Ronald J. “Ron” Comer (born April 26, 1947) is an American psychologist who wrote the textbooks Abnormal Psychology and Fundamentals in Abnormal Psychology which promote pathologizing ideas about transgender people proposed by Ray Blanchard.
Background
Comer earned a degree in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1969 and a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from Clark University in 1975. He joined the Princeton faculty in 1975 as an assistant professor and then transitioned to a lecturer with continuing appointment. He was appointed Emeritus Professor in February 2016.
James Cantor is an American-Canadian psychologist and anti-transgender extremist.
Cantor is an online troll best known for promoting fringe and regressive beliefs about sex and gender minorities. Cantor has special contempt for the transgender rights movement. Cantor’s questionable beliefs and practices involve:
Sexual attraction to minors
Child-sized sex dolls: Cantor says “no evidence suggests sex dolls increase any risk of harm to anyone.”
Promotes Virtuous Pedophiles and other pedophilia support organizations
Promotes non-affirming models of care like “watchful waiting” and gender identity change efforts
Testifies against affirming healthcare for gender diverse youth
Depsite frequently presenting as being an ally to trans people, Cantor is widely considered a major figure in anti-transgender extremism.
Cantor is one of the most vocal supporters of colleague Ray Blanchard and Blanchard’s disease model of trans women and those attracted to us. Cantor is also a major supporter of fired sexologist Kenneth Zucker’s “therapeutic intervention” on gender diverse children that has been widely outlawed.
Cantor was one of the earliest and most tenacious supporters of J. Michael Bailey’s transphobic 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen. Cantor often appears on conservative outlets to criticize and complain about the transgender community.
Cantor was forced to apologize by former employer CAMH for attacking trans guest lecturer Kyle Scanlon. Cantor has been banned from many online groups for aggressive behavior toward those who disagree about sex and gender.
In 2019, Cantor criticized the mainstream consensus statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics for rejecting Cantor’s non-affirming model of care for gender diverse youth. Cantor calls this “watchful waiting,” but he AAP calls it “delayed transition” and advises against it.
In 2022, Cantor submitted a report to end state-funded healthcare for transgender residents of Florida. The report was apparently originally funded by conservative Christian organization Alliance Defending Freedom. A rebuttal to Cantor noted:
James Cantorâs document, presented as Attachment D to the June 2 Report, also faces serious questions about bias and lack of expertise. In a 2022 case, a federal court took a skeptical view of Cantorâs purported expertise, noting that âthe Court gave [Cantorâs] testimony little weight because he admitted, inter alia, to having no clinical experience in treating gender dysphoria in minors and no experience monitoring patients receiving drug treatments for gender dysphoria.20 Cantorâs document is nearly identical to what appears to be paid testimony in another case, where Cantorâs declaration was used to support legislation barring transgender athletes from sports teams,21 Troublingly, Cantorâs appearance in that case seems to have been funded by the Alliance Defending Freedom (âADFâ),22 a religious and political organization that opposes legal protections for transgender people and same-sex marriage23 and defends the criminalization of sexual activity between partners of the same sex.24 Because Cantor provides no conflicts of interest disclosure, readers cannot ascertain whether Florida AHCA also paid for Cantorâs report and whether Florida officials were aware that the Cantor report reused his work for (apparently) the ADF.
James M. Cantor was born on January 2, 1966 in Manhasset, New York and grew up in nearby Sayville. Parents Henle Cantor (born 1943) and Stuart “Stu” Cantor (born 1940) married in 1965. Cantor’s parents owned a parts-related business serving Pepsi plants outside the United States. Cantor has two younger siblings, David and Leah.
Cantor earned a bachelor’s degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a master’s degree from Boston University, and a doctorate from McGill University in 1999. Cantor’s advisors were Irv Binik and James Pfaus. Cantor did postdoctoral training with Ray Blanchard.
Cantor founded the Toronto Sexuality Centre and has worked there with Morag Yule, Marie Faaborg-Andersen, and Ian McPhail.
Cantor is married to psychologist Neil Pilkington.
Cantor JM (2019). Transgender and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents: Fact-Checking of AAP Policy. J Sex Marital Ther. 2020;46(4):307-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2019.1698481. Epub 2019 Dec 14.
Note: In 2025, this site phased out AI illustrations after artist feedback. The previous illustration is here.
Jeffrey Paul Robbins (born circa 1950) is an American editor best known for editing and fact-checking one of the most transphobic books ever written, The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey.
My editor, Jeff Robbins, at Joseph Henry Press, made my writing better than I could. (pp. xii-xiii)
Correspondence
Below is the letter I sent Robbins on May 17, 2003.
Jeffrey Robbins, Senior Editor The Joseph Henry Press 36 Dartmouth St. #810 Malden, MA 02148 Tel. 781-324-4786 Fax 781-397-8255 E-mail: [email protected]
Mr. Robbins–
I maintain an âOur Bodies, Ourselvesâ type website for transsexual women called tsroadmap.com.
After my business partnerâs boyfriend Barry Winchell was beaten to death with a baseball bat because he was dating her, I expanded my efforts from practical matters of gender transition to improving media depictions of our condition.
I am writing to you today because of your involvement in J. Michael Baileyâs The Man Who Would Be Queen. In it, Bailey states that you edited this book and “made my writing better than I could.” (xii-xiii)
Mr. Robbins, you are complicit in the publication of what many in my community believe is the most defamatory book on transsexualism written since 1979. You are responsible for allowing us to be associated with depraved murderers (p. 142) and to be described as little more than socially stunted deviants generally unable to form long-term relationships or even hold âconventional jobs.â (p. 188). Imagine if the following were said about women you know:
â[They] work as waitresses, hairdressers, receptionists, strippers, and prostitutes, as well as in many other occupations.â (p. 142)
I intend to see that you remain clearly linked to this historical document and are held accountable for this outrage during the remainder of your career. I also plan to secure your shameful place in the history of our communityâs struggle to enjoy the same basic rights afforded other women. Make no mistake: you will have helped to hurt a great many women and children before we get those rights, and I can assure you your efforts will not go unnoticed.
I will be re-reading the entire text as well and making a painstaking record of all the ways you and Bailey have hurt all of us by bringing out such bigotry in the name of “science.” I will be sending my full findings to the National Academies leadership later this year.
The fact that any publisher allowed this to be printed under the auspices of “science” raises serious concerns about the process by which books are subjected to review at Joseph Henry Press. I intend to assist with the full investigation into how you personally allowed this to happen.
Though I doubt you are, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.
[signed]
cc: Barbara Kline Pope, Director Phone: 202-334-3328 E-mail: [email protected]
Robbins did not respond. Below is the form letter sent out by Suzanne Woolsey to anyone who wrote to them. I received my copy on May 22, 2003.
We have received your message about the book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, by J. Michael Bailey, and I am responding on behalf of the National Academies. We appreciate knowing of your concerns and recognize that the contents of this book are controversial. The copyright page of the book carries the following notice: “Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this volume are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences or its affiliated institutions.” This statement applies to all books published by the Joseph Henry Press. Joseph Henry Press publications are not reports of the National Academies, but are individually authored works on topics related to science, engineering, and medicine.
In our opinion, the best response to writing with which one disagrees is more writing. Those who hold views contrary to those expressed in this book are encouraged to present and publish the evidence and reasoning in support of their conclusions.
Sincerely, Suzanne H. Woolsey, Ph.D. Chief Communications Officer
Publishers Weekly is an American weekly trade news magazine targeted at publishers, librarians, booksellers, and literary agents.Â
Bailey’s publisher Joseph Henry Press has been using an excerpt of this review in its publicity, including an ad that ran in The Advocate. The bold part is the selective quotation they use, wisely avoiding the critical part after.
An associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University, Bailey writes with assuredness that often makes difficult, abstract material-the relationship between sexual orientation and gender affect, the origins of homosexuality and the theoretical basis of how we discuss sexuality-comprehensible. He also, especially in his portraits of the women and men he writes about, displays a deep empathy that is frequently missing from scientific studies of sexuality. But Bailey’s scope is so broad that when he gets down to pivotal constructs, as in detailing the data of scientific studies such as Richard Green’s about “feminine boys” or Dean Hamer’s work on the so-called “gay gene,” the material is vague, and not cohesive. Bailey tends towards overreaching, unsupported generalizations, such his claim that “regardless of marital laws there will always be fewer gay men who are romantically attached” or that the African-American community is “a relatively anti-gay ethnic minority.” Add to this the debatable supposition that innate “masculine” and “feminine” traits, in the most general sense of the words, decidedly exist, and his account as a whole loses force.
Jeff Sherman is a social psychologist and longtime supporter of J. Michael Bailey. I got the following note on May 7, 2003. Sherman’s comment in bold reflects typical thinking from anti-transgender psychologists. Sherman ignores that Bailey was mocking transgender people, including our young children, on his book tour. Apparently Sherman thinks it’s fine for Bailey to do that to our children while “trying to find the truth,” but any reciprocation is “vile.” Via Sherman:
you are a vile human being for putting pictures of mike’s kids on your web site. you disagree with mike’s theories? fine. there is ample opportunity for scientific debate, and no one more than mike welcomes a scientific critique of his work. to ascribe any motives to mike beyond trying to find the truth is nothing more than an attempt to stifle free and open discourse. you should hook up with kansas state legislature.
sincerely, jeff sherman
***************************************************************** Jeffrey W. Sherman Associate Professor Department of Psychology Northwestern University 2029 Sheridan Rd. Evanston, IL 60208-2710 phone: 847-467-4133 fax: 847-491-7859 url: www.psych.nwu.edu/People/JeffSherman.htm ******************************************************************
WEB LINK: http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/sherman/sherman.html email:Â [email protected]
My reply in part:
It’s what he’s doing to my kids in his lectures. “Vile” is an apt descriptor. May I borrow it?
Maybe Mike should open his lecture to the parents of those kids whose images he features. I wonder how they’d feel to see their children’s expressions of pain being used by Mike to amuse audiences? I bet they’d think he’s a pretty vile human being. I certainly do.
Sherman did not follow up.
Michael Seto is a Canadian psychologist whose work focuses on sex and gender minorities.
He has used disease models to describe trans people, including the deprecated and unscientific term “gynandromorph.” No reputable scientist uses this term for humans. It is only used by transphobes in the context of attraction to transgender people. The disease “gynandromorphophilia” was created by Peter Collins and Ray Blanchard, two transphobic colleagues of Seto’s. Blanchard has published articles with Seto. Collins has quoted research by Seto in testimony about the use of child-sized sex dolls as a possible way to prevent sex offenses against children.
Background
Seto was born in 1967. He earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology from University of British Columbia in 1989. He then earned a master’s degree from Queen’s University in 1992, followed by a doctorate in 1997.
He worked at notorious anti-transgender facility CAMH from 1998 to 2008. Much of his research focuses on adolescent sex offenders, minor attracted persons, and child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
University of Ottawa Institute for Mental Health Research
He became editor of Sexual Abuse in 2015 and consulting editor of Journal of Sex Research in 2014. Carleton University University of Ottawa University of Toronto
He is married to sexologist Meredith Chivers. In 2003, Chivers and Seto sat on a panel at the Kinsey Institute with J. Michael Bailey as part of a multidisciplinary group of researchers in sexual psychophysiology.
Seto’s Wikipedia bio was written by anti-transgender troll James Cantor, who is now banned. Seto has made additional edits to it himself.
“Gynandromorphs”
In science, a gynandromorph is an animal with bilateral intersex traits and sex mosaics. Gynandromorph has never been used by scientists to describe mammals, let alone primates like humans. No human has ever been observed with bilateral intersex traits.
Seto’s beliefs and unscientific terminology have made their way into publications like Reason:
Even the gender dimension is more complex than most realize, writes Seto, with some people “attracted to gynandromorphs, that is⊠individuals with physical features of both sexes ⊠other individuals who are attracted specifically to transgender people, and those who would describe themselves as more pansexual with regard to gender, for example, being attracted to both cis- and trans-gender women or men.”
Selected publications
Seto, M. C., & Barbaree, H. E. (1999). Psychopathy, treatment behavior, and sex offenders recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14 (12), 1235-1248.
Seto, M. C., Khattar, N. A., Lalumiere, M. L. & Quinsey, V. L. (1997). Deception and sexual strategy in psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 22 (3), 301-307.
Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., & Blanchard, R. (2007). Gender and sexual orientation differences in sexual response to sexual activities versus gender of actors in sexual films. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1108â1121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1108
Seto, M. C., Cantor, J. M., & Blanchard, R. (2006). Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(3), 610â615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.3.610
Seto MC (2017). The Puzzle of Male Chronophilias. Arch Sex Behav. 2017 Jan;46(1):3-22. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0799-y. Epub 2016 Aug 22.
Chivers ML, Seto MC, Blanchard R (2007). Gender and sexual orientation differences in sexual response to sexual activities versus gender of actors in sexual films. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93, 1108â1121.
Seto, Michael C. (2018). Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment, and Intervention. American Psychological Association ISBN 978-1433829260
Seto, Michael C. (2013). Internet Sex Offenders. American Psychological Association ISBN 978-1433813641
CAMH (2004). Psychobiology of Aggression and Antisocial Behaviour across the Lifespan. http://www.camh.net/research/research_psychobiology.html [archive]
Kinsey Institute (2003). Methodological Approaches In Reproductive Psychophysiology Saturday July 12 – Tuesday July 15, 2003 http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/services/psychophys.html [archive]
Michael Kuban is a Canadian psychologist who served as manager of the Kurt Freund Phallometric Lab at the notorious Clarke Institute in Toronto.
Background
Michael Edward “Mike” Kuban was born in 1962 and earned a bachelor’s degree from University of Lethbridge in 1987, then attended University of Toronto, earning master’s degrees in 1992, 1996, and 2000.
Kuban began working at the Clarke Institute in 1990. In 2015, Kuban began working with therapist Rob Peach.
Freund K, Kuban M (1993). Toward a testable developmental model of pedophilia: The development of erotic age preference. Child Abuse & Neglect , vol. 17, 1993, pp. 315-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(93)90051-6
Blanchard R, Barbaree HE, Bogaert AF, Dickey R, Klassen P, Kuban ME, Zucker KJ (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Arch Sex Behav. 2000 Oct;29(5):463-78. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1001943719964
Blanchard R, Klassen P, Dickey R, Kuban ME, Blak T (2001). Sensitivity and specificity of the phallometric test for pedophilia in nonadmitting sex offenders. Psychol Assess. 2001 Mar;13(1):118-26. https://goi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.1.118
Blanchard R, Christensen BK, Strong SM, Cantor JM, Kuban ME, Klassen P, Dickey R, Blak T (2002). Retrospective self-reports of childhood accidents causing unconsciousness in phallometrically diagnosed pedophiles. Arch Sex Behav. 2002 Dec;31(6):511-26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020659331965
Blanchard R, Kuban ME, Klassen P, Dickey R, Christensen BK, Cantor JM, Blak T (2003). Self-reported head injuries before and after age 13 in pedophilic and nonpedophilic men referred for clinical assessment. Arch Sex Behav. 2003 Dec;32(6):573-81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026093612434
Cantor JM, Blanchard R, Christensen BK, Dickey R, Klassen PE, Beckstead AL, Blak T, Kuban ME (2004). Intelligence, memory, and handedness in pedophilia. Neuropsychology. 2004 Jan;18(1):3-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.18.1.3
Mark Henderson (born 1974) is a British journalist and communications executive. Henderson was a science correspondent at The Times of London when he recommended the anti-transgender 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey.
Background
Henderson graduated from Oxford in 1996 with a bachelor’s degree in modern history. He worked as a science correspondent for The Times from 2000 to 2006, then as a science editor from 2006 to 2011. In 2012, Henderson became Director of Communications for the Wellcome Trust.
He has also published books:
50 Genetics Ideas You Really Need to Know (2009)
The Geek Manifesto (2012)
Bailey book review (2003)
Henderson recommends a number of hereditarian titles in the same article, including:
Matt Ridleyâs Nature via NurtureÂ
Simon Baron-Cohenâs The Essential Difference
Bill Brysonâs A Short History of Nearly Everything
Peter Atkins’ Galileoâs Finger
James Watson’s: DNA: The Secret of Life
Brenda Maddox’s Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA
Maurice Wilkins’ The Third Man of the Double Helix
Robert Mashâs How to Keep Dinosaurs
J. Michael Bailey’s The Man Who Would Be Queen
Much language in Henderson’s Bailey review below echoes Steven Pinker‘s review in The Guardian.
Whoâs got the brains in this relationship?
The Man Who Would Be Queen (Joseph Henry, ÂŁ17.95; offer ÂŁ14.36) by J. Michael Bailey, looks at the psychology and physiology of male transsexualism and homosexuality. Compassionate without attempting to be politically correct, Bailey examines the science behind sexual orientation and identity, using original and rigorous research. It will interest anyone with curiosity about the variety of human sexuality.Â
Joan Aileen Winer Linsenmeier (born October 30, 1950) is an American psychologist best known for publishing biased and irresponsible research on sex and gender minorities with her longtime Northwestern University collaborator J. Michael Bailey. Linsenmeier is credited by Bailey in The Man Who Would Be Queen as a collaborator who read the entire manuscript and offered suggestions.
Among Linsenmeier’s published collaborations with colleagues:
questioning if bisexual men exist (Rieger 2013)
rating the attractiveness of “feminine” children (Rieger 2011)
claiming “homosexual transsexuals” are especially well-suited to prostitution (Bailey 2003)
Background
Linsenmeier earned a BA in Mathematics and Psychology from Carnegie Mellon University in 1972. She earned her PhD at Northwestern in 1977 and taught there until her retirement in about 2015.
She married Northwestern neurobiologist Robert Alan Linsenmeier, who taught at Northwestern from 1983 until his retirement in 2019.
My email to Dr. Linsenmeier
17 May 2003
Joan Linsenmeier Senior Lecturer, Associate Director of Undergraduate Studies Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology Swift Hall 311, 2029 Sheridan Road    Evanston, IL 60208-2710 Phone: (847) 491-7834 Fax: (847) 491-7859 Web: http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/~jlins/ E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Linsenmeier–
My name is Andrea James. I maintain an Our Bodies, Ourselves type website for transsexual women called tsroadmap.com.
After my business partner’s boyfriend Barry Winchell was beaten to death with a baseball bat because he was dating her, I expanded my efforts from practical matters of gender transition to improving media depictions of our condition.
I am writing to you today because of your involvement in J. Michael Bailey’s The Man Who Would Be Queen. In it, Bailey states that you “read the entire manuscript and made sure my thoughts were clear.” (p. xii-xiii).
Dr. Linsenmeier, you are complicit in the publication of what many in my community believe is the most defamatory book on transsexualism written since 1979. You are responsible for allowing us to be associated with depraved murderers (p. 142) and to be described as little more than socially stunted deviants generally unable to form long-term relationships or even hold conventional jobs. (p. 188). Imagine if the following were said about women you know:
[They] work as waitresses, hairdressers, receptionists, strippers, and prostitutes, as well as in many other occupations. (p. 142)
I intend to see that you remain clearly linked to this historical document and are held accountable for this outrage during the remainder of your career. I also plan to secure your shameful place in the history of our community’s struggle to enjoy the same basic rights afforded other women. Make no mistake: you will have helped to hurt a great many women and children before we get those rights, and I can assure you your efforts will not go unnoticed.
I will be re-reading the entire manuscript as well and making a painstaking record of all the ways you and Bailey have hurt all of us by bringing out such bigotry in the name of science.Â
Though I doubt you are, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.
Andrea James
Linsenmeier’s reply
18 May 2003
[my follow-up comments indented]
Andrea,
It is my sincere hope that the publication of Mike Bailey’s book will lead to further research on what I think are some very important issues. In my view, there is much more to be learned about many of the topics he addresses.Â
Thanks for your reply, Joan. We are in complete agreement here.
I am currently teaching a course in which we are reading books written for a popular audience by highly respected psychology professors. Throughout the course, I have tried to make the point that what’s in these books is not necessarily the final word on the topics we are studying. Rather, the books are the sincere efforts of top-notch scientists to communicate what they feel is currently known about these topics.Â
I feel Baileyâs work on transsexualism is anything but sincere, and anything but top-notch. I am not exaggerating when I say you and he have brought out the worst book on transsexualism in a quarter century. I will be collecting responses and shaping my case for the next several months here:
I encourage my students to read the books with some degree of skepticism, to think about alternative explanations of findings the authors present, to think about the match between what is in the texts and what they have seen in their own lives — and about the possible reasons for any discrepancies.Â
You and Bailey didnât bother with the alternative explanations, and you did not discuss that your ideas on transsexualism are based on a questionable theory by a fringe element of academia. If you find yourself teaching Bailey, I suggest giving your students True Selves as an antidote, and the Milton Diamond piece at the top of my Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence clearinghouse, or send them to my Annotated Bailey when itâs done. Iâm sure college kids will find it an entertaining readâ itâs written to entertain and educate the high school and college aged women who read my site.
Even thought [sic] they are only first-year students, I encourage them to see science as a process, not as a fixed body of facts, and to speculate about future research projects that might answer remaining questions. This is how I anticipated that Mike Bailey’s book would be read also: as a sincere effort by a top-notch scientist to communicate what he feels is known at this point about the topics he studies and writes on — and as a stimulus to further thinking and research.Â
You have brought out what I consider to be The Bell Curve of transsexualism: bigotry cross-dressed in academic robes. I intend to show exactly how prejudicial the two of you are.
I would also like you to know that, in my role as an editorial consultant to Mike Bailey, there were certainly points where I suggested toning down some language, or presenting some ideas in a more tentative manner.Â
Then you failed miserably in making your case.
Throughout, however, my role was just to respectfully ask questions and make suggestions. The final language and content were always his.
Considering that I have found only three changes to date comparing Baileyâs manuscript to the published chapters on transsexualism, none of which are substantive, your questions and suggestions were apparently given as much credence as my own comments to him in May 2000.
If you actually did make any suggestions, Mike didnât seem to consider your opinions to have much merit. In that sense, I suppose we both failed miserably. If you feel moved to write something explaining how your opinion on transsexualism differs from Baileyâs, or a piece outlining some of the specific suggestions you made, I will be happy to give it a permanent home online, on the page dedicated to your involvement in this historical book. Let me know. I respond to all emails. Andrea James
Linsenmeier’s reply
I think exposing students to disagreements is an excellent teaching technique, so if I do ever teach a course where this book is relevant, I’ll certainly consider your suggestions. Having students puzzle through ideas that don’t seem to fit together is a good way to get them to think — and, again, to see science as a process, with lots still to be learned. In fact, having them do their own Annotated ______ (where ______ is some author I do assign) might be a great assignment to give sometime.Â
I’m not an expert on any of the topics Mike covers in his book. That was not my role in reading the manuscript and giving feedback. Partly because of my lack of expertise, one thing I can say with confidence is that I don’t know if the two types Mike presents in the chapters on transsexualism are the only types [or] not. It certainly seems conceivable to me that the answer is no and that the full story is actually more complicated.Â
Many things I learned in my psychology classes as a student in the 1960s/70s turned out to be only part of the whole story. This has certainly been true when it comes to research on sex and gender. (As an aside, I find it interesting that when I was a student at Northwestern, I took a course called something like The Psychology of Sex Differences, but now we have, instead, a course called Psychology of Gender.) After all these years of additional work in this area, we’re still learning. As you noted in your response to my earlier message, one thing you and I agree on is that there’s more to be learned about the topics that Mike Bailey has chosen to address in his book.Â
Bailey JM, Kim PY, Hills A, Linsenmeier JA (1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997 Nov;73(5):960-73.
Li NP, Bailey JM, Kenrick DT, Linsenmeier JA (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the tradeoffs. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Jun;82(6):947-55.
Skidmore WC, Linsenmeier JA, Bailey JM (2006). Gender nonconformity and psychological distress in lesbians and gay men. Arch Sex Behav. 2006 Dec;35(6):685-97. Epub 2006 Nov 16.
Rieger G, Linsenmeier JA, Gygax L, Bailey JM (2008). Sexual Orientation and Childhood Gender Nonconformity: Evidence From Home Videos. Dev Psychol. 2008 Jan;44(1):46-58. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.46.
Childhood Gender Nonconformity Remains a Robust and Neutral Correlate of Sexual Orientation: Reply to Hegarty (2009).
Sylva D, Rieger G, Linsenmeier JA, Bailey JM (2010). Concealment of sexual orientation. Arch Sex Behav. 2010 Feb;39(1):141-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9466-2. Epub 2009 Jan 24.
Rieger G, Linsenmeier JA, Gygax L, Garcia S, Bailey JM (2010). Dissecting “gaydar”: Accuracy and the role of masculinity-femininity. Arch Sex Behav. 2010 Feb;39(1):124-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9405-2. Epub 2008 Sep 23.
Valentova J, Rieger G, Havlicek J, Linsenmeier JA, Bailey JM (2011). Judgments of sexual orientation and masculinity-femininity based on thin slices of behavior: A cross-cultural comparison. Arch Sex Behav. 2011 Dec;40(6):1145-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9818-1.
Rieger G, Gygax L, Linsenmeier JA, Siler-Knogl A, Moskowitz DA, Bailey JM (2011). Sex typicality and attractiveness in childhood and adulthood: Assessing their relationships from videos. Arch Sex Behav. 2011 Feb;40(1):143-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9512-8. Epub 2009 Jul 9.
Rieger G, Rosenthal AM, Cash BM, Linsenmeier JA, Bailey JM, Savin-Williams RC (2013). Male bisexual arousal: A matter of curiosity? Biol Psychol. 2013 Dec;94(3):479-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.09.007 Epub 2013 Sep 17.
Resources
Joan Linsenmeier faculty page [archive] http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/linsenmeier/
Joan Linsenmeier faculty page [archive] http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/~jlins/
After voting to uphold the nomination on 24 February, LLF announced on 12 March 2004 that they were rescinding the nomination, an unprecedented step in the history of the awards. Marks said of the decision:
“The specific issue was whether the book was transphobic. The judges looked at the book more closely and decided it was.” (Letellier 2004)
In 2005, LLF accepted Marks’ resignation in June (Smith 2005) and closed their website in September, removing all materials about the controversy in the process (LLF 2005a). LLF eventually opened a new site at a new web address that makes no mention of the debacle (LLF 2005b).
Jim Marks GenderTalk interview, 9 February 2004
Below are excerpts from Marksâ comments during his interview with Gordene MacKenzie and Nancy Nangeroni on GenderTalk. (Nangeroni 2004a)
âThis is the first time an issue like this has come up because people generally donât nominate or suggest titles that are not sympathetic to our point of view.â
âWe are definitely an activist organization that believes in equal rights for gay people, lesbians, transgender people, so we donât get nominations from Focus on the Family kind of books.”
âWe have a nominating period in which books are nominated, mostly by publishers. We submit a whole list of titles to a finalist committee⊠They donât caucus with each other. They vote individually, and we compile the results, and thatâs how a book is selected as a finalist.â
âMost of them are bookstore owners or people who have a very broad awareness of the GLBT publishing world⊠so they do have a big overview. Theyâre almost all in the book business, which means that theyâre all overworked with much too much work and much too little time.â
âIt was pretty dramatic. We got an outpouring of emails when I came into the office on Tuesday February 3.â
Marks identified two issues that needed to be paramount: the âintegrity of the [selection] process and our mission.â
âWeâre trying to get a cross-section of the community and make sure the awards are representative of what the community in a larger sense than one person sitting at a desk here in Washington thinks⊠If the awards are going to be representative of that then what the community tells us, we have to say thatâs OK⊠We donât want to do something that going to interfere with the process and violate the process. But our mission is important to us as well.â
âWeâre going back to the whole finalist committee. I have been distributing emails as they come in, and weâre going to ask if we should keep this book on the finalist list or not⊠Iâve been distributing them to the finalist committee, asking if they should keep the book on the list or not.â
They want to take no more than two weeks from Friday, February 6 to reach a decision.
âIf the committee says âYouâre rushing us,â weâll take a little more time and let everybody talk about the issues⊠It needs to be something weâre happy with, that the process is fair and considered⊠The new members of our board of trustees are getting a close look at this⊠We are planning to give the whole process a step back and look at it and see what other ways we can do this.â
âThere is a pretty wide range [on the committee]. There are former winners and authors involved⊠One possibility is to set up some committees [for different categories] and start working much sooner.â
âThe other step in the process is that once the finalists are selected, they go to a separate set of panels. So the trans committee, there would be four people who are voting on the finalists in that category. We never say who was on one committee, but we do release the judges at the end of that process.â
Marks ended the interview by pointing out:
âItâs not just the trans community that Iâve heard from. I mean, there are more than transactivists who have said things to us and written.â
Jim Marks response of 13 February 2004
Below is the text of an “open letter” that I am publishing in the issue of Lambda Book Report that went to press today. I plan on posting this letter on our website on Monday.
Thanks to everyone for their input.
Jim
One thing about living in the Internet Age: When you hit a raw nerve, you learn about it quickly.
Late Monday, February 2, we posted the 16th annual Lambda Literary Award Finalists on our web site and sent out a press release announcing the finalists. Tuesday, February 3, when I opened my e-mail, I found my inbox stuffed with messages about one finalist. It was The Man Who Would Be Queen by Michael J. Bailey, chair of the department of psychology at Northwestern University, and published by Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academy of Sciences. The correspondents were alternately anguished and outraged by the bookâs selection as a finalist.
Caitlyn Antrim, for instance, wrote: “I believe this must have been a mishap because the content of [The Man Who Would Be Queen] represents the worst of stereotyping, outdated scientific opinion and misrepresentation. Even its appearance on your list of nominees contributes to harm of modern studies of transsexualism and femininity in boys.
“This is a book of anecdotes, not science. Its stories were obtained by stealth and misrepresentation. It engages in the worst of stereotyping of both transgender and gay and lesbian people. Prof. Bailey has admitted to falsifying, to the point of reversal of the truth, a key story of a young boy who he claimed to have been turned away from his transgender feelings by parental guidance. He has now admitted that he created that ending because it illustrated the point he wanted to make and that it Never Happened.”
Lynn Conway wrote, “I suspect that this must have been either an incredible oversight, or else by intrigue on the inside by transphobic members of Lambda.
“Whatever the case, I hereby alert you to the fact that Bailey’s book has generated perhaps the greatest crisis transsexual women have ever faced, for the book proclaims as âscienceâ that transsexual women are either (i) gay men who have sex changes so as to have many sex partners, and who are âespecially suited to prostitution,â or they are (ii) sexual paraphilics who change sex for autosexual reasons, in a severe paraphilia related to pedophilia…”
Perhaps most succinctly, Professor Deirdre McCloskey, whose book Crossing: A Memoir was a 1999 Finalist in this category, wrote: “Whoever made this decision needs to do a better job. A much better job. It would be like nominating Mein Kampf for a literary prize in Jewish studies.”
Many of these letters came with extensive documentation. McCloskey, a well-known economics professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago, sent in a lengthy critical review of The Man ⊠and two letters to the editor of another publication concerning the inaccuracies of another review of the book.
On the other hand, as we go to press we are receiving comments such as this from Bradley University Associate Professor of Psychology David P. Schmitt, Ph.D.: ” I would like to express my opinion, as a sex researcher and scientist, that Mike Bailey’s book is based on sound scholarly evidence and reasoning, and certainly deserves recognition as a solid contribution to sexual science.”
This outpouring of concern raised the question, Should the book be taken off the list of finalists? As I examined that question, I came up with four different considerations:
1) The integrity of the process. The selection of The Man⊠was made not by Lambda Literary Foundation staff but by a finalists committee made up of a bakerâs dozen of the most knowledgeable GLBT book industry professionals. It would fly in the face of that process to summarily replace their decision with the judgment of a single administrator.
2) Censorship. The Lambda Literary Foundation believes in the free expression of ideas. It is not uncommon for us to publish reviews in Book Report that the editors might disagree with, but we respect the authorâs viewpoint and the honesty of their discussion. Similarly, it seems inappropriate for us to remove a book from consideration for a Lambda Literary Award because it doesnât meet some arbitrary standard of political correctness.
3) Mission. Hereâs where it gets complicated. Our mission is furthering GLBT literacy and understanding. A book that was frankly opposed to the rights of GLBT people would be in conflict with our mission, and we would be under no obligation to highlight with a Lambda Literary Awards finalist selection a book that is contrary to our reason for existence.
4) Ethics. As many of our correspondents noted, charges have been filed against Professor Bailey with his institution, Northwestern University. One person who has a leading role in Baileyâs book, Anjelica Kieltyka, called our office and spoke with us about how the book used her as a subject without her consent. It is at the least troubling to think that an ethically challenged work could be a Lammy finalist.
Whatever the ethical concerns, the LLF is not the appropriate forum for making a judgment: This must be done by a body of Professor Baileyâs peers. Similarly, censorship is not a key consideration: Weâre not preventing a book from appearing in the marketplace of ideas if we choose not to highlight it. Therefore, out of the concerns about the process and the LLFâs mission, we will further extend the process. In choosing the finalists to begin with, the procedures we have set up call for the finalist committee members to vote for their preferred titles in each category independently of each other. In any one category, there may be many books nominated, and our procedures are designed to highlight consensus, not have the equivalent of a runoff vote from the top contenders.
As far as I know, this is the first time a Lammy finalist book has been challenged as completely inconsistent with our mission. Therefore, in this new situation we will follow the suggestion of one finalists committee member and submit the question to the whole committee for reevaluation. They will consider all the issues and evidence presented, and then vote to keep or remove the book from the list. Weâll announce the results in the March issue of Lambda Book Report, and online as soon as they arrive at their decision.
âJim Marks
Jim Marks announces LLF’s decision to uphold nomination
Below is a letter sent on 24 February 2004.
Dear all,
Below is the text that has been posted on the Lambda Literary web site concerning The Man Who Would Be Queen. I know that you may be disappointed with the results of the finalists committee deliberations. The committee was aware of the depth of feeling about this book, and wrestled seriously with the issues that have been raised. We welcome comment and dialogue on this and other issues of importance to the glbt community.
Jim
Man Who Would Be Queen to Remain on Lambda Literary Awards Finalists List
After two weeks of discussion, the Finalists Committee for the Lambda Literary Awards voted to retain The Man Who Would Be Queen as a finalist for the 2003 Transgender Award.”This was a very difficult decision, and I appreciate the seriousness and integrity with which the committee considered the issues raised by the opponents and supporters of The Man Who Would Be Queen,” said Jim Marks, Executive Director of the Lambda Literary Foundation, which organizes the annual Lambda Literary Awards (Lammys). “They have been very sensitive about the depth of feeling on this matter.”
When the 2003 Lambda Literary Award finalists were announced, the selection of The Man Who Would Be Queen touched off a firestorm of protest that the book was transphobic, poor science and that the author, J. Michael Bailey, was the subject of ethics charges at Northwestern University, where he chairs the Department of Psychology.
The book also drew equally strong expressions of support from other transgender activists and from colleagues in the field of study.
Given the range of opinions heard by the Finalists Committee, it agreed to focus on whether the content of the book was at odds with the Lambda Literary Foundationâs mission of supporting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people through cultural literacy. The viewpoint that received the majority vote was that “Bailey has not set out to intentionally do harm to gay men and transsexuals. He doesn’t get it on some fundamental levels but he genuinely thinks he does.”
With the Finalists Committee decision made, now a panel of judges will consider which of the five books in this category will be selected for the 2003 Lambda Literary Award. The five finalists in the transgender category are: She’s Not There, by Jennifer Finney Boylan (Broadway Books); The Drag King Anthology, Donna Troka, Kathleen Lebesco, Jean Noble, eds. (Harrington Park Press); The Man Who Would Be Queen, by J. Michael Bailey (Joseph Henry Press); Trans-gendered, by Justin Tanis (The Pilgrim Press); and Transgender Journeys, by Virginia Ramey Mollenkott and Vanessa Sheridan (The Pilgrim Press). The same judging process will be followed for the books in the other 19 categories.The results of the judgesâ decisions will be announced at a gala banquet to be held June 3, 2004 at the Chicago Mart Plaza Hotel.
Tickets are $125 for the dinner, $175 for the dinner and gala reception, with discounts for tickets purchased before March 31, 2004.
For more information or to order online, go to www.lambdalit.org or call 202-682-0952.
Additional information:
How was the book selected in the first place?
The finalists for the Lambda Literary Awards were nominated by their publishers and other authorized agents in the fall of 2003; the nomination period closed December 15, 2003. The finalists in each category were chosen by an ad hoc committee of LGBT book professionals. Committee members voted independently of each other and their votes were not shared with other committee members. Choices were ranked on a scale of 5 to 1 (five being the highest score) and the five books with the highest totals were selected as finalists.
Did every member of the finalist committee vote for the books selected as finalists?
No. Because of the ranking system, the fact that categories could have many entrants and that there is no runoff, it is quite possible for a book to become a Lammy finalist without all the Finalists Committee members voting for it.
What about the questions raised on the bookâs scientific merit?
In an Open Letter published in the February 2004 Lambda Book Report, Lambda Literary Foundation executive director Jim Marks discussed the ethical and censorship issues raised by the call to remove the book from the list. As the committee discussed the points being raised, and we continued receiving comments from the public, it became clear that opinion on the scientific merit of the book was divided. For instance, we received comments from two members of the editorial board of the Journal of Sex Research, one speaking on behalf of the book, the other questioning it. Given such a division of expert opinion, it was beyond the competence of a literary review panel to make a judgment on scientific merit.
— Jim Marks, Executive Director, Lambda Literary Foundation LLF Programs: Lambda Book Report, The James White Review, Lambda Literary Awards and Lambda Literary Festival Online at www.lambdalit.org 202-682-0952; 202-682-0955 fax; PO Box 73910, Washington, DC 20056-3910 shipping address: 1217 Eleventh St. NW, Suite 1, Washington, DC 20001
Lambda Literary Foundation revokes nomination
Below is an announcement that we are posting on our web site today. I would like to thank everyone for their comments and e-mails. We welcome additional comments or discussion, although our limited staff and resources preclude answering everyone personally.
Jim
March 12, 2004.
The Lambda Literary Foundation announced that “The Man Who Would Be Queen” has been removed as a 16th Annual Lambda Literary Award finalist.
The change was prompted by a request from the panel of judges that is reading all the finalists in the transgender category, which said the book was not appropriate for the category. The Foundation does not identify the judges to the public or each other until the Awards banquet, which this year will be held June 3, in Chicago, IL. Upon receiving the request, executive director Jim Marks went back to the Finalist Committee, which had selected the book originally. A majority of the committee agreed to honor the request.
Because the action was unprecedented, it provoked heated discussion within the Finalist Committee. Finalist Committee member Kris Kleindienst said, “Removing the book from the list is not censorship. The book is widely available, has been widely reviewed and is not about to be denied to the public. What we are doing is behaving in a responsible manner to make sure the list of finalists is compatible with the Foundationâs mission. Having looked at the book closely, I am sure it is not.” Several committee members echoed Kleindienstâs views.
Finalist Committee member Victoria Brownworth, along with several others, disagreed on the censorship issue. “Banning a book and censoring a book are two different things. While I hate to be the titular voice of the ACLU here, especially since I personally disagree with many aspects of Bailey’s book, if we take the book off the list we are indeed censoring it. It doesn’t matter what our reasons are.”
“This has been a difficult and humbling experience for the Foundation,” said Executive Director Jim Marks. “Weâve never before had a case in which a book, whose author and publisher both affirm their support for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual rights, has at the same time been opposed by those who say its content in fact is antithetical to those rights.”
“Throughout the controversy that has raged over the bookâs selection as a finalist, we have struggled to maintain the integrity of the process.” Marks said. “Since the impetus for the change came from the within the categoryâs judges, and was reviewed and voted on by the Finalist Committee, we feel that the decision is consistent with our process.”
The recipients of the 16th Lambda Literary Awards will be announced at a gala banquet to be held June 3, 2004 at the Chicago Mart Plaza Hotel.
Tickets are $125 for the dinner, $175 for the dinner and gala reception, with discounts for tickets purchased before March 31, 2004.
For more information or to order online, go to www.lambdalit.org or call 202-682-0952.
Jim Marks GenderTalk interview 15 March 2004
Excerpts from an interview immediately after the announcement (Nangeroni 2004b).
Jim Marks:
We have a three-tiered process: books are nominated by the publisher, then the finalists are selected from a list of books that are nominated by a Finalists Committee. Then the five finalists are sent to a panel of judges in each category
We heard from one of the judges in the transgender category asking that the book be removed. So I went back to the Finalists Committee and asked them if they would honor that request. And they agreed to do that.
We list the judges in the program– know who the other judges are. Itâs done independently, itâs not done in consultation with other judges. Itâs all individuals reading the books and making decisions based on their reading.
My understanding is that the judge objected to the content, that it just was not supportive of transgender and gay issues.
Nancy Nangeroni:
Would we be inaccurate in saying that itâs Transphobic… Did the judge agree with those of us who are saying that?
Jim Marks:
Certainly the judge did, and the finalist committee agreed to remove the book. The vote, because it was a majority vote, agreed with that.
People read the book a little more closely, I think, once it became brought to their attention. Some people who had read the book four or five months earlier, so I think it was given a closer reading. Because mostly the finalist committee is made up of booksellers and people who have a very broad knowledge of the gay and lesbian book community so that theyâre able to say, âOh these are the books that have really popped up over the course of the year, books that people are talking about, books that we know have really been significant one way or another,â but then the judges are the ones who are entrusted to read the books very closely.
This is the first time we have ever done this.
My whole focus from the beginning was to make sure that opinions were heard, but that the decision-making was not in response to anything that would be like pressure, but simply out of the basic processes that we have set up already. The response that people got from the community certainly alerted people to the issues that were at hand, and I think some people went back and looked at the book more closely because of that. We would not have re-examined this issue if the judge hadnât come back to us and said, âI just donât think this is right for a Lambda Literary Award finalist.â
There are two things: it was not a clear-cut one way or another in terms of how the finalist committee voted. It was a majority of the votes, so only a couple of people changing their opinion, their views, made a difference there.
It was only a couple of people⊠the people who voted to keep it on the list were not necessarily supportive of the book in that they agreed with the content, but they thought that this was obviously a controversial book. They thought it raised scientific and⊠They thought it raised important questions. They also thought that having gone through the process that we ought to respect the process and not change it.
There were a lot of reasons for the original decisions that were not based on âWe believe in this bookâ but because of people believing that the book had raised significant issues or that the process was one that we ought to be respecting and maintaining.
One good part of this is that we have been in touch with a number of people, and I really hope to get a⊠And I know our board, Katherine Forrest is on our board, and she is definitely talking about expanding our board and including a trans person on that.
Aftermath
In June 2005, Marks was ousted as Executive Director, a position he’d held almost continuously since 1996. On 7 June, a majority of Lambda Literary Foundation Board of Trustees voted to accept the resignation.
Trustees accepting:
Jim Duggins, retired academic who lives in Palm Springs, Calif.
Katherine V. Forrest, an author based in San Francisco
Karla Jay, an author who lives in New York
Don Wiese, a New York editor at Carroll & Graf
Trustees not accepting
Jim Marks, ousted director
Nick Apostol, Jim Marks’ domestic partner (Smith 2005)
LLF also sold their building on 16 June and suspended publication of the James White Review and the Lambda Book Report.
Founder Deacon Maccubbin noted “issues were skipped or late getting on newsstands,” which “hurt its credibility.” Trustee Katherine Forrest said “Both of the publications have been operating chronically in the red, really, since they left the umbrella of the Lambda Rising bookstore. Weâre talking about nine or 10 years that itâs just been sputtering along.â Forrest said there has been an âongoing, chronic problemâ with the Lambda Book Reportâs ability to publish in a timely manner. It was supposed to be available monthly, but often was late coming out. (Smith 2005) Marks has since claimed his resignation had nothing to do with the financial difficulties cited by LLF’s founder and trustees, nor anything to do with the mishandling of the Bailey fiasco. (Marks 2006)
Their lambdalit.org website went offline after the announcement, eventually reappearing in 2006 as a text-only site consisting of three pages. A new site at lambdaliterary.org went live at the end of 1995, announcing “Welcome to the New Lambda Literary Foundation.” Any mention of the Bailey debacle was gone from the new site.
