Seth Douglass Roberts was born on August 17, 1953. Roberts earned a bachelor’s degree from Reed College in 1974 and a doctorate from Brown University in 1979.
Roberts taught in the notably conservative psychology department at University of California, Berkeley from 1978 until retiring in 2008. Roberts joined the faculty of Tsinghua University in Beijing from 2008 until 2014.
In late March 1998, Bailey and Roberts both presented at the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics. Bailey promoted âgay geneâ work, and Roberts presented on âneuroticism and self-esteem as indices of the vulnerability to major depression in women.â
“Autogynephilia”
Roberts gave Baileyâs book one of many 5-star Amazon shill reviews after Bailey solicited them. This is the only book review Roberts ever made on Amazon.com under that account:
a masterpiece, May 6, 2003 Seth Roberts (Berkeley, California USA)
This is the best book about psychology for a general audience I have ever seen. And I’ve seen a lot of them. When I taught introductory psychology, I used to assign several books of this sort, so I was always keeping an eye out.
It is extremely well written; it is based on excellent research; and its subject is complex, powerful, and poignant. That’s why it is so good. If How The Mind Works deserves to be a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize then Bailey deserves a Nobel Prize in Literature.
Roberts also had a correspondence with Deirdre McCloskey after Alice Dreger and Benedict Carey teamed up to present Bailey as a “scientist under siege.” McCloskey had previously published the review “Queer Science” in Reason in 2003.
Death
Roberts was a kind of quack that appeals to techno-utopianists and self-styled “rationalists” by claiming to succeed at “lifehacking” via self-experimentation. Roberts was a regular contributor at Quantified Self and other lifehack platforms. Roberts claimed to have personally cured acne, insomnia, poor mood, and weight gain, among other things, through self-experimentation.
Roberts was a self-proclaimed diet guru who sold a popular 2006 book called The Shangri-La Diet. Despite having no good peer-reviewed evidence that it worked, Roberts recommended drinking oil and personally ate unhealthy amounts of butter, claiming it had health benefits. On January 4, 2014 Roberts boasted:
I eat a half stick (60 g) of butter daily. It improves my brain speed. After I gave a talk about this, a cardiologist in the audience said I was killing myself. I said I thought my experimental data was more persuasive than epidemiology, with its many questionable assumptions. The new data suggests I was right â butter does not increase heart attacks. It also supports my belief that by learning what makes my brain work best, I will improve my health in other ways (such as reduce heart attack risk).
Roberts collapsed and died a few months later, on April 26, 2014. The cause of death was ruled “occlusive coronary artery diseaseâ and âcardiomegaly.â Roberts’s final column was published posthumously “with a heavy heart” and titled “Butter Makes Me Smarter.”
References
Staff report (September 2014) Seth Douglass Roberts â74.Reed https://www.reed.edu/reed-magazine/in-memoriam/obituaries/september2014/seth-roberts-1974.html
Dubner, Stephen J. (May 12, 2014). Seth Roberts R.I.P.Freakonomics https://freakonomics.com/2014/05/seth-roberts-r-i-p/
Obituary (May 8, 2014). Seth Douglass Roberts.San Francisco Chronicle https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sfgate/name/seth-roberts-obituary?id=17645317
Slack, Gordy (March 2007). The self-experimenter.The Scientist vol. 21, issue 3, p. 24. https://www.the-scientist.com/the-self-experimenter-46756
Dubner, Stephen J. (September 16, 2005). Seth Roberts, Guest Blogger: Finale?Freakonomics https://freakonomics.com/2005/09/seth-roberts-guest-blogger-finale/
Dubner, Stephen J.; Levitt Steven D. (September 11, 2005). Freakonomics: Does the Truth Lie Within?New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/does-the-truth-lie-within.html
Roberts Seth (August 13, 2007). Can Professors Say the Truth? https://sethroberts.net/2007/08/13/can-professors-say-the-truth-part-1/ [archive] also on HuffPost: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/can-professors-say-the-tr_b_60781
Roberts S (2006). Dealing with scientific fraud: A proposal. Public Health Nutrition, vol. 9, pp. 664-665. https://doi.org/10.1079/PHN2006963
Roberts S, Gharib A (2006). Variation of bar-press duration: Where do new responses come from? Behavioural Processes, vol. 72, pp. 215-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2006.03.003
Sternberg S, Roberts S (2006). Nutritional supplements and infection in the elderly: Why do the findings conflict? Nutrition Journal, vol. 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-5-30
Roberts S (2005). Guest-blogs at www.freakonomics.com: Pleased to Meet You, Dietary Non-Advice, Freakonomics and Me, Acne, The Elephant Speaks, Thank You.
Roberts S (2004). Self-experimentation as a source of new ideas: Examples about sleep, mood, health, and weight. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 27, pp. 227-262. replications. Excerpt in Harper’s. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x04000068
Gharib A, Gade C, Roberts S (2004). Control of variation by reward probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, vol. 30, pp. 271-282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.30.4.271
Carpenter KJ, Roberts S, Sternberg S (2003). Nutrition and immune function: Problems with a 1992 report. The Lancet, vol. 361, p. 2247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13755-5
Gharib A, Derby S, Roberts S (2001). Timing and the control of variation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, vol. 27, pp. 165-178. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.27.2.165
Roberts S, Pashler H (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, vol. 107, pp. 358-367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.358
Roberts S, Neuringer, A (1998). Self-experimentation. In K. A. Lattal and M. Perrone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 619-655). New York: Plenum. ISBN 9781489919472 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1947-2
Roberts S, Sternberg S (1993). The meaning of additive reaction-time effects: Tests of three alternatives. In D. E. Meyer and S. Kornblum (Eds.) Attention and Performance XIV: Synergies in Experimental Psychology, Artificial Intelligence, and Cognitive Neuroscience. MIT Press. pp. 611-653. ISBN 9780262290906 https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1477.001.0001
Roberts S (1987). Less-than-expected variability in evidence for three stages in memory formation. Behavioral Neuroscience, vol. 101, pp. 120-125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.101.1.120
Note: In 2025, this site phased out AI illustrations after artist feedback. The previous illustration is here.
Robert Carson is a psychologist at Duke University who wrote a book on Abnormal Psychology which was influenced by bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence thinking on gender variance.
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.
Dr. Sharon Valente, PhD, coauthored a book with Simon LeVay which Bailey uses in his human sexuality course.
Valente is assistant professor and RN-BSN coordinator, is internationally known for publications and scholarship in mental health, particularly suicide. Her research on suicide, life threatening illness, and professionals’ attitudes toward suicide/assisted suicide, and media presentations have helped set suicide prevention postvention standards. Her appointments include the National Youth Suicide Council, Death with Dignity, American Academy of Nursing Expert Panel on Culture, and she was elected to membership of American Academy of Nursing, Phi Kappa Phi and Chi Eta Phi, Int. She conducts writing workshops and serves as consultant at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Her research has been funded by Oncology Nursing Society, Glaxo, Bristol Myers, Zumberge, and American Cancer Society.
She’s taught at USC, won some accolades, began in nursing, has some “obsessive / compulsive disorder” presentations to her credit. Interestingly she was, however, one of the additional editors to the book “Before Stonewall” by Vern Bullough, and apparently published a paper on suicide risk in the Gay & Lesbian community. Also involved with the Death with Dignity folks (assisted suicide on terminal illness).
There’s nothing else really tying her to the G&L community per se. Just with this cursory look, I’m going to go out on a limb and say she’s not really the prime culprit here. Rather, I think she was brought in more as the emotional pathology expert from a risks sensibility, rather than a LeVay who appears more inclined toward questioning the ulterior mental motivations. Valente probably is the input of anything dealing with “risks of depression / suicide among those who feel they made a mistake” and the prevalence data relating to that, if I had to venture a guess.
On this LaVey/Valente book, Dartmouth noted this as one of their new texts, as well as Michigan State’s Psych 492 Syllabus, Univ. of Nottingham (UK), Univ. of Texas Health Science Center-San Antonio, and presumably one would think USC as well.
Stephen Mautner is an American publishing executive responsible for fact-checking and releasing one of the most transphobic books ever written, The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey.
Background
Stephen M. Mautner was born on April 13, 1952. Mautner earned a bachelor’s from Brown University and a master’s degree from Johns Hopkins University. Mautner met spouse Ellen in Chicago and married there in 1986. They moved to Rockville, Maryland in 1989 for Mautner’s new job, and Mautner joined the National Academies around 1991. The Joseph Henry Press imprint began operation in 1992. After it was disbanded in 2008, Mautner remained Executive Editor of the National Academies Press (NAP), publisher for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Washington, D.C. Mautner has helped develop online projects to make those works more accessible to general audiences.
Anti-transgender activity
Mautner was responsible for fact-checking and publishing psychologist J. Michael Bailey’s 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism.
Mautner edited and published what is widely considered the most unscientific and deliberately offensive book on gender diversity since Janice Raymond’s 1979 screed The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male. Mautner was completely surprised by the 2003 response, which shows how poorly he handled his editing responsibilities on this controversial book.
After selling about 4,200 print copies, The Man Who Would Be Queen went out of print in 2008. It remained available for purchase as a PDF on the National Academies site.
The question of how this salacious bigotry got past Steve Mautner and got published by the National Academies Press remains unanswered. National Academies employees Mautner and Barbara Kline Pope refuse to disclose who did the “peer review,” because it’s clear Mautner’s choices were Bailey cronies. In the wake of the 2003 protests, Mautner even defended this book as a âresponsible work.â
Open letter from Stephen Mautner (2003)
On 24 June 2003, Mautner sent out the following open letter. See below for Mautner’s letter as a PDF. Notations and links in the text are mine.
In March of 2003 the Joseph Henry Press published J. Michael Baileyâs The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, a work intended to inform general audiences about one scholarâs efforts to understand aspects of homosexuality and gender identity within a psychological framework. Some readers have vehemently disagreed with the book, calling it defamatory and offensive to the transgender community. For example, they contest the implication that most transsexuals fit the categories described by Bailey.
Overall, the book has been greeted with a wide range of responses, from high praise to harsh criticism. Kirkus Reviews called the book âa scientific yet superbly compassionate expositionâ (January 2003). Publishers Weekly said âBailey writes with assuredness that often makes difficult, abstract material–the relationship between sexual orientation and gender affect, the origins of homosexuality and the theoretical basis of how we discuss sexuality–comprehensible. He also, especially in his portraits of the women and men he writes about, displays a deep empathy that is frequently missing from scientific studies of sexualityâ (April 2003). However, the same review in Publishers Weekly goes on to say that âBailey tends towards overreaching, unsupported generalizations.â And a reviewer in Frontiers, a Southern California gay news magazine, states that the author âdoesnât need to inject his biases as often as he doesâ (March 2003). A sense of the polarity of opinion about the book can also be derived from a scan of the reader responses to the work on Amazon.com, where among the forty-three responses posted on June13, 2003, twenty-seven gave the book a 1-star (lowest) rating and eleven gave it a 5-star (highest) rating, with only five responses in between.
The Joseph Henry Press (JHP), publisher of Baileyâs book, is an imprint of the National Academies Press engaged in publishing books on science, engineering, and medicine for popular audiences. JHP books are individually authored works, each carrying a notice that the opinions expressed are solely the authorâs and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academies. JHP follows clear decision rules for selecting books for publication and for scientific review of manuscripts. The work in question was reviewed as a well-crafted and responsible work on a difficult topic, reflecting one approach to a legitimate avenue of scholarship and research.
None of us involved in the publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen imagined the extent of the controversy that its publication would trigger. We deeply regret the fact that some have found the book harmful or offensive. Our intention in publishing it was certainly not to offend any individual or group, but rather to offer insight into how one scientist has arrived at his views on certain aspects of sex and human behavior.
The appropriate response to this endeavor, we believe, is not to silence the scientist or to censor the expression of his findings and opinions. Rather we hope that the publication will inspire a productive discussion about future directions and methodologies in research on issues of gender and sexuality, and thereby promote the proper course of future scientific investigation on this important but very sensitive topic.
Sincerely, [unsigned]
Stephen Mautner Executive Editor The National Academies Press The Joseph Henry Press
Below is selected correspondence about Mautner’s editorial choices.
My response of 16 July 2003
Mr. Mautner:
I have recently read an open letter with your name affixed regarding your responsibility for the publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey. The version I read was electronic and was unsigned and undated.
Please provide me with verification that you are responsible for this letter, as well as the date(s) it was written and released by JHP, as these dates will be important in understanding what you knew about Professor Bailey at the time you wrote the letter.
Thank you.
Mautner’s reply of 18 July 2003:
The date of the open letter was June 24, 2003. I will ask that the date be added to the letter.
Sincerely,
Stephen Mautner Executive Editor The National Academies Press/Joseph Henry Press
2 August 2003 letter to Mautner from prominent trans scientists
August 2, 2003
Stephen Mautner, Executive Editor The National Academies Press The Joseph Henry Press 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
Dear Mr. Mautner,
We are writing in response to your recent open letter regarding your publication of the Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey. You are probably now aware that several individuals who were subjects of Bailey’s research have filed formal complaints with his institution to the effect that he apparently did not seek review or approval by Northwestern’s Institutional Review Board for the research involving human subjects described in detail in his book. In particular, they were not informed that they were subjects of his research nor did they sign consent forms as is required by federal regulations governing protection of human research subjects.
Federal regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge”. Human subject “means a living individual about whom an investigator conducting research obtains data through intervention or interaction with the individual”, where interaction “includes communication or interpersonal contact between investigator and subject”. The Joseph Henry Press describes Professor Bailey’s work as based on his own research, and the book contains detailed interviews with human subjects.
In recent years publishers of scientific research involving human subjects have established procedures to assure that research studies whose results they publish have complied with ethical standards for the treatment of human subjects, and that authors have stipulated in writing that the conduct of their research was in compliance with those legally mandated standards. For example, instructions to authors for Nature Genetics state:
In cases where a study involves the use of live animals or human subjects, the Methods section of the manuscript should include a statement that all experiments were performed in compliance with the relevant laws and institutional guidelines, and should identify the institutional committee(s) that have approved the experiments. A statement should also be included that informed consent was obtained for any experimentation with human subjects. Referees may be asked to comment specifically on any cases in which concerns arise.
Similar requirements are adhered to by other major publishers of scientific research, and we have appended the guidelines for several publications, including JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, and journals of the American Psychological Association which has its own comprehensive statement of Ethical Principles that provides for the protection of human subjects.
In your letter you say that “Our intention in publishing it was … to offer insight into how one scientist has arrived at his views on certain aspects of sex and human behavior”, and that “we hope that the publication will inspire a productive discussion about future directions and methodologies in research on gender and sexuality…” In regard to how Professor Bailey “arrived at his views” and “discussion about … methodologies”, we have two questions to ask of you.
1. Does the National Academies Press – Joseph Henry Press require that authors affirm in writing that their research involving human subjects has been approved by an appropriate institutional review committee and that informed consent was obtained from human subjects involved in the research?
2. If such a policy is in place for the Joseph Henry Press, did J. Michael Bailey stipulate to having adhered to that policy?
If you do not have a policy that requires authors to stipulate that they have adhered to ethical standards for research involving human subjects, we strongly urge you to develop one along the lines of other publishers of scientific research. Note that Genetics Nature invites comment from reviewers in cases where there may be concern about the ethical use of human subjects. It is clearly inappropriate for the National Academies to publish and promote the results of research that fails to conform to federally mandated requirements for the protection of human subjects in research.
We appreciate your assistance in answering our inquiry and in addressing these serious concerns about the conduct of the research in question.
Sincerely,
Barbara Nash., Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics University of Utah
Lynn Conway, Ph.D. Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Emerita University of Michigan Member, National Academy of Engineering
Deirdre McCloskey, Ph.D. UIC Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, and English University of Illinois at Chicago Tinbergen Professor of Philosophy, Economics, and Art and Cultural Studies, Erasmus University of Rottterdam
Ben Barress, M.D., Ph.D. Professor of Neurobiology and Developmental Biology Stanford University
Joan Roughgarden, Ph.D. Professor of Biological Sciences Stanford University
c: Bruce Alberts, President, the National Academy of Sciences Harvey V. Fineberg, President, the Institute of Medicine
Thank you for adding the release date to your June 24 letter regarding your responsibility for bringing out the Bailey book under the Joseph Henry Press imprint. Your letter states:
âJHP follows clear decision rules… for scientific review of manuscripts. The work in question was reviewed as a well-crafted and responsible work.â
As you may know, this was not the expert assessment of Dr. John Bancroft, the Director of the Kinsey Institute, who stood up immediately after a Bailey presentation in July and told a lecture hall full of sex researchers that Baileyâs book âis not science.â
Please provide the names and credentials of those who participated in the scientific review of this manuscript and came to the conclusion it was well-crafted and responsible.
I look forward to learning the names of the scientific reviewers you selected who disagree with Dr. Bancroft.
Thank you in advance.
cc: Suzanne Woolsey
My letter of 21 August 2003:
Mr. Mautner:
I have not yet received a reply to my August 12 email requesting the names and credentials of those who participated in the “scientific review” of J. Michael Baileyâs manuscript and came to the conclusion it was “well-crafted and responsible” (see below).
I already have my copy of the dismissive form letter from Dr. Woolsey advising everyone with opposing views to present and publish evidence and reasoning. Iâd appreciate the courtesy of a personal reply with this evidence so I can do just that.
cc: Suzanne Woolsey, Bruce Alberts, Harvey V. Fineberg
Dr. Dana Beyer’s correspondence of 30 July 2003 with Mautner
Dear Mr. Mautner:
[…] I recently discovered that your press was located here in DC, and I would like the opportunity to visit with you to discuss J Michael Bailey’s recently published book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen.”
Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Dana Beyer, M.D.
Mautner’s reply on 7 August 2003
Dear Dr. Beyer,
I apologize for the delay in responding.
Given the deluge of mail we have received concerning Dr. Bailey’s book and our wish to catalog the responses, I would much prefer it if you could submit your comments in writing.
Sincerely, Stephen Mautner
My follow-up with Mr. Mautner one year after he brought out The Man Who Would Be Queen
15 March 2004
Mr. Mautner:
Lest you think we have forgotten about you and your JHP team, I wanted to update you on the J. Michael Bailey situation and your historical role in this matter.
Unlike you, the Lambda Literary Foundation had the integrity to admit last week they had made an âunprecedentedâ error in their initial assessment of The Man Who Would Be Queen. Though it was a âhumbling experienceâ according to their Executive Director, they had the integrity to withdraw support for the book when it became clear to them it was not science but propaganda in service of the neo-eugenics movement.
I also wanted to update you on an ongoing problem at Amazon.com. As many lazy editors and publishers are wont to do, you cited Amazon.com reviews in your 24 June 2003 open letter as an accurate gauge of response to this book:
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-reviews.html
Publishers increasingly use these unconfirmed reviews edited by an unnamed editor as evidence about a book’s reception.
“As of June 13, 2003 there were 27 1-star (lowest) ratings, and 11 5-star (highest) ratings, with only 5 in-between.”
Since Amazon has rewritten history by removing 18 of the reviews you cite in March, you need to revise your letter:
“As of June 13, 2003 there were 9 1-star (lowest) ratings, and 11 5-star (highest) ratings, with only 5 in-between.”
This new statistic suggests that the world is evenly split on this book. That does not reflect the 1300+ signatures gathered in a few days from people in 35 countries who protested the book, or the consensus of almost every professional organization that deals with gender variance.
Clearly, Amazon needs to be more transparent in the process, as do editors like JHP and publishing trade groups like Lambda Literary Foundation. These organizations are covering book promotion with a façade of objectivity and editorial rigor that simply does not exist.
As I have said all along, this is being waged as a war of propaganda and not a science fight. Once again, we have more evidence.
I can assure you that you will be held personally accountable for what is the most spectacular misstep of your career as an editor, and we will most certainly get to the bottom of who gave you the go-ahead on this book. Iâd bet money they are listed here:
This is going to be painstaking and methodical, and no stone will go unturned in determining who allowed this book to be published by the National Academies Press.
Additional Mautner information
Here’s a rather inaccurate description from 2004 detailing what Mautner does (emphasis mine):
Stephen Mautner, executive editor of Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press, was the fourth panelist. The Joseph Henry Press was founded to look for authors outside the national academies and to contract with individual authors to write books on science topics for general audiences. Editors look for serious scientific books that will have commercial success. Mautner sees a great future for work that takes content from the National Academies and massages it into a form accessible to a wider audience. How do editors at the Joseph Henry Press hire writers? Currently, they recruit very few book writers because they can only award contracts to six or eight authors a year. However, Mautner said that they are willing and eager to give writers who have a compelling record of excellent journalism a chance to write their first book.
Mautner sent his children to St. Albans, an exclusive Washington DC-based private prep school, using the money he made disseminating Bailey’s tripe.
Anyone with additional information on Steve Mautner’s responsibility for the review and publication of Bailey’s defamatory book is encouraged to contact the author of this site.
According to anti-trans activist Alice Dreger, as of August 2006, the book had sold about 4200 copies and had about 900,000 visits to the electronic version.
References
Weintraub, Judith (April 27, 1997). Intertwining Roots.Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1997/04/27/worlds-apart/1b438573-c351-4711-b0b3-734fa7770c06/?utm_term=.42613ccc11be
(Stephen Mautner to Michael Bailey, copy to Alice Dreger, p.e.c., August 11, 2006).
Media
CPNAS (May 7, 2013). Stephen Mautner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Ya6nNA5jk
Suzanne Haley “Sue” Woolsey was born in 1941. Woolsey is spouse of James Woolsey, who, among other things, served as Jimmy Carter’s first director of the CIA. James Woolsey is also a notable neoconservative, reaching that philosophy via a circuitous route through the corridors of liberal power.
Suzanne Woolsey’s 1970 dissertation was titled “Effects of experimenter race and segregated or desegregated school experience on some aspects of the social interaction of white and negro children.” Interestingly, experimenter effect is one of the chief scientific criticisms of the methodology used by Bailey, Ray Blanchard, and Anne Lawrence.
During the Carter Administration Woolsey served in high level positions in the Office of Management and Budget. During the Reagan Administration Woolsey worked outside of the government.
Woolsey began work at the National Academy of Sciences in 1989 as Executive Director of the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences, responsible for oversight of all of the boards in those fields. Later Woolsey became chief operating officer of the NAS and then Chief Communications Officer whose responsibilities included National Academies Press and Joseph Henry Press.
Woolsey’s canned response
Woolsey sent the following form letter to anyone who wrote to express concern about the lack of science in J. Michael Bailey’s The Man Who Would Be Queen. I received my copy on 22 May 2003.
We have received your message about the book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, by J. Michael Bailey, and I am responding on behalf of the National Academies. We appreciate knowing of your concerns and recognize that the contents of this book are controversial. The copyright page of the book carries the following notice: “Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this volume are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences or its affiliated institutions.” This statement applies to all books published by the Joseph Henry Press. Joseph Henry Press publications are not reports of the National Academies, but are individually authored works on topics related to science, engineering, and medicine.
In our opinion, the best response to writing with which one disagrees is more writing. Those who hold views contrary to those expressed in this book are encouraged to present and publish the evidence and reasoning in support of their conclusions.
Sincerely, Suzanne H. Woolsey, Ph.D. Chief Communications Officer
After the book controversy
In January 2004, Woolsey became a director of Fluor Corporation, which has $1.6 billion in Iraq related contracts. Woolsey also served as a director of the Institute for Defense Analyses which also has war interests, and received modest compensation for that role according to the article.
The Woolseys’ overlapping affiliations are part of a growing pattern in Washington in which individuals play key roles in quasi-governmental organizations advising officials on major policy issues but also are involved with private businesses in related fields. Such activities generally are not covered by conflict of interest laws or ethics rules. They underscore an insiders network in which contacts and relationships developed inside the government can meld with individual financial interests.
Suzanne Woolsey is also affiliated with other firms, including the Paladin Capital Group, a Washington venture capital firm in which Woolsey’s spouse is a partner. Suzanne Woolsey did not respond to messages left at Paladin and at Fluor.
References
Roche, WF (8 August 2004). Private, Public Roles Overlap in Washington. Los Angeles Times. [archive]
Holloway J, Boyette L. (27 January 2004.). Fluor Adds Suzanne H. Woolsey to Board of Directors. Fluor website. http://investor.fluor.com/visitors/print_release.cfm?ReleaseID=127565 [archive]
Clemons SC (8 August 2004). Woolsey’s web: Structure and corruption in Iraq. The Washington Note. http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000015.html [archive]
Ted Barlow (born 1974) is a former J. Michael Bailey student at Northwestern University who wrote a biased undergraduate paper on transsexualism. Barlow’s paper is a good indication of how Bailey teaches students harmful ideas about gender identity and expression, sexuality, and attraction to transgender people.
Bailey’s exploitative undergraduate human sexuality course was permanently canceled by Northwestern in 2011.
Background
Barlow attended Northwestern from 1992â1996, earning a BS in psychology in 1996. His senior honors thesis was done with J. Michael Bailey, where Barlow served as a sort of wing man as they trolled Chicago bars for attractive young trans women to “research.”
He earned an MA in psychology from the University of Chicago in 1998 and an MBA from UT Austin in 2008. He has held various roles in the legal services industry in Texas.
Barlow had an extensive online presence as a blogger prior to going into legal services. He has since tried to minimize his connections to past published work.
Resources
Blogspot (blogspot.com)
tedbarlow.blogspot.com
A few things that I learned studying transsexuals [archive]
Ponticas is one of several people at Johns Hopkins involved in the repression of trans people through psychiatry.
Yula Ponticas graduated in 1979 from McDaniel College in Maryland and received a Ph.D. in Psychology from Florida State University in 1987. Her advisor was Jon Bailey (to my knowledge, no relation to our friend at Northwestern). Ponticas is a somewhat unusual surname that brings up several people, all from Chile.
She has written about in-vitro fertilization (with Fagan), care for the developmentally disabled, and paraphilia. Note that the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, where her first paper on crossdressing appeared, is where “autogynephilia” first appeared in print two years prior. Her only solo paper appeared in the same issue as the “five factors” paper co-authored with Wise et al.
The five-factor model goes like this:
Surgency (introvert/extrovert)
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Intellect/ Openness to Experience
My take on all these personality assessment tests is that they are about as useful and scientific as horoscopes. A lot of this is coming out of Northwestern ia Revelle and friends, though:
http://www.personality-project.org
—–
Relevant papers by Ponticas include abstracts.
Wohl MK, Finney JW, Riordan MM, Iwata BA, Ponticas Y, Page TJ. (1981). Behavioral assessment and treatment of complete food refusal in a developmentally disabled child. Association for Behavior Analysis, Milwaukee.
Ponticas Y, Fagan PJ. Issues in the Psychological Evaluation and Care of In Vitro Fertilization Couples Appl Res Ment Retard. 1986;7(1):21-35.
Richman GS, Ponticas Y, Page TJ, Epps S. Simulation procedures for teaching independent menstrual care to mentally retarded persons.
Wise TN, Fagan PJ, Schmidt CW, Ponticas Y, Costa PT. Personality and sexual functioning of transvestitic fetishists and other paraphilics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1991 Nov;179(11):694-8.
Utilizing the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) and the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory (DSFI), 24 transvestitic fetishists (TVs) were compared with a similar clinic-evaluated group of 26 other paraphilics (OPs). The data replicated previous results and extended them by showing that TVs did not differ from OPs on most dimensions of the NEO-PI and the DSFI. Both groups were significantly higher on neuroticism and significantly lower on agreeableness than the NEO-PI male normative population. The other paraphilic group tended to score lower on conscientiousness than the TVs and the normative comparison group. For nine of the 10 DSFI variables, there were no significant differences between the TVs and the OPs. The TVs were significantly higher than the OPs on role identity, indicating a more feminine identification. Both the TVs and OPs reported elevated levels of fantasy. The implications of these findings suggest that, in general, TVs and OPs are more similar than they are different, with a common personality profile and a similar pattern of sexual functioning.
Fagan PJ, Wise TN, Schmidt CW Jr, Ponticas Y, Marshall RD, Costa PT Jr. A comparison of five-factor personality dimensions in males with sexual dysfunction and males with paraphilia. J Pers Assess. 1991 Dec;57(3):434-48.
We compared personality profiles of men with sexual dysfunction (n = 51) to those of age-matched men with a primary diagnosis of paraphilia (n = 51) employing the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI), a measure of the five-factor model. Preliminary analyses in a large sample of patients in a sexual behaviors consultation unit supported the reliability and factorial validity of the NEO-PI for this population. Analysis of variance showed significant differences between the dysfunctional and the paraphilic groups on two of the five NEO-PI domains, Neuroticism (N) and Agreeableness (A). The group personality profile of the sexually dysfunctional men was comparable to the normative sample of the NEO-PI, except for a slight elevation in N. By contrast, men with paraphilia had a personality profile marked by high N, low A, and low Conscientiousness (C). Treatment implications of the average personality profile of the sexual dysfunction group and the distinctive personality profile of paraphilic men are discussed.
Ponticas Y. Sexual aversion versus hypoactive sexual desire: a diagnostic challenge. Psychiatr Med. 1992;10(2):273-81.
Our work with women with sexual aversion documents the presence of marked sexual avoidance behaviors as specified in the DSM-III-R1 diagnostic criteria for this disorder. At the same time, we demonstrate the presence of normal sexual desire and capacity for orgasm in these women. These two findings offer support for a valid diagnostic differentiation between sexual aversion disorder and hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Inherent in the diagnosis and treatment of sexual aversion disorder is an appreciation by the clinician of the tremendous approach-avoidance conflict that exists in these patients. The behavioral and cognitive avoidance features, therefore, need to be elicited actively by the clinician during all phases of assessment and treatment. These features are not always offered readily by the patients for fear of having to relinquish these strategies and their related sense of control over the overwhelming anxiety that sexual intimacy can produce. Consequently, treatment is not always straightforward and successful.
Costa PT Jr, Fagan PJ, Piedmont RL, Ponticas Y, Wise TN. The five-factor model of personality and sexual functioning in outpatient men and women. Psychiatr Med. 1992;10(2):199-215.
454 adults seeking evaluation at a sexual behaviors consultation clinic were evaluated for the major dimensions of personality as measured by the NEO Personality Inventory and various aspects of sexual attitudes and experiences via the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory. The results showed that elevated Neuroticism was correlated with dysphoric symptoms, negative body image and lowered satisfaction. More extraverted individuals reported increased drive, more sexual experience, positive body image, and more positive affects. Agreeableness was unrelated to sexual drive and satisfaction but was negatively related to symptomatology. Openness was positively associated with amount of Information, range of sexual experiences, liberal attitudes toward sex, sexual drive and fantasy and appears to broadly impact upon sexual functioning. The more conscientious subjects had lowered sexual drive, but fewer dysphoric symptoms and a better body image. Women showed a similar pattern of personality correlates with the exception that personality was unrelated to females’ sexual experiences and sexual satisfaction. The present findings support and expand previous research and contribute to our understanding of how personality dispositions influence the experience and expression of sexual functioning in male and female clinical samples.
Christopher Richard Brand was born June 1, 1943 in Preston, England.
Brand taught at Edinburgh University from 1970â1997. In 1996 Brand published the book The g Factor, claiming that general intelligence correlates with life outcomes. Brand claimed people of African descent had lower general intelligence as a group, which affected their success.
Brand was fired following an investigation into his 1996 comments about age of consent following child molestation charges brought against medical researcher Daniel Carleton Gajdusek. Brand’s firing became a rallying cry for “academic freedom” extremists.
Brand had three children and married spouse number three in 2001. Brand died May 28, 2017.
Comments on trans issues
Here’s what Brand had to say in 2003 when trans people began criticizing J. Michael Bailey’s The Man Who Would Be Queen:
Dr Sexâ VERSUS ANTI-HOMOPHOBISTS AND ASSORTED FAGGOTS
A book-burning witch-hunt began against psychologist J. Michael Bailey, of Northwestern University, near Chicago, who claimed from his research that some transsexuals are homosexuals, thus apparently managing to annoy representativesâ of both these hyper-sensitive groups at the same time. Fortunately, Chronicles of Higher Education (20 vi) gave Bailey, a Texan nerdâ, a friendly write up, saying he had plenty of transsexual/friends, did a good job on the dance floor and bought a round of drinks, so there was a possibility that he and his book, The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, might survive.
See also the Chris Brand information on Lynn Conway’s site, which Brand responded to thus:
HUMAN BIODIVERSITY GROUP (HBDG) âNAMED AND SHAMEDâ Opponents of J. Michael Bailey, the Texan sexologist (who has âcontroversiallyâ suggested that some transsexuals are actually homosexuals), managed to discover the names on Steve Sailerâs private list of experts (and gifted amateursâŠ.) on the subject of âhuman biodiversityâ i.e. racial differences. They set up a website to denounce selected and possible HBDG members:
Andrews, Lewis R. (âpromotes an array of neoconservative (mostly racist) theoriesâ) {Normally called Louis Andrews}
Bailey, Michael (âunder investigation here {i.e. by transsexuals} regarding his HBDG affiliationsâ)
Brand, Chris (âinfamous âscientific racistââ)
Brimelow, Peter (âprominent and active member and contributor to {anti-immigration} VDARE)
Burr, Chandler (believes âbiological cause of male homosexuality as a “defect in development”â)
Buss, David M.(has ânotions of rigidly bi-polar genders in humansâ)
Cochran, Gregory M. (actually environmentalistic but âhighly extolled for his racial-genetic-profiling science and homosexual-causation-science by various neoconservative and far-right groups, such as the British National Partyâ)
Derbyshire, John (âvirulently homophobicâ)
Entine, Jon (âcondescending toward Asians, like a comical stereotype, and believe[s] blacks are uncivilized animals who are mentally inferior and only suitable for athleticsâ)
Hausman, Patricia (âpart of a neoconservative organization that makes a special point of trashing trans womenâ)
Miller, Edward M. (âmade strongly racist “scientific” statements in 1996 about the intelligence of black peopleâ)
Murray, Charles (âwidely perceived as racist by most moderate peopleâ)
Pinker, Steven (âbiology-is-destiny theoryââŠ.âactive participant in the Baileyan defamation of transsexual womenââŠ.âCould he be a Fourattist-type gay man?…â)
Pitchford, Ian (actually a keen leftist but called âanother of the HBDG’ers known to have supported Baileyâ)
Rushton, J.P. (âmisrepresented the entire evolutionary theory simply for the shock valueâ)
Sailer, Steve (âhas long exploited the works of racial-profiling scientists and pundits such as Brand, Cochran, Entine, Miller, Murray, Rushton, etc., to justify his positionsââŠ.”one of a handful of extreme “scientific racists”, affiliated with and often paid by extreme right-wing groups like VDare”)
Seligman, Dan (âpromoting HBDG’s vain hope that Bailey could somehow be anointed as the national expert on homosexuality and transsexualismâ)
What a wonderful display of leftistsâ willingness to caricature scholarly opponents! And such hypersensitive leftists have the temerity to complain I jest about them as ANTI-HOMOPHOBISTS AND ASSORTED FAGGOTS! (Of course, it was a pity that members of the HBDG list did not all plainly announce their scientific racism / race realism seven years ago when they might collectively have made a mark and defended me in Edinburgh. Sadly, still in 2003, the worldâs only declared academic race realists (Glayde Whitney having sadly died) were Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn and myself. The unwillingness of race realists to pull together reflected the non-emergence of national neoliberealism or any comparable liberty-respecting realism with which academics could be happy.
Egan V, Brand N, Brand T (2018). Obituary of Chris Brand (1st June 1943â28th May, 2017). Personality and Individual Differences Volume 122, 1 February 2018, Pages 206-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.011
Wotjas, Olga (27 March 1998). ‘Racist’ Brand loses dismissal appeal. Times Higher Education http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=106530§ioncode=26
