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.
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
