Deirdre Nansen McCloskey is an American economist and philosopher. McCloskey is also transgender and made a gender transition in 1995 in the midst of a distinguished career, described in the 1999 autobiography Crossing: A Memoir.
McCloskey was born in 1942 in Ann Arbor, Michigan and studied Economics at Harvard University, earning a Bachelor’s degree in 1964 and a Ph.D in 1970. McCloskey has held appointments at University of Chicago, University of Iowa, and University of Illinois at Chicago. In 2015 McCloskey was named Distinguished Professor of Economics and of History, and Professor of English and of Communication, University of Illinois at Chicago, Emerita.
Writings on gender after retirement
McCloskey holds a number of views that are considered conservative within the trans community. In 2019, McCloskey chose to share reflections on gender transition in Quillette, a notoriously anti-trans publication. The comment section is an excellent survey of transphobic talking points from the time.
In 2021, McCloskey was announced as affiliated with the proposed “anti-woke” University of Austin, along with Bari Weiss, Steven Pinker, Kathleen Stock, Jonathan Haidt, and other gender critical figures. In June 2022, McCloskey and Stock had a “debate” about gender in which they largely agreed with each other.
References
McCloskey D (1999). Crossing: A Memoir. University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0226556680
Note: In 2025, this site phased out AI illustrations after artist feedback. The previous illustration is here.
Barbara P. Nash is a noted American geologist and geophysicist. The mineral nashite is named in Nash’s honor, and Nash reported on 75 new minerals later approved by the International Mineralogical Association.
Barbara P. “Barb” Nash was born in 1944. Nash earned a doctorate from University of California, Berkeley in 1971. Nash was named Director of the University of Utahâs Electron Microprobe Laboratory starting in 1970. Nash was appointed Professor, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Utah in 1978. Nash retired in 2019 and was appointed Emerita Professor that year.
The Man Who Would Be Queen letter
May 12, 2003
Bruce Alberts President, the National Academy of Sciences The National Academies 2101 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20418
Harvey V. Fineberg President, the Institute of Medicine The National Academies 2101 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20418
Dear Drs. Alberts and Fineberg,
I am writing to express my deep concern about the National Academies publication of a book by J. Michael Bailey entitled The Man Who Would be Queen. The book reflects poorly on the Academies’ usually high standards for publication. Despite its subtitle of “The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism”, it is nothing of the sort. The author’s approach is entirely unscientific, and his conclusions pose a danger to transgender individuals particularly as the book may be used to influence public policy. Publication by the National Academies Press unfortunately lends both a presumption of academic legitimacy and significant visibility to this work of unsubstantiated personal opinion.
While Mr. Bailey is entitled to his opinions, my major concern is that the National Academies Press would place its imprimatur on this particular book. I shall return to that concern momentarily. I am aware that my colleague Joan Roughgarden at Stanford has already provided a detailed account to you of problems with this book. I won’t go into as much detail here, but I do feel the need to point out the most egregious instances of absence of scientific integrity in the work.
Mr. Bailey’s book doesn’t even rise to the standard of “junk science”. Junk science at least purports to be scientific by presenting observational data and interpretations made from those data that are expressed in the context of contemporary thought and argument. Mr. Bailey on the other hand eschews traditional data gathering techniques. Rather, he relies on recruiting research subjects (a convenience survey as opposed to more traditional survey instruments) by “cruising” gay clubs frequented by transsexuals who engage in survival sex. No wonder that Bailey later concludes that one of his two classes of transsexuals consists of homosexuals that are commonly engaged in the sex trade. Bailey’s data are anecdotal and subject only to his personal interpretation in which he expresses great confidence in his preface: “Knowing his occupation and observing him briefly and superficially were sufficient for me to guess confidently about aspects of (his) life that he never mentioned…. I know what kinds of activities interest him and what kinds do not.” (p. ix). Is this the standard for data acquisition – conjecture as evidence? It would be as if as a volcanologist I could discern the life history of a rock by noting its glint in the sun and its heft in my hand. There is a reason we invest in mass spectrometers and electron beam instruments. It is to provide tangible, reproducible observations that are ultimately shared and interpreted, perhaps in differing and more enlightened ways by interested parties. Nowhere in Bailey’s book are there raw data or tabulated results of surveys. When survey results are mentioned there is never a reference to the original data source, nor is there a description of sample size, variance or standard deviation. No references are provided to any other studies that are mentioned as supporting evidence. In fact, with the one exception of a 1991 paper by his colleague Ray Blanchard in the list of suggested readings at the end of the book, there are no specific literature references to any other research studies on the subject.
Bailey distinguishes two classes of transsexuals, homosexual and autogynephilic. This distinction is not new with Bailey – it was originally proposed by Ray Blanchard over 20 years ago, and it has enjoyed very little resonance in transgender studies. Mr. Bailey has no trouble distinguishing between the two groups because “Most homosexual transsexuals are much better looking than most autogynephilic transsexuals.” (p. 180). This inelegant dichotomy is simply inadequate to describe the diversity the transgender spectrum and experience. But Bailey has no interest in directly confronting contemporary alternative views. He simply dismisses them. People who disagree with him are liars (“Most gender patients lie,…” p. 172) (…”many autogynephiles provide misleading information about themselves…” p. 175). transgender narratives are not to be trusted and are ignored (“…(transsexuals) tell stories about themselves that are misleading and, in important respects, false.” p. 146). Or his detractors are incompetent (“… sex researchers are not as scholarly as they should be and so don’t read the scientific journals.” p. 176). For someone who neglects to cite the literature, this is an amazing statement.
Bailey concludes that the overwhelming majority of transgender persons are autogynephilic transsexuals, and indicts and stigmatizes that entire group by stating that autogynephilia is a paraphilia linked with masochism, sadism, exhibitionism, frotteurism, necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia (p. 171). This is an outrageous and unsubstantiated statement. He further asserts that “…there are two reasons to think that these sexual paraphilias have some causes in common.” His reasons? “Paraphilias occur exclusively (or nearly exclusively) in men. Second, paraphilias tend to go together.” (p. 171). Surely if one were to honestly arrive at such a conclusion, one would feel compelled to supply a more substantial scientific argument than guilt by association.
Throughout the book there is also a consistent theme of homophobia and stereotyping of gay men. For example: “I cannot imitate the gay accent, and I cannot even describe it, but chances are, you know what I’m talking about.” (p. 70). Or, “I often don’t have to hear a man talk or know what he does in order to have a strong suspicion he’s gay. Sometimes it’s enough just to see him move.” (p. 73). These types of statements remind me of anti-Semitic diatribes about how to identify Jews by facial type and speech patterns.
I won’t take the time here to enumerate the factual errors in the book and the failure to reference or confront contemporary studies that may disagree with the author’s contentions. Science succeeds in part through self-regulation arising from the variable interpretation of observational data. Bailey makes this a daunting task for critics because he provides only his personal opinion based on anecdotal accounts stemming mostly from a limited and self-selecting population. It doesn’t even meet the lowest standards of junk science. It more closely resembles a lengthy op-ed piece.
As a professor of geology and geophysics for 32 years whose research has been supported by NSF, NASA, DOE and the U.S. Geological Survey, I am confident that I can distinguish good science from bad science. Recently, I have designed a course on transgender studies. Part of the course examines scientific approaches to the phenomenon. Some studies are good, others are not, and students are asked to assess why. The Man Who Would be Queen will not be on the reading list because it lacks any scientific rigor whatsoever and would be a waste of students’ time as well as a source of considerable misinformation. What distresses me is that that the book may be adopted uncritically in courses taught in social sciences or humanities especially because of the imprimatur provided by the National Academies Press and its promotion by the Press. Further the I fear the work may be deemed credible because of the reputation of its publisher, thus facilitating incorporation of its uncritical and erroneous assertions into the formulation of public policy contesting civil rights and social justice for transgender individuals. There is no question in my mind of such an application. As Bailey says, ” “My undergraduate students … are especially hesitant to support surgery for nonhomosexual transsexuals, once they learn about autogynephilia.” (p. 206).
The promotional materials for the book are unbecoming a professional scientific association. As Presidents of your respective academies, I recommend you take a moment to view the web site of the National Academies Press promoting your book. It is sensational and lurid. The Press says, “the book is grounded firmly in science” and presents a cover showing a pair of hairy legs in high heels. The opening line is “Gay. Straight. Or Lying.” The ad poses the critical question, “Are gay men genuinely more feminine than other men? And do they really prefer to be hairdressers rather than lumberjacks?” And if you buy the book you can read about “Kim, a strikingly sexy transsexual who still has a penis and works as a dancer and a call girl for men who like she-males while she awaits sex reassignment surgery.” It reads more like the headline in a supermarket tabloid rather than what one would expect from the respected press of the National Academies.
I am reminded of a recent controversy in the social sciences over published research findings in the arena of firearms regulation that had bearing on the formulation of public policy. In 2000 Michael Bellesiles wrote the book Arming America that argued that firearm ownership was far less common in early American history, that the gun culture revered by the National Rifle Association is a recent phenomenon, and their interpretation of the Second Amendment is in error. He received the prestigious Bancroft Prize for his book. Subsequently, inspection of his data revealed that much was fabricated. The prize was withdrawn, and Prof. Bellesiles resigned his faculty position at Emory University. More recently, the source of some statistical data in More Guns, Less Crime (1998) by John Lott, an advocate of arming citizens, has come under scrutiny, and his credibility is currently being questioned despite his highly complex econometric analysis. What made the challenges to these works possible is that the authors presented data, true or false, that were available for scrutiny and evaluation by interested parties. In The Man Who Would be Queen, the reader is not presented with such an opportunity to formulate a reasoned response.
The National Academies should not be in the business of supporting such unscientific and prejudicial works. To do so can only reflect poorly on the Academies and their scientific integrity. I believe it is only appropriate that the National Academies withdraw their support for the book.
Sincerely,
Barbara Nash Professor of Geology and Geophysics
Letter to Chronicle of Higher Education (2003)
Following a puff piece on Bailey in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Nash wrote to the editors, and part of her response was published.
To the Editor:
The Chronicle correctly reports that J. Michael Bailey’s work on transsexuals is anecdotal and lacks data to back up his assertion that all transsexual women are either homosexual men or male sexual fetishists (“‘Dr. Sex,'” June 20). Bailey’s unscientific methodology and his resulting unsubstantiated characterizations pose a threat to transgendered individuals, particularly as his book may be used to influence public policy. … Bailey studiously ignores contemporary research on the etiology of transsexualism and the formulation of gender identity, and he extinguishes the voices of authentic lives. He vilifies as liars the many transsexuals who describe experiences and motivations for gender transition that are inconsistent with his narrow taxonomy. …
While Bailey is entitled to his opinion, the danger lies in his book’s being deemed credible because of the reputation of its publisher, thus facilitating the incorporation of its uncritical and damaging assertions into the formulation of public policies opposing civil rights and social justice for transgendered individuals.
Barbara P. Nash Professor of Geology and Geophysics University of Utah Salt Lake City
Media appearances
Nash appeared in the “Yellowstone” episode of the 2009 series How the Earth Was Made.
Below, Nash talks about her first visit to Utah’s Spiral Jetty in 1994.
Note: In 2025, this site phased out AI illustrations after artist feedback. The previous illustration is here.
Paul Varnell was an American journalist and LGBTQ rights activist.
Background
Paul Varnell was born on April 16, 1942 in St. Louis and grew up in the northeast United States. Varnell earned a bachelor’s degree from Cornell University in 1963, then attended graduate school at Indiana University-Bloomington. Varnell taught at Northern Illinois University before moving into activism and journalism in the 1980s.
Varnell was among that generation’s most notable conservative/libertarian journalists in the LGBTQ community.
Varnell died December 9, 2011.
Selected works
In 2005 Varnell criticized sexologist J. Michael Bailey’s belief that bisexual men do not exist, and he wrote an early critical review of Bailey’s anti-transgender book The Man Who Would Be Queen.
Weird Science: J. Michael Bailey’s ‘The Man Who Would Be Queen’
Originally published July 23, 2003, in the Chicago Free Press.
It’s a shame trees had to be sacrificed in order to print J. Michael Bailey’s controversial new book âThe Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism.â
Bailey takes a perfectly interesting and reasonable question â what is the relationship between childhood femininity in boys and gay men, and transgenderism â and succeeds only in writing a bunch of speculative and insulting nonsense.
Don’t be fooled by the âscienceâ in the title: There is very little science in this book. It’s not science calling up a two-decades-old research study and declaring it the truth for all time. It’s not science without documentation â there are no footnotes, no references listed and no bibliography.
It’s not science sitting at a bar in Chicago’s gay neighborhood of Boystown talking to gay men and transgenders about their childhoods. It’s not science when someone answers your questions and you don’t like the answers or don’t believe them, so you dismiss the insight as lies, or internalized âfemiphobia.â
It’s not science when you write pages about what âperfectâ studies would need to be conducted to prove your wanted findings, and then write that, of course, these studies could never be done because of their length and complexity.
It’s not science to simply quote small studies and surveys with no context. It’s not science taking an 8-year-old boy’s cross-dressing issue and basing an entire book on the question of what he may or may not become later in life. And it’s not science or scholarship to praise your son’s ability to spot gay men on the street. It’s not science to base your knowledge of transgender and gay lives on what they say they are seeking in personal ads.
This book is not science. A discussion of ideas, yes. One straight man’s look into an unfamiliar world, yes. Science, absolutely not.
Bailey’s thesis is that there is a connection between femininity in boys and gay men and the desire to change gender. In investigating this he takes a long detour through covering gay masculinity and femininity, stereotypes of gay men and whether gay men are actually more like straight men or women.
Then he declares there are exactly two types of transgenders: homosexual and autogynephile. The former are men who want to change gender because they identify as women and the latter are men who are erotically charged by switching gender. In his limited exploration, Bailey paints an ugly picture of transgenders’ alleged sexual perversity, confusion and relationships. And he makes no effort to consider transgenders who carry on ânormalâ jobs, friendships, sexual desires, lives, etc.
While the argument Bailey makes is pretty bad, the writing and organization of the book aren’t much better. He never adequately connects the several different strands he’s weaving into a cohesive whole theory. And his personal anecdotes are annoying, not to mention credibility-busting.
This book is not worth reading, even for the controversy. You’d learn a lot more reaching out to someone in the trans community and having a friendly and honest discussion with them about their lives than reading this ridiculous concoction of speculation.
What’s also mystifying is that some reputable authors (Steven Pinker, Anne Lawrence) and literary establishments (Kirkus Reviews, Publisher’s Weekly, Out magazine) gave the book positive quotes, since it doesn’t take much analytical ability to slice through Bailey’s arguments, speculations and assumptions. Also confusing is how an author of Bailey’s apparently reputable credentials can get away with a shoddy publication like this. He is a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, has written for The New York Times and is a well-known sex researcher.
Wisely and appropriately, the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition has called for the National Academy of Science to investigate the book and remove it from under its banner.
Baileyâs Bisexuality Study (2005)
Originally published August 3, 2005, in the Chicago Free Press.
Most of us realize that there are many people who have had sex with both sexes but that that does not necessarily means they feel equal desire for both sexes. As Masters and Johnson wryly observed, “The label of bisexual often means whatever the user wishes it to mean.”
Now a new study published in Psychological Science by Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey and two Ph.D. candidates claims to advance science by reporting that none of the men in their study of male bisexuals experienced “strong” desire for both sexes and that most experienced much stronger sexual arousal by men than women.
Whether or not Bailey’s conclusions are true, the study fails to demonstrate them effectively. Bailey has repeatedly in the past employed problematic research procedures and this study is no exception.
Bailey and his team recruited 33 “bisexuals” as well as control groups of homosexuals and heterosexuals by advertising in the gay and “alternative” press. They then showed all three groups of men “several” two-minute-long erotic films, including two of two men having sex and two of two women having sex. The subjects’ genital arousal was determined by a device placed around the penis that measured any increased circumference. Bailey says, “For men arousal is orientation.”
It turned out that one-third of each group of subjects had no significant genital arousal at all from the films, which means that either they had no sexual orientation or else the technique for testing orientation was flawed. But Bailey ignored that possibility, simply eliminated the non-responders and used the 22 bisexual who did have an arousal response.
It also turned out too that three of the 25 gay men who had measurable genital arousal were more aroused by the female films than the male films. Bailey should conclude (“arousal is orientation”) that they were heterosexual but does not and does not say why. This interesting fact is buried in a footnote in a manuscript version of the study but I missed it in the uncorrected page proofs Bailey kindly provided.
In any case, the final result was that although all the bisexual men reported equal subjective (mental) arousal to both types of films, all of them “had much greater genital arousal from one sex than to the other” and three quarters of the 22 men had stronger genital arousal from the all-male films than the all-female films.
It is noticeable that there is no mention of heterosexual films – a man having sex with a woman. The study assumes that a film of two women having sex will always generate a heterosexual arousal response but offers no evidence or argument for the claim. No doubt some men are titillated by lesbian sex but whether it is as uniformly effective a heterosexual arousal agent as a heterosexual film seems questionable.
Some bisexual men, for instance, are far more interested in their own performance, their impact on the other person, than the gender of the partner. Masters and Johnson call them “ambisexuals” and C. A. Tripp mentions that some researchers describe them – somewhat inaccurately – as ready to “stick it in anywhere.” If such men are to be aroused by brief films it would more likely be one of a man having sex with another person, male or female, than by a film lacking any male participant. This could help explain the greater number of men aroused by the all-male films.
Since the bisexual men did report substantially equal subjective (mental) arousal to both types of films, someone might wonder if two-minute films were long enough to generate genital arousal particularly for the female films since they presumably did not involve specific arousal cues such as copulatory activity. As psychologist Murray Davis points out, the move from everyday life to erotic reality can take time, the right mental set, and the right cues.
Finally one might wonder if the recruitment ads were specific enough. If Bailey had advertised for men with “equal sexual desire” for men and women he might have obtained a more interesting study group. As it was, he defined “bisexuals” as people with Kinsey ratings of 2, 3 and 4 thus including people with stronger heterosexual responses (2s) and stronger homosexual responses (4s).
One might also wonder if most of the bisexuals solicited through ads in gay publications might lean toward the gay side of bisexuality – which could be why they were reading gay publications and saw the ad. That in turn might help explain the larger number of bisexuals who were more aroused by males than females.
These and related difficulties lead to me wonder why Bailey continues to try to do sex research when he demonstrates so little understanding of the human psychology involved in sex and sexual arousal and seems so unself-critical about research designs that include sample bias, dubious testing procedures, built-in assumptions, unaccountable anomalies, etc. Whatever he is doing, it is not psychology and it is not science.
Joanne Herman is a retired American executive and philanthropist. She has been a key figure in developing transgender philanthropic leadership through her work with and support of The Point Foundation, Fenway Health, Outgiving, and Outfest. Joanne was the major funder for the restoration of the 1960s documentary Queens at Heart, a rare color film of trans people living and working in pre-Stonewall Manhattan.
In 2007, Herman published about historian Alice Dreger‘s attempt to exonerate psychologist J. Michael Bailey for his 2003 anti-transgender book The Man Who Would Be Queen. She wrote for The Advocate, “To focus on the overzealous response of some trans activists is to miss the bigger picture — that transsexuals are fed up with non-trans “experts” claiming to know us better than we do.” Herman added:
“Focusing on the personal attacks against Bailey is like discussing the clashes between protesters and police in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention without emphasizing the incredible wave of social change sweeping the nation at the time. Trans people have reached the point where they are fed up with any nontrans âexpertâ — not just Bailey — who’s dismissing our opinions. Our view is that, much like a nongay person can’t possibly imagine loving someone of the same sex, a nontransgender person can’t possibly imagine the feeling of living in the wrong gender.”
Later life
In retirement with her wife Terry, Joanne has become a serious bowler, even creating the website Bowling Seriously.
Nicola R. Brown is a Canadian psychologist who has worked at Toronto’s CAMH gender clinic. Brown has published resources and consumer information for transgender people, as well as published psychological research, including a book chapter with fired sexologist Kenneth Zucker.
Background
Nicola Ruth Brown was born in 1976. She attended York University, earning a master’ss degree in 2001 and a doctorate in 2006. Brown then completed a postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard University in the Victims of Violence Program. Brown has served as staff psychologist in the Gender Identity Clinic for adults at CAMH. Brown also has a private practice.
According to a profile of Brown on the 2018 CAMH website, “Clinical interests include sexual orientation and gender identity concerns. Research interests include clinical decision-making and best practice models for working with trans people, adaptive processes of the significant others of trans people, and the social determinants of health.”
While working at Central Toronto Youth Service, Brown published the first edition of Families in TRANSition in 2008. This guide provides information and resources for families with a gender-diverse or transgender member.
Collaboration with Ken Zucker
Brown and Zucker published the chapter “Gender Dysphoria” in the 2014 book Principles and Practice of Sex Therapy, edited by Yitzchak M. Binik and Kathryn S.K. Hall. The chapter heavily favors Zucker’s point of view on pathologization and cures of trans youth, devoting only one paragraph in the chapter to affirmative care for children. They claim affirmative care that is the consensus among pediatricians is merely the model “that receives the most media attention, and it certainly dominates Internet discourse.” Zucker was fired from CAMH a year after publication.
References
McIntosh C, Brown NR (2023). Psychotherapy with trans and gender diverse people. In H. Crisp & G.O. Gabbard (Eds.), Textbook of Psychotherapeutic Treatments (2nd ed), pp. 667-680. American Psychiatric Association Publishing. ISBN 9781615373260
Brown NR. (2021). Intimate partner violence. In A. Goldberg & G. Beemyn (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies. SAGE Publishing. ISBN 9781544393841
Kallivayalil D, Levitan J, Brown NR, Harvey MR (2013). Preliminary findings from a qualitative study of trauma survivors in treatment: Changes in personal narratives. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22 (3), 262-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2013.743942Â
Zucker KJ, Brown NR (2014). Gender Dysphoria. In Principles and Practice of Sex Therapy, Fifth Edition. Binik YM, Hall KSK, eds. Guilford Publications. ISBN 9781462513895
Brown NR, Kallivayalil D, Mendehlson M, Harvey MR (2011). Working the double edge: Unbraiding pathology and resiliency in the narratives of early-recovery trauma survivors. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024969
Brown NR (2011). Holding tensions of victimization and perpetration: Partner abuse in trans communities. In J. Ristock (Ed.), Intimate Partner Violence in LGBTQ Lives. Routledge. ISBN 9780415998796
Brown NR (2010). The sexual relationships of sexual-minority women partnered with trans men: A qualitative study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 561- 572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9511-9
Brown NR (2009). âIâm in transition tooâ: Sexual identity renegotiation in sexualminority womenâs relationships with transsexual men. International Journal of Sexual Health, 21, 62-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317610902720766
Brown NR (2005). Queer Women Partners of Female-to-Male Transsexuals: Renegotiating Self in Relationship. [unpublished doctoral dissertation], York University, UK. https://bac-lac.on.worldcat.org/oclc/191239034
Brown NR (2001). Women’s passionate friendships. Typescript Masters Thesis, York University.
Donna Martina Cartwright (born October 4, 1946) is an American journalist and labor activist. Cartwright served as a copy editor for The New York Times for about 30 years, transitioning on the job in 1997 and retiring in 2006. Cartwright was named to the NLGJA LGBT Journalists Hall of Fame in 2014.
Background
Cartwright was born in Hackensack, New Jersey. Cartwright was also involved in creating and leading some of the most important trans rights organizations, including:
Pride at Work
New York Association for Gender Rights Advocacy (NYAGRA)
Gender Rights Advocacy Association of New Jersey
National Center for Transgender Equality
TransEpiscopal
Gender Rights Maryland
2000 media criticism
In 2000, Cartwright published a piece on how cis journalists were “Trivializing and Silencing Transgender People in Queer Media.” Cartwright wrote:
Transgender people, long marginalized in the gay and lesbian community and “written out” of its history, have been making a modest comeback in recent years. Many queer organizations routinely recognize our presence through the use of such phrases as “the GLBT community” to describe their missions or constituencies; that some of these “natives” might be capable of uttering words comprehensible to civilized people too often seems beyond the imagination of the “normalized” queer writer. Funny, gays and lesbians were seen in just such terms, not so long ago âŠ.
Both this renewed visibility and its problems are reflected in a recent work of queer history, Dudley Clendinen and Adam Nagourney’s book. Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America (Simon & Schuster, 1999) which covers the period from the late 1960’s until the late 1980’s. Clendinen and Nagourney pay serious attention to many of the controversies over the place of trans- gender people in the queer movement over the last 30 years. Unfortunately, they treat us largely as a disempowered, voiceless “other,” passive objects of history rather than subjects.
DAYS OF FURY By many accounts, 1973 was a difficult year for transgender queers: a rising tide of separatism in the lesbian/ feminist movements culmi- nated in an explosion of hatred and hysteria at the West Coast Lesbian Conference in Los Angeles in April; two months later, similar tensions erupted at the New York City Pride March.
Out for Good gives a compelling picture of these events: in L.A., Beth Elliott, a lesbian male-to-female transsexual, one of the conference organizers, was scheduled to sing as part of the conference’s opening ceremonies. She had been at the center of a bitter dispute over her transsexuality in the San Francisco chapter of the Daughters of Bilitis in late 1972.
Elliott is a fascinating figure; unfortunately, Clendinen and Nagourney seem oblivious to the pos- sibility that she might have had some- thing of value to contribute to their account. She is not quoted in Out for Good, and she says that they never interviewed her. By her own recollec- tion, she is the first “out” transsexual lesbian feminist. She transitioned at the age of 19, and soon thereafter was invited to join the Bay area Daughters of Bilitis chapter â at that point, the membership felt her transsexuality was not a disqualification.
“Wanting to make the freedom I was experiencing safer and available to more women,” she says, she began doing volunteer work at the chapter’s office. After several months, in the fall of 1971, she was elected Vice- President in a two-candidate race.
In the summer of ’72, however, trouble appeared in the form of lesbian separatists who began to press their perspective on the chapter as a whole. Tensions rose over various issues, from Elliott’s transsexuality to demands that the editor of the chap- ter newsletter be brought under offi- cial oversight. In the fall of that year, Elliott ran for re-election as Vice- President and was defeated in a cam- paign in which her transgender his- tory may have been a tacit issue. A few months later, in a separate vote, transsexuals were ruled ineligible for membership.
Out for Good skews history a bit in its account of the struggle in the San Francisco D.O.B. The book says Elliott’s “demand to be admitted into the San Francisco chapter of the Daughters of Bilitis had torn the group apart. The D.O.B. had devoted eighteen months to arguing about whether there was a place in the Daughters of Bilitis for a transsexual, before finally and bitterly voting ‘No’.”
But Elliott’s account, which is supported by a look at back copies of Sisters, the San Francisco D.O.B. ‘s magazine, is rather different. The battle took up at most a few months, not 18, and it was not over her “demand to be admitted,” but over her expulsion.
Perhaps Clendinen and Nagourney relied on the recollection of someone involved in the conflict, decades after the fact. All the more reason to have balanced their sources.
Cartwright added:
Not that this incident is exactly unknown territory for queer writers. Pat Califia, in her book Sex Changes (1997) quotes a member of the chap- ter who “had actually been present at the stormy meeting where [Elliott] was ousted âŠ
“This doesn’t feel okay to me/ she said. ‘She worked harder than anyone else in D.O.B. She gave a lot to that organization. There was no good reason to kick her out. She hadn’t done anything wrong except be a transsexual. You wouldn’t believe some of the vile and vicious things other women said to her. And she just sat and listened to all of it, kept her dignity and answered them back without losing her temper or calling anybody names/”
A few months later, some of Elliott’s enemies in the San Francisco battle attended the conference in L. A. and created an uproar when she went on stage to sing. They demand- ed that she leave, the performance was brought to a halt, and the issue was debated for hours and ultimate- ly put to a vote.
Out for Good says there was a slim majority in favor of allowing Elliott to sing, but according to contemporary sources, the margin was overwhelming. Barbara McLean’s “Diary of a Mad Organizer” in the Lesbian Tide confer- ence issue says the women voted three to one to hear Elliott, while The Advocate (May 9, 1973) also calls the vote “overwhelming.” The separatists and some others in the audience walked out. According to The heritage of sexual sophistication.”
Advocate, Elliott later received a standing ovation from “most of the 1,200 women present.” The next day, Robin Morgan, the writer and editor who later became a leading figure in the rightward drift of radical feminism, devoted part of her keynote address to a vicious, hateful attack on transgender women. In it, she suggested that we enjoy being harassed on the street (doesn’t that sound sickeningly familiar?), said that we “parody female oppression,” accused us of “leeching off women” and demanded that we be excluded from women’s space.
In a three-page account of the controversy at the conference. Out for Good quotes Morgan at length, and, somewhat more briefly, Jeanne Cordova (editorial coordinator of Lesbian Tide and an organizer of the conference) in Elliott’s defense. But neither Elliott nor any other transsex- ual is quoted; are we not up to speak- ing for ourselves? Elliott still lives in California, and eventually managed to become active again in the lesbian and leather communities; surely she might have been asked about her feelings concerning that day. And it is not exactly a daunting task to reach her; this writer managed it without great difficulty.
And Out for Good is not exactly neutral in tone. In addition to the factual errors and omissions, consider this description of Elliott: “She might have been the only woman in the room wearing a skirt or a gown â except for the fact that Beth Elliott wasn’t a woman. Beth Elliott was a preoperative transsexual, a man in the process of trying to become a woman, who, to complicate things, claimed to be a lesbian.”
At another point. Out for Good refers to “the near-riot that Beth Elliott had caused.” Well, it takes more than one person to cause a riot, and all Beth Elliott did was accept an invitation to sing. It was who she was, not what she said or did, that “caused” the near-riot.
Elliott, who was also a founding member of the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club and who played an active role in the California Committee for Sexual Law Reform, paints an interesting picture of the early post-Stonewall queer move- ment. She says that many lesbians “judged individual transsexual women on the content of their character,” adding that “there were a lot of lesbians who had no interest in the legendary political correctness of the 1970’s.”
She also notes that many of the early-70’s lesbian communities were “very sex-positive ⊠and the ‘sex purity’ movement never managed to control the lesbian community as a whole.
James also describes an incident of alleged inappropriate boundary crossing in Lawrenceâs photography of Jamesâ genitals for Lawrenceâs website www.annelawrence.com. James says Lawrence was inappropriately seductive while James had her clothes off. Lawrence denies this.
Thereâs more to the story. A year or so ago, Donna Cartwright, another transsexual woman, described to Tapestry an experience virtually identical to that reported by James. At that time we chose not to go forward with an unverified allegation. This allegation has now been substantiated in the form of Jamesâ complaint. Lawrence denies this incident also.
JoAnn Roberts (March 18, 1948âJune 7, 2013) was an American publisher and activist whose important work bridges the transition from print to digital transgender resources.
Background
Roberts founded Creative Design Services (CDS) in 1985. Print magazines included:
Ladylike
International TransScript
Books included:
Art & Illusion: A Guide to Crossdressing
Vol. 1: Face & Hair
Vol. 2: Fashion & Style
The Transsexual’s Survival Guide to Transition & Beyond
Volume 2: for Family, Friends, & Employers
Coping with Crossdressing: Tools & Strategies for Partners
Roberts also produced instructional videos as well as social events like Paradise in the Poconos and Beauty And The Beach.
Roberts co-founded the Renaissance Education Association, the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition, the Congress of Transgender Organizations, the Transgender Alliance for Community, and GenderPac, and served an important role in the second International Congress on Crossdressing, Sex, and Gender.
In 1991, Roberts authored the Gender Bill of Rights.
In 1995 Roberts began developing several websites, first via CDS. then via 3-D Communications, Inc. with Jamie Faye Fenton and Angela Gardner from 1996 to 2006. Roberts absorbed all of the assets back into CDS in 2006.
cdspub.com
3dcom.com
transgender.org
tgforum.com
Roberts died of lung cancer in 2013 and was posthumously honored with a Virginia Prince Award that year.
References
Roberts, JoAnn (1990). A Bill of Gender Rights. [archive]
Jami Kathleen Taylor is an American political scientist who has published on the transgender rights movement.
Background
Taylor earned a Bachelor of Arts in Economics, then a Masters in Public Administration from Old Dominion University in 2001. She then earned a Masters in Library Science at University of North Carolina at Greensboro in 2005 before earning a PhD in Public Administration from North Carolina State University in 2008.
Roberta Angela Dee (October 31, 1950âMarch 13, 2003) was an American author and transgender rights activist. A longtime critic of sexologists Ray Blanchard and Anne Lawrence for their promotion of the disease “autogynephilia,” Dee was the journalist who broke the story of Lawrence’s unconsented genital examination of an unconscious Ethiopian patient during a surgical procedure. The incident led to Lawrence’s resignation as an anesthesiologist.
Background
Dee was born in Brooklyn, New York, grew up in Long Island, and lived in Atlanta before becoming a resident of Augusta, Georgia. She had a journalism degree. Her writing was published widely, and she was founder of the Women on the Net (WON) website, an early online resource for women of color. Her work includes:
On October 10, 2002, Dee published the following post to soc.support.transgendered. It included the November 20, 1997 letter concluding the Washington State investigation and the 2-page Activity Report summarizing the case. While Dee says the patient was a minor, the documentation does not support that assumption. The patient was anesthetized by Lawrence prior to a hysterectomy, and the surgeon told Lawrence that the patient’s genitals appeared that way due to aging.
File on Anne A. Lawrence, M.D.
Dear Members:
I am in receipt of the document from the State of Washington, Department of Health, concerning the allegations that Anne A. Lawrence, MD, had, inappropriately examined a female minor. Of the 10 page document provided to me, I have reproduced the most pertinent three pages as text.
Appendix G indicates that Anne Lawrence plea bargained in order to avoid a complete investigation. This, in my humble opinion, is not indicative of someone who is innocent.
If a charge of sexual impropriety had been directed at me, I would seek a thorough investigation to clear my name and remove any suspicion. Why would an innocent person do any less?
Lawrence, at one point, had two attorneys defending her. I doubt that the little girl’s parents could afford the ensuing legal battle. Consequently, Lawrence is cleared by default.
Each of us, I’m sure, will reach his or her own conclusions. However, I must say that the activities do not sit well with me. I’ve seen this kind of thing before. A dirty doctor walks away unscathed but an innocent child, though not physically harmed, is emotionally scarred for life.
With Kind Regards,
Roberta Angela Dee
PS If anyone suspects that I might have doctored the document or that I omitted any pertinent information, the address is provided and you may request a copy of the original document.
STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1300 SE Quince Street · P.O. Box 47866 · Olympia, WA 98504-7866
05-22-97 Call from Lee Norman. Lawrence resigned. Reason threat of adverse action. She plea bargained to stave off investigation. Unauthorized exam of pateint. [… redacted* …] The patient was not harmed. Question of moral turpitude.
* Dee’s version said the edited line about Lawrence said: “Respondent has been having bizarre behavior for a while.”
References
Dee, Roberta Angela (October 10, 2002). File on Anne A. Lawrence, M.D. soc.support.transgendered [via Google Groups archive]
Monica Katrice Roberts (May 4, 1962 â October 5, 2020) was an American journalist and transgender rights activist. Roberts was founding editor of the award-winning blog TransGriot.
Background
Roberts grew up in Houston, Texas, graduating from Jones High School in 1980 and University of Houston in 1984. Roberts was a United Airlines Customer Service Representative from 1987 to 2001.
Roberts’ writing appeared at the Bilerico Project, Ebony.com, The Huffington Post and the Advocate. Roberts began writing TransGriot as a column in 2004, then as a standalone blog in 2006.
Roberts was honored many times for this work:
IFGE Trinity Award (2006)
Virginia Prince Transgender Pioneer Award (2015)
Phillips Brooks House Association’s Robert Coles Call of Service Award (2016)
HRC John Walzel Equality Award (2017)
GLAAD Media Awards (2016 and 2018)
Out 100 (2019)
Roberts was critical of medical and religious leaders who are critical of the transgender rights movement, including Paul McHugh. Roberts also raised the voices of trans women of color who were important historical figures in online activism, including Roberta Angela Dee.
Shey, Brittanie (January 30, 2018). 8 Houston Women to Watch on Social Media.Houstonia Magazine https://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/2018/1/30/houston-women-social-media
