Barbara Kline Pope is an American marketing executive responsible for publishing one of the most transphobic books ever written, The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey.
Background
Pope was born on October 27, 1959 and grew up in York, Pennsylvania. Pope earned a bachelor’s degree from Indiana University of Pennsylvania in 1981 and a master’s degree from University of Maryland in 1990.
Pope held various marketing positions at the National Academies from 1983 until 2017, then was appointed Director of Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pope’s spouse Andrew M. “Andy” Pope (born 19500 has also worked at the National Academies, serving as Director of the Board on Health Sciences Policy and at the Institute of Medicine. They have adult children.
The Man Who Would Be Queen (2003)
In 2003 Pope was Executive Director of the National Academies Press (NAP) in Washington, DC. During the controversy, Pope was also named Executive Director of Communications, a post formerly held by Suzanne Woolsey.
Pope was responsible for training and direction of professional managers in all areas of publishing, including their trade arm Joseph Henry Press. Pope’s employees, editor Stephen Mautner and publicist Robin Pinnel, were key contributors in the decisions about editing, fact-checking, and promoting Bailey’s book. Pope’s major focus is marketing:
“Branding, marketing research, derivative products, and reputation management occupy her time as executive director of communications. She has studied consumer behavior and her published work examines business models for the digital publishing arena and the use of information sources among organizational buyers.”
Pope’s enthusiasm for generating revenue came at the expense of scientific integrity and basic editorial standards expected of an academic press.
The book Pope published has been widely condemned as a eugenic screed against sex and gender minorities. In it, author J. Michael Bailey claims that transgender women are really men who are “especially well-suited to prostitution” (page 185). Bailey also presents a case report of a child named “Danny Ryan” who was allegedly cured of being transgender. Pope and Mautner did not bother to confirm if this child actually exists. The book they put out helped the author get tenure.
When marketing trumps science and academic rigor
Pope wrote a widely-cited article on NAP’s successes in The Journal of Electronic Publishing. In it, she tells why the National Academy decided to give away its intellectual property, what happened, and why she thinks others might do the same.
Pope has also worked with The Oxford Publicity Partnership, a marketing service specially designed for nonfiction publishers and specialty presses. It is not clear if OPP is involved in the marketing of the Bailey book in the US or abroad.
Despite the outpouring of concern about Pope’s decision to market the Bailey book, NAP and Joseph Henry Press have made no efforts to rectify this decision. Pope has never made any public statements about the book or her responsibility.
Lynn Conway’s 2004 encounter with Pope
American engineer Lynn Conway is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a prominent critic of the transphobic book Pope published. In 2004, Conway happened to be at National Academies headquarters for a meeting, where she spoke directly with Pope about the harm Pope’s work had caused to a vulnerable population. Conway’s report appears below.
On Thursday, July 22, 2004, I was in Washington, D.C. to participate in a meeting of one of the National Academiesâ boards [the U.S. Air Force Science and Technology Board] of which I am a member.
The meeting was held in the Academiesâ new Keck office building at 500 Fifth Street, NW. The Keck Building is a large metal and glass building with a security-guarded entrance. Itâs one of those places in D.C. where visitors are screened and can only get in if they are cleared for entry.
That morning the idea crossed my mind that since I was already in the building that day, it would be interesting to introduce myself, at least informally, to the National Academies Press (NAP)/Joseph Henry Press (JHP) staff.
As an elected Academy member Iâd often taken advantage of meeting breaks to interact opportunistically with Academy staff. In this case, I hoped to introduce myself to the NAP/JHP staff members responsible for editing, publishing and overseeing the promotion of The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, a book by Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey.
Since the publication of that book in early 2003, it has been widely condemned. By now those staff members must certainly be aware of the awful impact its publication has had on the trans community. After all, the author was by now widely discredited in the court of public opinion for his sloppy science and defamatory caricatures of trans women.
However, up to now Academy leadership and NAP/JHP staff had stonewalled the community, giving us the âsilent treatmentâ by never responding directly to our many complaints and requests to meet with them. It was as if we were invisible as they dismissed us as apparently powerless, friendless and of little consequence to them.
I thought to myself, âThe Academy folks must sense that they should reach out to us a bit and try to build some bridges with the trans community if they are to have any hope of saving face as Bailey and his supporters go down in infamy…â
With that thought in mind, I walked out to the lobby area during the morning break and asked the receptionist for office locations for Stephen Mautner (Executive Editor of the JHP) and Robin Pinnel (publicist for the Bailey book). She looked up the room numbers for me, and I went upstairs to see if they were in.
The NAP offices are on the third floor of the building, which is also the ground floor of a big multi-story atrium that runs up through the middle of the building. The architecture is consistent with the antiseptic style of the remainder of the building  spare and colorless, and yet somewhat pretentious in its visual display of bright metal and glass. As in the rest of the building few people are seen moving about. Itâs very quiet everywhere there, and seems as if most staff members are simply ânot inâ on any given day.
I walked through the atrium and wandered on into the NAP area. The offices were very nice and many had wonderful outside views. However, even here almost no one seemed to âbe inâ except for an administrative assistant down at one end of the hall.
I wandered the NAP corridor for a while, looking for Stephen Mautnerâs office. I found a sign for Joseph Henry Press on the wall, marking off the offices for this function of the National Academy Press. Mautnerâs office was there, but he wasnât in.
Just then the assistant to the NAPâs director, a very pleasant lady named Olive Schwarzschild, walked up to me and asked if I needed any assistance.
I introduced myself, and said I was on a break from a board meeting and thought Iâd check to see if Stephen Mautner and Robin Pinnel were in. I mentioned that they were involved in publishing a book that I was interested in Âand that Iâd hoped to briefly introduce myself to them and say hi while I was here.
Olive seemed nicely surprised by having an elected member of the National Academies stop in at the NAP offices, and she went out of her way to be very polite and helpful. She checked her notes and said that Mautner was away that day but that maybe Robin Pinnel would be in. She called over to Ms. Pinnelâs office (which apparently was in another section of the floor), but it turned out that Pinnel wasnât in at work that morning either.
While standing by Oliveâs desk I noticed out of the corner of my eye a well-dressed middle-aged woman seated at a desk in the large nearby corner office. She was looking at me and listening to what I was saying. I turned my head slightly and read the name on the outside office wall. It was the office of Barbara Kline Pope, the Director of the NAP.
I mentioned to Olive that although Mr. Mautner and Ms. Pinnel werenât in, it would be nice to be able to briefly introduce myself to Ms. Pope while I was there. I said it just loudly enough for Ms. Pope to hear me, hoping that sheâd acknowledge my presence and weâd get a chance to introduce ourselves.
Just then, Ms. Pope picked up the phone and called someone. It was 10:45 am.
Olive asked if Iâd like to sit down somewhere to wait for a few minutes, but I said âno, thatâs OK, Iâll just hang out here in hopes of having a couple of minutes to meet Barbara.â Olive assured me that Ms. Pope knew that I was there, saying that she had mentioned to her who I was shortly after Iâd first introduced myself.
I stood outside Ms. Popeâs office and waited – and waited.
Suddenly, a little after 11:00, Ms. Pope hung up the phone, walked towards the office door and, without looking at me, said quite loudly to Olive âI have a meeting at 11:00.â
This seemed odd to me, because Olive apparently didnât know about any meeting, and there was no one else waiting outside Ms. Popeâs office (plus, as things would turn out, Ms. Pope didnât leave the area after I had left nor did any other visitors enter the areaâŠ).
Anyways, by now Ms. Pope was standing in the middle of the office a few yards away from me, and she started to turn back towards her desk.
I turned towards the office door and said âHi Barbara, Iâm Lynn Conwayâ.
Ms. Pope turned back slightly towards me, but was silent.
I then said, âIâd like to introduce myselfâŠâ
Thinking that she would at least briefly invite me into her office, I started to bring my right hand up to invite a friendly handshake.
However, she cut me short by saying âI know who you are!â in a rather firm tone and with heavy emphasis on the âyouâ. This response stunned me, since Iâd never met or communicated with her, but had only criticized one of the books she had published.
I then said in as nice and calm a voice as possible: âIâm in a board meeting here and thought Iâd stop by and see if Stephen and Robin were here ÂI thought it might be helpful to put names on faces so weâd all feel we knew each other a bit better, and itâs nice to have this chance to see you while Iâm here, tooâ.
Ms. Pope was expressionless and silent, and made no move whatsoever to greet me or respond to me, much less invite me into her office. This was a long and awkward silence.
At this point I decided to shift gears and ask some questions while I had Ms. Popeâs attention. After all, sheâd set the tone for the interaction by her odd refusal to acknowledge my initial gesture of openness towards her.
âYou are aware of what a horror you folks have caused out there?â I asked, as politely and calmly as possible.
âWeâve learned a lotâ, Ms. Pope responded rather quickly, blankly and off-handedly.
âThen why are you continuing to so heavily promote Baileyâs book?â I asked.
âBecause we have a responsibility to the author!â she asserted very strongly.
I was absolutely stunned by this response, and stood silent for a while.
Recalling the Southern Poverty Law Centerâs expose of the violence against young trans women in D.C. and the role of hate science in fueling such violence, I asked her:
âBut didnât you feel any responsibility towards a very large, endangered community?â
This led to another, very awkward silence.
Ms. Pope stared blankly at me for quite a while, clearly not knowing what to say Âand possibly oblivious to what I was even referring to.
I didnât know what to say to break the silence either.
Sensing that the interaction was over, I simply said, âWell, good luck to you.â
She then turned away. The interaction was over.
Olive had been right there during all this, and seemed quite taken aback that Ms. Pope had not greeted me, had not shaken my hand and had acted so strangely during the interaction. I felt sorry about Olive being put in this unexpected position, especially since sheâd been so polite and welcoming to me as a member of the Academies.
Not wanting Olive to think that she had somehow done something wrong, I mentioned to her that the NAP/JHP had published a book that is causing lots of angst in an endangered social community, and that was probably why Ms. Pope was uncomfortable, i.e., that Ms. Pope was likely feeling a bit on the defensive about that book. Olive didnât appear to have heard of the controversy, but now sensed Ms. Popeâs uneasiness was simply due to some kind of ideological problem with a publication, and I think this made her feel better. I thanked her for her help and left the NAP office area.
Although I was running late returning from my board-meeting break, I took my time heading back through the atrium towards the elevators. Sitting down in the cafeteria, I jotted down key details of these interactions while they were fresh in my mind.
Meanwhile, I kept an eye out for possible visitors going into the NAP office area to meet with Ms. Pope. No one went into that area while I was sitting there, and at around 11:25 I headed back downstairs to the board meeting.
And so the âsilent treatmentâ continues at the National AcademiesâŠ
Lynn Conway September 19, 2004
References
Pope BK (2004). Conference biography. http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/netconference/chairs.html [archive]
Pope BK (1999). How to Succeed in Online Markets: National Academy Press: A Case Study. Journal of Online Publishing, 4;4 (May 1999). https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0004.408
Bailey JM (2003). The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. Joseph Henry Press. ISBN 978-0309084185 http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084180/html/ [archive]
Ann Merchant (born circa 1957) is an American marketing executive who was involved in creating promotional material for the transphobic 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey. Merchant has never commented publicly on her involvement.
Ann Merchant in 2012. Source: YouTube
At that time, Merchant was Marketing Director at Joseph Henry Press and National Academies Press. Merchant’s computer signature was found in the code for the promotional material entitled “Praise” included in the press kit prepared by Joseph Henry Press publicist Robin Pinnel.
Biography
Ann G. Merchant earned her Bachelor’s degree from Johns Hopkins University. She worked in fulfillment at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce before joining the National Academies Press in 1990. In 2004 she was named Director of Outreach & Marketing for The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). In 2009, she was named Deputy Executive Director of NASEM’s Office of Communications.
Robert VerBruggen is an American writer and conservative activist. VerBruggen was editor of Northwestern University‘s conservative student publication The Northwestern Chronicle when it published defamatory statements about me in 2005 that VerBruggen later retracted. VerBruggen’s unprofessional response was more troubling in many ways than the initial error.
Background
Robert Allen VerBruggen was born on March 28, 1984 and grew up in Wisconsin with a sibling.
Since 2003, I have been a vocal critic of Northwestern psychologist J. Michael Bailey, primarily because of the way Bailey exploits sex and gender minorities, especially children.
Unlike the real student newspaper The Daily Northwestern, contributors to the Chronicle posted articles that apparently received little or no journalistic oversight from VerBruggen or staff before publication. When VerBruggen allowed Bailey to post a rambling defense of questionable research and ethics, VerBruggen wrote, “To my knowledge, it is the first professor-written article we’ve ever run. There are of course conflicts with this setup, especially in that he is both a source and a writer” [emphasis added]. The Chronicle also listed Bailey as staff.
âRaw Dataâ
The Chronicle published many pieces under the title âRaw Data,â which apparently meant any unsubstantiated, unedited materials a staff member chose to put on the Chronicle website.
As an example, VerBruggen ran a 12 October 2005 story mentioning me. It contained libelous claims that I filed for bankruptcy and other defamation. The article was written by internet troll Willow Arune and put online by Bailey. VerBruggenâs predecessor, who was was still listed on the Chronicle site as editor, was smart enough to remove the article in question immediately upon receipt of my complaint. VerBruggen was clearly upset by this, writing:
I apologize that our former editor took it upon herself to resolve the situation. It was not her place to.
I also apologize for posting the article without reading it more closely; I received a handful of documents meant to complement the story as raw data, so I did not edit them. I presumed the person who gave them to me would have the evidence necessary to support the statements.
I have removed the section of the account pertaining to bankruptcy, and I apologize for its initial inclusion.
VerBruggen was apparently more upset about the previous editor usurping VerBruggen’s authority than about shirking all duty as an editor. When I asked for the name of the publication’s advisor at Medill and pointed out that contributor and “self-confessed eccentric” Willow Arune claims to be an international fugitive charged in a multimillion dollar forgery, VerBruggen started getting a little snippy:
Anything you want to resolve, you will discuss directly with me.
Retraction
On 15 October 2005, VerBruggen printed a tepid retraction:
EDITOR’S NOTE: A previous posting of this article contained an assessment of Andrea James’ financial situation. James has asserted this assessment was not accurate, and the Chronicle has no independent evidence that it was. (Willow Arune had previously made the same assessment in Transgender Tapestry).
Upon reading VerBruggen’s retraction, the Transgender Tapestry subscription manager confirmed these libelous claims by Arune do not appear anywhere in their publication. Once again, the Chronicle had no independent evidence, and this time the bogus reporting was written by VerBruggen.
VerBruggen dragged another publicationâs name into this mess with irrelevant and unjournalistic justification for the earlier misstep. On 25 October, VerBruggen finally retracted the parenthetical excuse:
EDITOR’S NOTE: A previous posting of this article contained an assessment of Andrea James’ financial situation. James has asserted this assessment was not accurate, and the Chronicle has no independent evidence that it was. The Chronicle regrets the error, especially because the issue is irrelevant to the topics discussed in J. Michael Bailey’s article.
VerBruggen graduated from Northwestern in 2006 and married Jaclyn Theresa Stewart.
VerBruggen went on to be a book editor at the conservative Washington Times, followed by positions as The American Conservative and the National Review.
Robin Ferrier Materese (born 1976) was a publicist at Joseph Henry Press, the publishing arm of the National Academies Press in 2003. At the time, she was known as Robin Pinnel and was listed as author of some of the defamatory materials about sex and gender minorities put out in support of their book The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey. In 2020, she reached out to clarify that she authored only one of the pieces attributed to her. She also asked that this page include her statement below. Per the name she used in her 2020 correspondence, she is referred to as Robin Ferreier below.
Biography
Ferrier is a University of Virginia graduate with a Bachelor’s degree in English, and the former Daily Cavalier student newspaper editor. She also has a Master’s degree in writing from Johns Hopkins. Ferrier used to work for literary agent/lawyer Gail Ross. After leaving Joseph Henry Press in 2005, she worked in communications positions at Choice Hotels International, Johns Hopkins University, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Statement from Robin Ferrier (2020)
On June 24, 2020, Robin Ferrier issued the following statement:
In 2003, I worked as a publicist at the National Academies Press / Joseph Henry Press. I was not part of the editorial decision making or editorial process. My job was to promote the authors / books that we published and help the authors get book reviews, media appearances, event bookings, etc. J. Michael Baileyâs book, âThe Man Who Would Be Queen,â was one such book. Ultimately, the Pressâ decision to publish that book, and stand by it when legitimate concerns were raised, was the impetus behind my decision to leave that job.Â
I joined the Academies because I believed in what it did as an organization. I believed in the power of reputable science. I still believe in the power of reputable science. However, thanks to a number of events in the last few years, and to my recent correspondence with Ms. James, my eyes have been opened to the dangers and damages that can come from bad science.Â
When Ms. James tells me stories like that of Leelah Alcorn, I feel truly sick to my stomach that I played any role in promoting that book and spreading the damaging ideology it espoused.
Press and promotional materials
She has stated she was author of the following piece:
She said in 2020, “I was listed as the media point of contact on the press release and my name was on the reviewer copy cover letter; however, the text used in all those materials was pulled from pre-approved text written by the senior leadership team at the Joseph Henry Press.”
Items in [brackets] are attributed to Ferrier but were “by the senior leadership team,” according to her.
[Pinnel R] (April 3, 2003). new book on homosexuality, transsexualism and science. http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-atlanta-audio/2003-April/000188.html Attachments:
“controversial ideas” by J. Michael Bailey
“praise” compiled by Ann Merchant
“timeline” by Robin Pinnel
[Pinnel R] (March 21, 2003). Gay, Straight or Lying? Science has the answer (21 March 2003) http://glbchat.com/Home/news.asp?articleid=4126 http://www.outintoronto.com/home/news.asp?articleid=4126
National Academies Press (retrieved June 2003) http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10530.html
Joseph Henry Press (2003) [open letter] http://www.jhpress.org/press_release/10530openletter.pdf
Joseph Henry Press (April 28, 2003). [press release] http://www.jhpress.org/press_release/10530.pdf
Resources
LinkedIn: robin-materese-9458134
Twitter: rmaterese
Instagram: rlmaterese
Note: an earlier version of this page included inaccuracies that were corrected and clarified with the subject’s input in 2020.
Stephen Mautner is an American publishing executive responsible for fact-checking and releasing one of the most transphobic books ever written, The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey.
Background
Stephen M. Mautner was born on April 13, 1952. Mautner earned a bachelor’s from Brown University and a master’s degree from Johns Hopkins University. Mautner met spouse Ellen in Chicago and married there in 1986. They moved to Rockville, Maryland in 1989 for Mautner’s new job, and Mautner joined the National Academies around 1991. The Joseph Henry Press imprint began operation in 1992. After it was disbanded in 2008, Mautner remained Executive Editor of the National Academies Press (NAP), publisher for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Washington, D.C. Mautner has helped develop online projects to make those works more accessible to general audiences.
Anti-transgender activity
Mautner was responsible for fact-checking and publishing psychologist J. Michael Bailey’s 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism.
Mautner edited and published what is widely considered the most unscientific and deliberately offensive book on gender diversity since Janice Raymond’s 1979 screed The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male. Mautner was completely surprised by the 2003 response, which shows how poorly he handled his editing responsibilities on this controversial book.
After selling about 4,200 print copies, The Man Who Would Be Queen went out of print in 2008. It remained available for purchase as a PDF on the National Academies site.
The question of how this salacious bigotry got past Steve Mautner and got published by the National Academies Press remains unanswered. National Academies employees Mautner and Barbara Kline Pope refuse to disclose who did the “peer review,” because it’s clear Mautner’s choices were Bailey cronies. In the wake of the 2003 protests, Mautner even defended this book as a âresponsible work.â
Open letter from Stephen Mautner (2003)
On 24 June 2003, Mautner sent out the following open letter. See below for Mautner’s letter as a PDF. Notations and links in the text are mine.
In March of 2003 the Joseph Henry Press published J. Michael Baileyâs The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, a work intended to inform general audiences about one scholarâs efforts to understand aspects of homosexuality and gender identity within a psychological framework. Some readers have vehemently disagreed with the book, calling it defamatory and offensive to the transgender community. For example, they contest the implication that most transsexuals fit the categories described by Bailey.
Overall, the book has been greeted with a wide range of responses, from high praise to harsh criticism. Kirkus Reviews called the book âa scientific yet superbly compassionate expositionâ (January 2003). Publishers Weekly said âBailey 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 sexualityâ (April 2003). However, the same review in Publishers Weekly goes on to say that âBailey tends towards overreaching, unsupported generalizations.â And a reviewer in Frontiers, a Southern California gay news magazine, states that the author âdoesnât need to inject his biases as often as he doesâ (March 2003). A sense of the polarity of opinion about the book can also be derived from a scan of the reader responses to the work on Amazon.com, where among the forty-three responses posted on June13, 2003, twenty-seven gave the book a 1-star (lowest) rating and eleven gave it a 5-star (highest) rating, with only five responses in between.
The Joseph Henry Press (JHP), publisher of Baileyâs book, is an imprint of the National Academies Press engaged in publishing books on science, engineering, and medicine for popular audiences. JHP books are individually authored works, each carrying a notice that the opinions expressed are solely the authorâs and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academies. JHP follows clear decision rules for selecting books for publication and for scientific review of manuscripts. The work in question was reviewed as a well-crafted and responsible work on a difficult topic, reflecting one approach to a legitimate avenue of scholarship and research.
None of us involved in the publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen imagined the extent of the controversy that its publication would trigger. We deeply regret the fact that some have found the book harmful or offensive. Our intention in publishing it was certainly not to offend any individual or group, but rather to offer insight into how one scientist has arrived at his views on certain aspects of sex and human behavior.
The appropriate response to this endeavor, we believe, is not to silence the scientist or to censor the expression of his findings and opinions. Rather we hope that the publication will inspire a productive discussion about future directions and methodologies in research on issues of gender and sexuality, and thereby promote the proper course of future scientific investigation on this important but very sensitive topic.
Sincerely, [unsigned]
Stephen Mautner Executive Editor The National Academies Press The Joseph Henry Press
Below is selected correspondence about Mautner’s editorial choices.
My response of 16 July 2003
Mr. Mautner:
I have recently read an open letter with your name affixed regarding your responsibility for the publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey. The version I read was electronic and was unsigned and undated.
Please provide me with verification that you are responsible for this letter, as well as the date(s) it was written and released by JHP, as these dates will be important in understanding what you knew about Professor Bailey at the time you wrote the letter.
Thank you.
Mautner’s reply of 18 July 2003:
The date of the open letter was June 24, 2003. I will ask that the date be added to the letter.
Sincerely,
Stephen Mautner Executive Editor The National Academies Press/Joseph Henry Press
2 August 2003 letter to Mautner from prominent trans scientists
August 2, 2003
Stephen Mautner, Executive Editor The National Academies Press The Joseph Henry Press 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
Dear Mr. Mautner,
We are writing in response to your recent open letter regarding your publication of the Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey. You are probably now aware that several individuals who were subjects of Bailey’s research have filed formal complaints with his institution to the effect that he apparently did not seek review or approval by Northwestern’s Institutional Review Board for the research involving human subjects described in detail in his book. In particular, they were not informed that they were subjects of his research nor did they sign consent forms as is required by federal regulations governing protection of human research subjects.
Federal regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge”. Human subject “means a living individual about whom an investigator conducting research obtains data through intervention or interaction with the individual”, where interaction “includes communication or interpersonal contact between investigator and subject”. The Joseph Henry Press describes Professor Bailey’s work as based on his own research, and the book contains detailed interviews with human subjects.
In recent years publishers of scientific research involving human subjects have established procedures to assure that research studies whose results they publish have complied with ethical standards for the treatment of human subjects, and that authors have stipulated in writing that the conduct of their research was in compliance with those legally mandated standards. For example, instructions to authors for Nature Genetics state:
In cases where a study involves the use of live animals or human subjects, the Methods section of the manuscript should include a statement that all experiments were performed in compliance with the relevant laws and institutional guidelines, and should identify the institutional committee(s) that have approved the experiments. A statement should also be included that informed consent was obtained for any experimentation with human subjects. Referees may be asked to comment specifically on any cases in which concerns arise.
Similar requirements are adhered to by other major publishers of scientific research, and we have appended the guidelines for several publications, including JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, and journals of the American Psychological Association which has its own comprehensive statement of Ethical Principles that provides for the protection of human subjects.
In your letter you say that “Our intention in publishing it was … to offer insight into how one scientist has arrived at his views on certain aspects of sex and human behavior”, and that “we hope that the publication will inspire a productive discussion about future directions and methodologies in research on gender and sexuality…” In regard to how Professor Bailey “arrived at his views” and “discussion about … methodologies”, we have two questions to ask of you.
1. Does the National Academies Press – Joseph Henry Press require that authors affirm in writing that their research involving human subjects has been approved by an appropriate institutional review committee and that informed consent was obtained from human subjects involved in the research?
2. If such a policy is in place for the Joseph Henry Press, did J. Michael Bailey stipulate to having adhered to that policy?
If you do not have a policy that requires authors to stipulate that they have adhered to ethical standards for research involving human subjects, we strongly urge you to develop one along the lines of other publishers of scientific research. Note that Genetics Nature invites comment from reviewers in cases where there may be concern about the ethical use of human subjects. It is clearly inappropriate for the National Academies to publish and promote the results of research that fails to conform to federally mandated requirements for the protection of human subjects in research.
We appreciate your assistance in answering our inquiry and in addressing these serious concerns about the conduct of the research in question.
Sincerely,
Barbara Nash., Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics University of Utah
Lynn Conway, Ph.D. Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Emerita University of Michigan Member, National Academy of Engineering
Deirdre McCloskey, Ph.D. UIC Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, and English University of Illinois at Chicago Tinbergen Professor of Philosophy, Economics, and Art and Cultural Studies, Erasmus University of Rottterdam
Ben Barress, M.D., Ph.D. Professor of Neurobiology and Developmental Biology Stanford University
Joan Roughgarden, Ph.D. Professor of Biological Sciences Stanford University
c: Bruce Alberts, President, the National Academy of Sciences Harvey V. Fineberg, President, the Institute of Medicine
Thank you for adding the release date to your June 24 letter regarding your responsibility for bringing out the Bailey book under the Joseph Henry Press imprint. Your letter states:
âJHP follows clear decision rules… for scientific review of manuscripts. The work in question was reviewed as a well-crafted and responsible work.â
As you may know, this was not the expert assessment of Dr. John Bancroft, the Director of the Kinsey Institute, who stood up immediately after a Bailey presentation in July and told a lecture hall full of sex researchers that Baileyâs book âis not science.â
Please provide the names and credentials of those who participated in the scientific review of this manuscript and came to the conclusion it was well-crafted and responsible.
I look forward to learning the names of the scientific reviewers you selected who disagree with Dr. Bancroft.
Thank you in advance.
cc: Suzanne Woolsey
My letter of 21 August 2003:
Mr. Mautner:
I have not yet received a reply to my August 12 email requesting the names and credentials of those who participated in the “scientific review” of J. Michael Baileyâs manuscript and came to the conclusion it was “well-crafted and responsible” (see below).
I already have my copy of the dismissive form letter from Dr. Woolsey advising everyone with opposing views to present and publish evidence and reasoning. Iâd appreciate the courtesy of a personal reply with this evidence so I can do just that.
cc: Suzanne Woolsey, Bruce Alberts, Harvey V. Fineberg
Dr. Dana Beyer’s correspondence of 30 July 2003 with Mautner
Dear Mr. Mautner:
[…] I recently discovered that your press was located here in DC, and I would like the opportunity to visit with you to discuss J Michael Bailey’s recently published book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen.”
Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Dana Beyer, M.D.
Mautner’s reply on 7 August 2003
Dear Dr. Beyer,
I apologize for the delay in responding.
Given the deluge of mail we have received concerning Dr. Bailey’s book and our wish to catalog the responses, I would much prefer it if you could submit your comments in writing.
Sincerely, Stephen Mautner
My follow-up with Mr. Mautner one year after he brought out The Man Who Would Be Queen
15 March 2004
Mr. Mautner:
Lest you think we have forgotten about you and your JHP team, I wanted to update you on the J. Michael Bailey situation and your historical role in this matter.
Unlike you, the Lambda Literary Foundation had the integrity to admit last week they had made an âunprecedentedâ error in their initial assessment of The Man Who Would Be Queen. Though it was a âhumbling experienceâ according to their Executive Director, they had the integrity to withdraw support for the book when it became clear to them it was not science but propaganda in service of the neo-eugenics movement.
I also wanted to update you on an ongoing problem at Amazon.com. As many lazy editors and publishers are wont to do, you cited Amazon.com reviews in your 24 June 2003 open letter as an accurate gauge of response to this book:
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-reviews.html
Publishers increasingly use these unconfirmed reviews edited by an unnamed editor as evidence about a book’s reception.
“As of June 13, 2003 there were 27 1-star (lowest) ratings, and 11 5-star (highest) ratings, with only 5 in-between.”
Since Amazon has rewritten history by removing 18 of the reviews you cite in March, you need to revise your letter:
“As of June 13, 2003 there were 9 1-star (lowest) ratings, and 11 5-star (highest) ratings, with only 5 in-between.”
This new statistic suggests that the world is evenly split on this book. That does not reflect the 1300+ signatures gathered in a few days from people in 35 countries who protested the book, or the consensus of almost every professional organization that deals with gender variance.
Clearly, Amazon needs to be more transparent in the process, as do editors like JHP and publishing trade groups like Lambda Literary Foundation. These organizations are covering book promotion with a façade of objectivity and editorial rigor that simply does not exist.
As I have said all along, this is being waged as a war of propaganda and not a science fight. Once again, we have more evidence.
I can assure you that you will be held personally accountable for what is the most spectacular misstep of your career as an editor, and we will most certainly get to the bottom of who gave you the go-ahead on this book. Iâd bet money they are listed here:
This is going to be painstaking and methodical, and no stone will go unturned in determining who allowed this book to be published by the National Academies Press.
Additional Mautner information
Here’s a rather inaccurate description from 2004 detailing what Mautner does (emphasis mine):
Stephen Mautner, executive editor of Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press, was the fourth panelist. The Joseph Henry Press was founded to look for authors outside the national academies and to contract with individual authors to write books on science topics for general audiences. Editors look for serious scientific books that will have commercial success. Mautner sees a great future for work that takes content from the National Academies and massages it into a form accessible to a wider audience. How do editors at the Joseph Henry Press hire writers? Currently, they recruit very few book writers because they can only award contracts to six or eight authors a year. However, Mautner said that they are willing and eager to give writers who have a compelling record of excellent journalism a chance to write their first book.
Mautner sent his children to St. Albans, an exclusive Washington DC-based private prep school, using the money he made disseminating Bailey’s tripe.
Anyone with additional information on Steve Mautner’s responsibility for the review and publication of Bailey’s defamatory book is encouraged to contact the author of this site.
According to anti-trans activist Alice Dreger, as of August 2006, the book had sold about 4200 copies and had about 900,000 visits to the electronic version.
References
Weintraub, Judith (April 27, 1997). Intertwining Roots.Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1997/04/27/worlds-apart/1b438573-c351-4711-b0b3-734fa7770c06/?utm_term=.42613ccc11be
(Stephen Mautner to Michael Bailey, copy to Alice Dreger, p.e.c., August 11, 2006).
Media
CPNAS (May 7, 2013). Stephen Mautner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Ya6nNA5jk
Suzanne Haley “Sue” Woolsey was born in 1941. Woolsey is spouse of James Woolsey, who, among other things, served as Jimmy Carter’s first director of the CIA. James Woolsey is also a notable neoconservative, reaching that philosophy via a circuitous route through the corridors of liberal power.
Suzanne Woolsey’s 1970 dissertation was titled “Effects of experimenter race and segregated or desegregated school experience on some aspects of the social interaction of white and negro children.” Interestingly, experimenter effect is one of the chief scientific criticisms of the methodology used by Bailey, Ray Blanchard, and Anne Lawrence.
During the Carter Administration Woolsey served in high level positions in the Office of Management and Budget. During the Reagan Administration Woolsey worked outside of the government.
Woolsey began work at the National Academy of Sciences in 1989 as Executive Director of the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences, responsible for oversight of all of the boards in those fields. Later Woolsey became chief operating officer of the NAS and then Chief Communications Officer whose responsibilities included National Academies Press and Joseph Henry Press.
Woolsey’s canned response
Woolsey sent the following form letter to anyone who wrote to express concern about the lack of science in J. Michael Bailey’s The Man Who Would Be Queen. I received my copy on 22 May 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
After the book controversy
In January 2004, Woolsey became a director of Fluor Corporation, which has $1.6 billion in Iraq related contracts. Woolsey also served as a director of the Institute for Defense Analyses which also has war interests, and received modest compensation for that role according to the article.
The Woolseys’ overlapping affiliations are part of a growing pattern in Washington in which individuals play key roles in quasi-governmental organizations advising officials on major policy issues but also are involved with private businesses in related fields. Such activities generally are not covered by conflict of interest laws or ethics rules. They underscore an insiders network in which contacts and relationships developed inside the government can meld with individual financial interests.
Suzanne Woolsey is also affiliated with other firms, including the Paladin Capital Group, a Washington venture capital firm in which Woolsey’s spouse is a partner. Suzanne Woolsey did not respond to messages left at Paladin and at Fluor.
References
Roche, WF (8 August 2004). Private, Public Roles Overlap in Washington. Los Angeles Times. [archive]
Holloway J, Boyette L. (27 January 2004.). Fluor Adds Suzanne H. Woolsey to Board of Directors. Fluor website. http://investor.fluor.com/visitors/print_release.cfm?ReleaseID=127565 [archive]
Clemons SC (8 August 2004). Woolsey’s web: Structure and corruption in Iraq. The Washington Note. http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000015.html [archive]
Ted Barlow (born 1974) is a former J. Michael Bailey student at Northwestern University who wrote a biased undergraduate paper on transsexualism. Barlow’s paper is a good indication of how Bailey teaches students harmful ideas about gender identity and expression, sexuality, and attraction to transgender people.
Bailey’s exploitative undergraduate human sexuality course was permanently canceled by Northwestern in 2011.
Background
Barlow attended Northwestern from 1992â1996, earning a BS in psychology in 1996. His senior honors thesis was done with J. Michael Bailey, where Barlow served as a sort of wing man as they trolled Chicago bars for attractive young trans women to “research.”
He earned an MA in psychology from the University of Chicago in 1998 and an MBA from UT Austin in 2008. He has held various roles in the legal services industry in Texas.
Barlow had an extensive online presence as a blogger prior to going into legal services. He has since tried to minimize his connections to past published work.
Resources
Blogspot (blogspot.com)
tedbarlow.blogspot.com
A few things that I learned studying transsexuals [archive]
The legal uncertainties reflect widespread puzzlement about the basic science. What is transsexualism’s connection to homosexuality? Does it signify mental illness? The American Psychiatric Association long ago (1973) eliminated homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, but its fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) still lists “gender identity disorder,” also mystifying to many people. Why does it cause thousands of Americans to powerfully desire membership in the opposite sex, leading some subset of this population to undergo transformative genital surgery?
A good recently published guide to all these questions is The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, by J. Michael Bailey, 46, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University who teaches an undergraduate course in human sexuality. The book is mostly about effeminate boys and men and how they got that way, but its concluding chapters zero in on the world of transsexuals–not all of whom were effeminate. The book has ignited a firestorm of protest from some transsexuals.
This despite the fact that Bailey, himself a standard-model male heterosexual, is warmly sympathetic to gays and transsexuals and argues persuasively that for the great majority of individuals taking the male-to-female route, the decision is rational.
The size of the transsexual population is itself a matter of controversy, and their propagandists endlessly seek to inflate the numbers. DSM-IV estimates that 1 in 30,000 males (and 1 in 100,000 females) opts for the surgery. Bailey’s estimate is 1 in 12,000 males, implying 8,000 gender-crossers now living in the country.
Transsexual Lynn Conway–who has been a computer scientist at IBM and is a professor emeritus at the University of Michigan–is now an activist for the cause. She says the figure is 30,000 to 40,000.
But the transsexuals’ attack on the Bailey book is not based on his population estimates. The main point of the protests is Bailey’s explanation of the roots of gender-crossing. Relying heavily on the work of Ray Blanchard, who heads the clinical sexology program at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, Bailey tells us that there are two different, quite distinct types of male-to-female transsexuals.
First is the “classic” homosexual type: the effeminate boy who, from early childhood, is profoundly convinced that he was meant to be a woman. A likely but still unproven interpretation of this feeling is that it traces back to an inadequate dose of male hormones six or seven weeks after conception. The result could be a young man sexually attracted to other men and gravitating toward a transsexual solution.
The second type bears the label “autogynephilia,” a clunky term invented by Blanchard, who coined it to describe that sizable fraction (perhaps half) of male-to-female transsexuals that he found to have a different version of gender identity disorder. They are erotically stimulated not by other men, and not primarily by women, but by the image of themselves as women. Except for their cross-dressing propensities, these transsexuals tend to lead rather ordinary heterosexual lives.
I spoke recently with an eminent transsexual who Bailey believes to be autogynephilic. Deirdre McCloskey, 61, is distinguished professor of the liberal arts and sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is a quantitatively oriented Chicago-school economist, a huge fan of Milton Friedman, and a dazzling writer, who is also a professor in the university’s English and history departments. Until she underwent the sex change in the mid-1990s, her name was Donald McCloskey, and she was a cross-dresser with a wife and two grown kids.
It is Bailey’s impression that the first type–the homosexual gender-crossers–are relatively indifferent to his book and that the protest emanates mainly from the autogynephiles. It is possible to understand their rage. The Blanchard diagnosis is hard to live with: Cross-dressing strikes most Americans as ridiculous, and its specified erotic role only makes matters worse. McCloskey, for one, is furious about the book and told the Northwestern newspaper: “He’s saying âLook, they’re driven by sex, sex, sex. They’re men, men, men.'”
The Bailey book sheds some much-needed light on the topic of transsexualism. But it is not destined to end the debate, or the lawsuits. Expect this difficult topic to keep judges and equal-opportunity commissions busy for a long while to come.
References
Seligman, Dan (October 13, 2003). Transsexuals And the Law. Forbes http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/068.html
The National Review is an American media organization. It is consistently anti-transgender in its coverage.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American civil rights organization. They have been involved in fighting anti-transgender activism for decades through litigation, legislation, and education.
Background
Lawyers Morris Dees and Joe Levin incorporated SPLC in 1971, and activist Julian Bond was named the first president. They brought many lawsuits that confronted discrimination and hate in the South. Their work made them targets of threats and violence; their headquarters was firebombed in 1983 and destroyed.
In the 1990s, SPLC launched Teaching Tolerance (now Learning for Justice). It provides classroom materials on civil rights history and issues. In 2010 I participated in SPLCâs classroom film Bullied, about gay student Jamie Naboznyâs federal case against the local school district, which failed to protect himNabozny from homophobic harassment and assault.
Their Intelligence Project monitors hate groups and anti-government groups, including anti-LGBTQ hate groups.
In SPLCâs work for LGBTQ rights, they
Challenge gay-to-straight âconversion therapyâ as fraudulent;
Obtain equal government benefits for veterans;
Protect LGBTQ children from violence and harassment in school;
Ensure the parental rights of LGBTQ people;
Protect the right to proper medical treatment and safe housing for transgender prisoners;
Force states to recognize the rights of same-sex couples; and
Protect the First Amendment rights of LGBTQ students.
Stedfast Baptist Church (Fort Worth, Texas & Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
Strong Hold Baptist Church (Norcross, Georgia)
Sure Foundation Baptist Church (Seattle, Vancouver, & Spokane Valley, Washington)
Tom Brown Ministries (El Paso, Texas)
True Light Pentecost Church (Spartanburg, South Carolina)
United Families International (Gilbert, Arizona)
Verity Baptist Church (Sacramento, California)
Warriors for Christ (Mount Juliet, Tennessee)
Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka, Kansas)
World Congress of Families/International Organization for the Family (Rockford, Illinois)
2023 CAPTAIN report
In 2023, SPLC released a report titled Combating Anti-LGBTQ+ Pseudoscience Through Accessible Informative Narratives (CAPTAIN). It traces the origins of 21st-century anti-transgender extremism.
