn’t get it on some fundamental levels but he genuinely thinks he does.”
With the Finalists Committee decision made, now a panel of judges will consider which of the five books in this category will be selected for the 2003 Lambda Literary Award. The five finalists in the transgender category are: She’s Not There, by Jennifer Finney Boylan (Broadway Books); The Drag King Anthology, Donna Troka, Kathleen Lebesco, Jean Noble, eds. (Harrington Park Press); The Man Who Would Be Queen, by J. Michael Bailey (Joseph Henry Press); Trans-gendered, by Justin Tanis (The Pilgrim Press); and Transgender Journeys, by Virginia Ramey Mollenkott and Vanessa Sheridan (The Pilgrim Press). The same judging process will be followed for the books in the other 19 categories.The results of the judgesâ decisions will be announced at a gala banquet to be held June 3, 2004 at the Chicago Mart Plaza Hotel.
Tickets are $125 for the dinner, $175 for the dinner and gala reception, with discounts for tickets purchased before March 31, 2004.
For more information or to order online, go to www.lambdalit.org or call 202-682-0952.
Additional information:
How was the book selected in the first place?
The finalists for the Lambda Literary Awards were nominated by their publishers and other authorized agents in the fall of 2003; the nomination period closed December 15, 2003. The finalists in each category were chosen by an ad hoc committee of LGBT book professionals. Committee members voted independently of each other and their votes were not shared with other committee members. Choices were ranked on a scale of 5 to 1 (five being the highest score) and the five books with the highest totals were selected as finalists.
Did every member of the finalist committee vote for the books selected as finalists?
No. Because of the ranking system, the fact that categories could have many entrants and that there is no runoff, it is quite possible for a book to become a Lammy finalist without all the Finalists Committee members voting for it.
What about the questions raised on the bookâs scientific merit?
In an Open Letter published in the February 2004 Lambda Book Report, Lambda Literary Foundation executive director Jim Marks discussed the ethical and censorship issues raised by the call to remove the book from the list. As the committee discussed the points being raised, and we continued receiving comments from the public, it became clear that opinion on the scientific merit of the book was divided. For instance, we received comments from two members of the editorial board of the Journal of Sex Research, one speaking on behalf of the book, the other questioning it. Given such a division of expert opinion, it was beyond the competence of a literary review panel to make a judgment on scientific merit.
— Jim Marks, Executive Director, Lambda Literary Foundation LLF Programs: Lambda Book Report, The James White Review, Lambda Literary Awards and Lambda Literary Festival Online at www.lambdalit.org 202-682-0952; 202-682-0955 fax; PO Box 73910, Washington, DC 20056-3910 shipping address: 1217 Eleventh St. NW, Suite 1, Washington, DC 20001
Lambda Literary Foundation revokes nomination
Below is an announcement that we are posting on our web site today. I would like to thank everyone for their comments and e-mails. We welcome additional comments or discussion, although our limited staff and resources preclude answering everyone personally.
Jim
March 12, 2004.
The Lambda Literary Foundation announced that “The Man Who Would Be Queen” has been removed as a 16th Annual Lambda Literary Award finalist.
The change was prompted by a request from the panel of judges that is reading all the finalists in the transgender category, which said the book was not appropriate for the category. The Foundation does not identify the judges to the public or each other until the Awards banquet, which this year will be held June 3, in Chicago, IL. Upon receiving the request, executive director Jim Marks went back to the Finalist Committee, which had selected the book originally. A majority of the committee agreed to honor the request.
Because the action was unprecedented, it provoked heated discussion within the Finalist Committee. Finalist Committee member Kris Kleindienst said, “Removing the book from the list is not censorship. The book is widely available, has been widely reviewed and is not about to be denied to the public. What we are doing is behaving in a responsible manner to make sure the list of finalists is compatible with the Foundationâs mission. Having looked at the book closely, I am sure it is not.” Several committee members echoed Kleindienstâs views.
Finalist Committee member Victoria Brownworth, along with several others, disagreed on the censorship issue. “Banning a book and censoring a book are two different things. While I hate to be the titular voice of the ACLU here, especially since I personally disagree with many aspects of Bailey’s book, if we take the book off the list we are indeed censoring it. It doesn’t matter what our reasons are.”
“This has been a difficult and humbling experience for the Foundation,” said Executive Director Jim Marks. “Weâve never before had a case in which a book, whose author and publisher both affirm their support for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual rights, has at the same time been opposed by those who say its content in fact is antithetical to those rights.”
“Throughout the controversy that has raged over the bookâs selection as a finalist, we have struggled to maintain the integrity of the process.” Marks said. “Since the impetus for the change came from the within the categoryâs judges, and was reviewed and voted on by the Finalist Committee, we feel that the decision is consistent with our process.”
The recipients of the 16th Lambda Literary Awards will be announced at a gala banquet to be held June 3, 2004 at the Chicago Mart Plaza Hotel.
Tickets are $125 for the dinner, $175 for the dinner and gala reception, with discounts for tickets purchased before March 31, 2004.
For more information or to order online, go to www.lambdalit.org or call 202-682-0952.
Jim Marks GenderTalk interview 15 March 2004
Excerpts from an interview immediately after the announcement (Nangeroni 2004b).
Jim Marks:
We have a three-tiered process: books are nominated by the publisher, then the finalists are selected from a list of books that are nominated by a Finalists Committee. Then the five finalists are sent to a panel of judges in each category
We heard from one of the judges in the transgender category asking that the book be removed. So I went back to the Finalists Committee and asked them if they would honor that request. And they agreed to do that.
We list the judges in the program– know who the other judges are. Itâs done independently, itâs not done in consultation with other judges. Itâs all individuals reading the books and making decisions based on their reading.
My understanding is that the judge objected to the content, that it just was not supportive of transgender and gay issues.
Nancy Nangeroni:
Would we be inaccurate in saying that itâs Transphobic… Did the judge agree with those of us who are saying that?
Jim Marks:
Certainly the judge did, and the finalist committee agreed to remove the book. The vote, because it was a majority vote, agreed with that.
People read the book a little more closely, I think, once it became brought to their attention. Some people who had read the book four or five months earlier, so I think it was given a closer reading. Because mostly the finalist committee is made up of booksellers and people who have a very broad knowledge of the gay and lesbian book community so that theyâre able to say, âOh these are the books that have really popped up over the course of the year, books that people are talking about, books that we know have really been significant one way or another,â but then the judges are the ones who are entrusted to read the books very closely.
This is the first time we have ever done this.
My whole focus from the beginning was to make sure that opinions were heard, but that the decision-making was not in response to anything that would be like pressure, but simply out of the basic processes that we have set up already. The response that people got from the community certainly alerted people to the issues that were at hand, and I think some people went back and looked at the book more closely because of that. We would not have re-examined this issue if the judge hadnât come back to us and said, âI just donât think this is right for a Lambda Literary Award finalist.â
There are two things: it was not a clear-cut one way or another in terms of how the finalist committee voted. It was a majority of the votes, so only a couple of people changing their opinion, their views, made a difference there.
It was only a couple of people⊠the people who voted to keep it on the list were not necessarily supportive of the book in that they agreed with the content, but they thought that this was obviously a controversial book. They thought it raised scientific and⊠They thought it raised important questions. They also thought that having gone through the process that we ought to respect the process and not change it.
There were a lot of reasons for the original decisions that were not based on âWe believe in this bookâ but because of people believing that the book had raised significant issues or that the process was one that we ought to be respecting and maintaining.
One good part of this is that we have been in touch with a number of people, and I really hope to get a⊠And I know our board, Katherine Forrest is on our board, and she is definitely talking about expanding our board and including a trans person on that.
Aftermath
In June 2005, Marks was ousted as Executive Director, a position he’d held almost continuously since 1996. On 7 June, a majority of Lambda Literary Foundation Board of Trustees voted to accept the resignation.
Trustees accepting:
Jim Duggins, retired academic who lives in Palm Springs, Calif.
Katherine V. Forrest, an author based in San Francisco
Karla Jay, an author who lives in New York
Don Wiese, a New York editor at Carroll & Graf
Trustees not accepting
Jim Marks, ousted director
Nick Apostol, Jim Marks’ domestic partner (Smith 2005)
LLF also sold their building on 16 June and suspended publication of the James White Review and the Lambda Book Report.
Founder Deacon Maccubbin noted “issues were skipped or late getting on newsstands,” which “hurt its credibility.” Trustee Katherine Forrest said “Both of the publications have been operating chronically in the red, really, since they left the umbrella of the Lambda Rising bookstore. Weâre talking about nine or 10 years that itâs just been sputtering along.â Forrest said there has been an âongoing, chronic problemâ with the Lambda Book Reportâs ability to publish in a timely manner. It was supposed to be available monthly, but often was late coming out. (Smith 2005) Marks has since claimed his resignation had nothing to do with the financial difficulties cited by LLF’s founder and trustees, nor anything to do with the mishandling of the Bailey fiasco. (Marks 2006)
Their lambdalit.org website went offline after the announcement, eventually reappearing in 2006 as a text-only site consisting of three pages. A new site at lambdaliterary.org went live at the end of 1995, announcing “Welcome to the New Lambda Literary Foundation.” Any mention of the Bailey debacle was gone from the new site.
