Satoshi Kanazawa (born 1962) is an American-born British evolutionary psychologist. He considers fellow evolutionary psychologist J. Michael Bailey “one of the greatest behavior geneticists and sex researchers in the world today.”
Logrolling with J. Michael Bailey
Kanazawa wrote a Psychology Today blog called The Scientific Fundamentalist until his dismissal in 2011 for his claim about race and attractiveness.
Kanazawa’s 2016 research on female sexuality cites several works by Bailey.
To return the favor, Bailey convinced two psychology department colleagues to co-sign Bailey’s request to host Kanazawa as a visiting scholar at Northwestern University in 2018.
When students and faculty objected, Bailey said he “didn’t invite him, in the usual sense of that word.” He claimed Kanazawa was just asking for “a desk and library access.”
Northwestern’s Psychology Department once again rallied around Bailey and his two colleagues, refusing to intervene or comment on the matter.
Kanazawa S (2016). Possible evolutionary origins of human female sexual fluidity. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2017 Aug;92(3):1251-1274. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12278. Epub 2016 May 16.
As a social psychologist (PH), a consultant counselling psychologist (PL) a social psychologist (MB) ) and a chartered counselling psychologist (LM), we are challenged and heartened by Joan Roughgarden’s call for psychologists to condemn transphobic and otherwise bigoted research. Like Roughgarden we were troubled upon reading Bailey’s book for its explicit transphobic assumptions that trans adults are a negative outcome of development and for the heterosexism, sexism and racism which Roughgarden describes so well. Trans men, gay and bisexual women are notable by their invisibility in the text. The use of the authors friends’ opinion of bisexuality as “gay, straight or lying” in the book itself, and now it seems in advertisements is not perceived as amusing or trivial in our opinion in view of the slow progress there has been in developing a bisexual psychology, and the real effects of biphobia in blighting people’s lives. There is very little recognition in mainstream psychology generally which is further perpetuated by this book, that someone could be attracted to both sexes or have relationships with both, with many theorists favouring the general binary construction of sexuality which does not allow for an ‘in between’ position; people are either gay or straight (Ochs, 1996). Generally, many bisexuals are seen as straight if in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, and gay if in a relationship with someone of the same sex and that experience of having an imposed social identity which conflicts with a personal identity, and the confusion it engenders can have commonalities with trans experience. In respect to the “Gaydar” and discussion of sexual orientation and related behaviour described in the book, a whole literature of gay and lesbian psychology which has been painstakingly developed and promoted within mainstream psychology, appears to have been excluded.
We are particularly concerned that Bailey’s work will be seen as representative of scientific psychological research, both by the trans community and by other sections of the public. Bailey relies on a sample size of six – which would not be sufficient for any experimental or survey research to be published in a peer reviewed psychology journal. (Indeed, the standard statistical assumptions upon which quantitative psychological research rests – such as the central limit theorem – cannot apply to samples of this size). In this regard Bailey’s work is an outlier rather than the norm for quantitative psychology.
Sometimes psychologists do conduct research with small sample sizes, and rely on qualitative data rather than quantitative data. Such research can be particularly useful when conducted among under-represented and difficult-to-access populations as it can inform psychologists about a group that it might be difficult to study statistically. Does Bailey’s research then fit the model for acceptable qualitative psychology? This is questionable. A hallmark of good qualitative research is reflexivity – an awareness and description of the way that qualitative data is shaped by the researcher’s own position. Qualitative researchers also frequently understand their participants as directing the research and informing its questions. The participants in this research have provided the case material but cannot be said to be participants in the sense that is currently considered good practice in psychological research. There is insufficient discussion of the limitations of his interviews and too many conclusions are drawn about the essence of transsexual psychology from casual talk in bars, occasional anecdotes and the opinions of the author’s friends. The persistent critiques from the trans community (including Bailey’s own participants) support our criticism of this not being collaborative qualitative research.In spite of the differences between them, and the debates between quantitative and qualitative methods in particular, all social scientific methodologies are designed to ensure that we do not inflate our own opinions into evidence. In quantitative research this is done by using methods that limit the effects of the researchers’ own perspective on the data. In qualitative research, it is done by making those effects part of the data itself. This is not in evidence in the research reported in “The Man Who Would Be Queen”.
As a result the danger that Bailey’s expressed anti-trans opinions might be confused with scientific evidence is particularly high in this case. Indeed, Bailey repeatedly uses a non-scientific form of argument, the ‘ad hominum’, to lend scientific credence to his point of view. He often cites his own status within scientific communities (and those of colleagues) but it is important to note that status within one’s own field, (or elsewhere), should count for nothing in academic debates. For these reasons, the consistent criticism of Bailey’s work from trans scholars, scientists from other disciplines and activists such as Joan Roughgarden, Jed Bland and Lynn Conway is particularly welcome to us as psychologists who are concerned with standards of ethical and scholarly conduct within our field. Roughgarden is right that there is a history of transphobic research in psychology. In fact we are surprised that she describes Bailey’s research as ‘surprising’ as he has been involved in research on childhood ‘gender non-conformity’ for some time (e.g., Bailey & Zucker, 1996). Most of the psychological research on transsexuality and transgender falls into the abnormal clinical literature, as did most research on homosexuality up until the 1970s. Indeed, in contrast to the well-developed fields of research on heterosexism (and also sexism, ageism, and racism) there are few studies of transphobia in psychology journals, and no standardized attitude measure has been published. Clearly there is a wide open field of trans psychology, premised on the assumption that trans people are people rather than clinical cases, which is crying out to be developed. However, it would be wrong to assume that the methods of psychology are so completely flawed that they render Bailey’s research as paradigmatic.
As psychologists with a special interest in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender psychology and civil rights, we accept the need to change the way psychology has constructed all of these populations and to draw from recent works within the field of psychology to expand our everyday reality about our social worlds. However, we also recognise the need to become more interdisciplinary and even multidisciplinary if we really do want to move lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (and dare we say ‘queer’) studies into the 21st Century. There are growing numbers of critical psychologists challenging traditional psychological theories and shifting paradigms. This is particularly evident in the Lesbian and Gay Psychology Section of the British Psychological Society which promotes and develops lesbian, gay and bisexual psychological research and practice not framed from within a heterosexist framework, as well as including a significant number of psychologists with a special interest in developing a transgender psychology which does not pathologise trans people . This will inevitably take time and patience – despite the need for those impatient enough to want change, to come forward and become more visible.
Suggestions for future considerations for transgender psychology research both for participants to raise prior to being involved in research and for psychologists to address when designing and seeking ethical approval for such research:
1. The employment of standard ethical and scientific procedures.
2. Wide consultation with trans people and trans activists about hypotheses, research questions, etc, and a commitment to applying current good practice more commonplace now in regard to user involvement in more mainstream fields of research to trans research, particularly when the principal researchers come from outside the trans community
3. Not to use trans people as ‘natural experiments’ to test hypotheses about ‘gender’ , ‘sexual orientation’ etc. in static categorical terms.
4. Inclusion of qualitative and quantitative data.
5. Development of prejudice research.
6. Recognition that there is an interface with other minority areas (e.g., psychology of women, lesbian, gay and bisexual psychology) but not a tokenistic addition of trans issues to these areas without substantial engagement.
7. Sensitivity to the ways that research on prejudiced groups will be received and to reflect that awareness in how the research is disseminated.
National Convener Mr Gordon Walker Department of Psychology, Monash University PO Box 197, Caulfied East, VIC, 3145 Tel: (03) 9903 2728 Fax: (03) 9903 2501 Email: [email protected]
GLIP News Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology An Interest Group of the Australian Psychological Society Ltd. Volume 2, Issue 2 August 2003 page 5
by Gordon Walker, Convener
Book review: Bailey, J.M. (2003). The man who would be queen: The science of gender-bending and transsexualism. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
This is a book, written by a leading researcher in the field, is about understanding sexual orientation and identity. Although the author makes much use of research, this is not a textbook; any educated person with an interest in this topic would find the material very accessible. The stories of various boys and men are woven together with the discussion of research to create a highly interesting and very worthwhile book. In fact once I started I had difficulty putting down! Broadly speaking it is an examination of the relationship between male homosexuality and femininity. As the author says, to say that femininity and homosexuality are closely bound together has been politically incorrect for some time now, but nevertheless factually correct. The book then goes on to demonstrate this across the sexual orientation spectrum.
The book is therefore a challenge to the postmodern position on gender, although the author clearly occupies the middle ground between social constructionism and essentialism. This is demonstrated in his discussion of feminine boys and of those labeled gender identity disordered (GID) in particular. In looking at the debate between those on the left who want them left alone to be as feminine as they want to be and those on the extreme right who view homosexuality as arrested psychosexual development, he draws the reader’s attention to research that shows that therapy directed at reducing femininity in highly feminine boys reduces the number who ultimately seek a sex-change, and therefore increases the number who as adults identify as gay. He suggests that an alternative to this would be to allow such boys to become women very early (pre-puberty) so that they can have better outcomes as women.
The author uses a range of research to clearly challenge the view that pronounced femininity in boys is the result of socialisation. The question of where does extreme femininity come from is also examined
Similarities and differences between gay and straight men are also examined. Broadly speaking, although gay men have interests more in line with those of women, in attitudes to sex and the body homosexual and heterosexual men were shown to be essentially the same; the differences in behaviour come about because heterosexually men are basically constrained in their behaviour by women. The author provides a very accessible and readable account of the sometimes confusing array of studies that have attempted to account for sexual orientation and draws the conclusion that there is some fundamental biological influence that transcends culture. The last section of the book focuses on transsexualism, and produces a compelling argument for recognising two main types: homosexual and non-homosexual types, with the latter being erotically obsessed with the image of themselves as women. A very much more complex picture emerges than the popular image of a woman being trapped inside a man’s body.
The great value of this book lies in the way it has brought together a wide range of research on important questions relating to sexual orientation. This gives the reader a wonderful opportunity to reflect further on what being other than heterosexual might mean.
Gordon Walker Department of Psychology School of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine Monash University
Letter to Dr. Walker from WOMAN Network
“We write to express our concern that the Special Interest Group on Gay and Lesbian Issues of the Australian Psychological Society has been implicated in support for the writings of Prof J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University.
In this respect, we draw your attention to the following quote from GLIP News, August 2003:
“…any educated person with an interest in this topic would find the material very accessible. The stories of various boys and men are woven together with the discussion of research to create a highly interesting and very worthwhile book. In fact once I started I had difficulty putting down! … The author provides a very accessible and readable account of the sometimes confusing array of studies that have attempted to account for sexual orientation and draws the conclusion that there is some fundamental biological influence that transcends culture. … The great value of this book lies in the way it has brought together a wide range of research on important questions relating to sexual orientation. This gives the reader a wonderful opportunity to reflect further on what being other than heterosexual might mean.”
The book referred to is “The Man Who Would Be Queen” which was published under the imprimateur of the National Academies of Sciences. It has brought huge condemnation for its inaccurate and highly offensive portrayal of transsexualism and the people who are affected by it. This has culminated recently in legal action against the author, who is accused of failing to obtain the necessary informed consents of the subjects of his material. Importantly, the scientific veracity of the work has now been shattered in a most public way at the recent IASR Conference in the United States.
Bailey seized on earlier work by Ken Zucker of the somewhat infamous Clarke Institute, and categorised us as either excessively homosexual males or autogynaephilic males. He deliberately excluded the anecdotal evidence of those, the vast majority, who did not fit with his theory and ignored completely the prevailing hard science pointing to the somatic nature of transsexualism. The fall out from this scientific fraud is gaining momentum and it would be very unfortunate if Monash University were to be included in this.
You can gauge the international responses to the issue by visiting these websites:
One matter of very real concern is the way in which the religious right has already seized on Bailey’s writings to further justify their rejection of transsexualism as a valid condition of human sexual formation and their condemnation of those affected by it. These same condemnations will undoubtedly be directed at gay and lesbian people to the detriment of us all.
We therefore ask you to consider repudiating Bailey’s work and ensure your next newsletter contains a suitable disclaimer.”
It is reported that Dr. Walker is making inquiries about the matter and will respond after he’s had time to review the matter.
The CAMH Gender Identity Clinic is delighted to announce that our clinic received a Presidential Citation from Division 44 of the American Psychological Association (the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues) at a ceremony on August 9, 2003.
The text of the Citation reads as follows:
The Gender Identity Clinic has established itself as the premier research center on gender dysphoria research and clinical care since 1968, and is celebrating its 35th year.”
APA DIV 44 also allowed James Cantor to write a glowing review of The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey. Joseph Henry Press was later forced to attribute the review to Cantor by name, rather than their earlier attempts to imply that the review was the consensus of APA DIV 44.
James Neal Butcher (born November 20, 1933) is an American psychologist who has published pathologizing materials about sex and gender minorities. His college textbook Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life was influenced by the toxic ideology of Ray Blanchard, who promotes disease models of gender identity and expression.
Background
Butcher was born in Bergoo, West Virginia. His father was killed in a coal mining accident when Butcher was 8. His mother and five children moved to Charleston, where she died when Butcher was 11. Butcher then took a job selling newspapers, and he and three minor siblings raised themselves without an adult in the home.
In 1950, Butcher enlisted in the Army, serving in Korea. After his discharge, he earned a BA in psychology from Guilford College in 1960. In 1964 he earned a PhD in clinical psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He then served as a professor of psychology and as Director of the Clinical Psychology Program at the University of Minnesota, where he was appointed Professor Emeritus after 40 years. He is best known for his work on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and has published fifty-eight books and more than two hundred fifty articles in personality assessment, abnormal psychology, and crisis-intervention.
Lalumiere has joined the International Academy of Sex Research and the editorial board at the journal controlled by Clarke Institute personnel, The Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Martin Lalumiere, B.Sc., M.Ps., Ph.D. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Unit 3 Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1H4 Tel: (416) 535-8501, 2669 Fax: (416) 583-4327 Email to:[email protected]
Dr. Lalumière obtained his B.Sc. (1989) and his M.Ps. (1990) from the Université de Montréal (1990), and his Ph.D.(1995) from Queen’s University at Kingston (where he received the Governor General’s Academic Gold Medal). He is currently a Research Psychologist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Law and Mental Health Program. Previously, he was a Research Psychologist at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, Research Department (1996-1997), and a Research Fellow in Psychology and Psychiatry at Queen’s University (1994-1996). Most of his time is spent conducting research on the causes of sexual aggression, sexual preferences, and psychopathy.
Recent Publications
Lalumière, M. L., Blanchard, R., & Zucker, K. J. (2000). Sexual orientation and handedness in men and women: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 575-592. Lalumière, M.L., Chalmers, L., Quinsey, V.L., & Seto, M.C. (1996) A test of the mate deprivation hypothesis of sexual coercion. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 299-318. Lalumière, M.L., Harris, G.T., Quinsey, V.L., & Rice, M.E. (1998) Sexual deviance and number of older brothers among sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse, 10, 5-15. Lalumière, M. L., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2001). Psychopathy and developmental instability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 75-92. Lalumière, M.L., & Quinsey, V.L. (1994). The discriminability of rapists from non-sex offenders using phallometric measures: A meta-anaylsis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 150-175. Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1999). A Darwinian interpretation of individual differences in male propensity for sexual aggression. Jurimetrics, 39, 201-216. Quinsey, V. L., & Lalumière, M. L. (2001). Assessment of sex offenders against children (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., & Blanchard, R. (2000). The discriminative validity of a phallometric test for pedophilic interests among adolescent offenders against children. Psychological Assessment, 12, 319-327. Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., & Kuban, M. (1999). The sexual preferences of incest offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 267-272.
Lisa Diamond is an associate professor of psychology and gender identity at the University of Utah. She was quoted by the Washington Blade on 8 July 2005 praising a study by Gerulf Rieger which claimed male bisexuality does not exist.
“Research on sexual orientation has been based almost entirely on self-reports, and this is one of the few good studies using physiological measures.”
Rieger is a Ph.D. candidate in clinical psychology at Northwestern University. He is being groomed by his mentor J. Michael Bailey to engage in “science by press conference,” a way of getting publicity and attention through carefully timed media manipulation.
Dr. Diamond was not involved in the study, which involved the use of plethysmograph quackery.
Benedict Carey. Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited. New York Times, July 5, 2005.
Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science
J. MICHAEL BAILEY (NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY), PAUL L. VASEY (UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE), LISA M. DIAMOND (UNIVERSITY OF UTAH), S. MARC BREEDLOVE (MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY), ERIC VILAIN (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES), AND MARC EPPRECHT (QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY)
Psychological Science in the Public Interest (Volume 17, Number 2)
Michelle DiMeo works with Pam Harcourt, who is also on the committee.
Michelle DiMeo and Pam Harcourt
Women and Children First 5233 N. Clark St. Chicago, IL 60640 773.769.9299 Fax: 773.769.6729 [email protected] http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.com
On 24 February 2004, the selection committee including Sara Look voted to retain the nomination of this book over the objections of transexual people and other concerned parties around the world.
In March 2004, the committee reconsidered and withdrew this nomination.
I will publish any comments or responses from Sara Look regarding this matter as I receive them.
Joseph Henry Press (1992–2008) was a trade publishing arm for the National Academies Press. In 2003 the six people below were responsible for fact-checking, publishing, promoting, and defending J. Michael Bailey’s 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen, one of the most transphobic books ever written.
Reviews excerpted for publicity (click authors for more details)
Praise
After I started systematically tracking down the reviews listed in the original Praise (PDF) document, the marketing team started adding others to the book’s webpage as they became available. Most of the praise was written by Bailey’s colleagues. Some wrote more than one review. I tracked down all the authors where possible, listed here as:
This sheds some light on the academic culture that encouraged the JHP to publish Bailey’s book. Her thesis is basically that as the academic community adopts business values, it starts to judge scholarship by how well it sells rather than how well it answers questions. I think the following quote pretty much exactly describes how TMWWBQ got published:
“It used to be an important role of the academic presses to publish significant books too specialized to be economic. Increasingly, however, as subsidies from their universities have shrunk, university presses seek to publish books they believe will make money. This too is discouraging, to put it mildly, to the investment of effort in difficult problems. Better, from the point of view of making oneself heard, to write the kind of book that might interest a trade publisher, or at least the kind of book that will get reviewed in the non-academic press. And this too, inevitably, favors the simple, startling idea, even, or perhaps especially, the startlingly false or impressively obscure idea. . . .”
Publisher description
2002 pre-publication version
A frank and fascinating look at what science has to tell us about sex and gender identity written by a leading authority on this very complicated subject. Equally important, the book explores some deeply personal and often strikingly poignant stories of femininity, masculinity, and gender confusion.
2003 to present version
Gay. Straight. Or lying. It’s as simple and straightforward as black or white, right? Or is there a gray area, where the definitions of sex and gender become blurred or entirely refocused with the deft and practiced use of a surgeon’s knife? For some, the concept of gender – the very idea we have of ourselves as either male or female beings – is neither simple nor straightforward.
Written by cutting-edge researcher and sex expert J. Michael Bailey, The Man Who Would Be Queen is a frankly controversial, intensely poignant, and boldly forthright book about sex and gender. Based on his original research, Bailey’s book is grounded firmly in science. But as he demonstrates, science doesn’t always deliver predictable or even comfortable answers. Indeed, much of what he has to say will be sure to generate as many questions as it does answers.
Are gay men genuinely more feminine than other men? And do they really prefer to be hairdressers rather than lumberjacks? Are all male transsexuals women trapped in men’s bodies – or are some of them men who are just plain turned on by the idea of becoming a woman? And how much of a role do biology and genetics play in sexual orientation?
But while Bailey’s science is provocative, it is the portraits of the boys and men who struggle with these questions – and often with anger, fear, and hurt feelings – that will move you. You will meet Danny, an eight-year old boy whose favorite game is playing house and who yearns to dress up as a princess for Halloween. And Martin, an expert makeup artist who was plagued by inner turmoil as a youth but is now openly homosexual and has had many men as sex partners. And Kim, a strikingly sexy transsexual who still has a penis and works as a dancer and a call girl for men who like she-males while she awaits sex reassignment surgery.
These and other stories make it clear that there are men – and men who become women – who want only to understand themselves and the society that makes them feel like outsiders. That there are parents, friends, and families that seek answers to confusing and complicated questions. And that there are researchers who hope one day to grasp the very nature of human sexuality. As the striking cover image – a distinctly muscular and obviously male pair of legs posed in a pair of low-heeled pumps – makes clear, the concept of gender, the very idea we have of ourselves as either male or female beings, is neither simple nor straightforward for some.
Toby Roger Meltzer (born September 19, 1957) is an American plastic and reconstructive surgeon.
Background
Meltzer earned his medical degree from Louisiana State University School of Medicine. He completed his plastic surgery residency at the University of Michigan. He was appointed clinical professor of plastic surgery at Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU).
In 1993 he began performing vaginoplasty, and he became widely known in the community. In 1996, he opened his own private practice in Portland, Oregon. In 2003, Meltzer was forced to relocate to Scottsdale, Arizona after a conservative physicians consortium, Symphony Healthcare, purchased Eastmoreland Hospital. Symphony Healthcare filed for bankruptcy soon after, and the entire hospital was torn down.
In 2016, The Meltzer Clinic added surgeon Ellie Zara Ley to their roster of providers. Ley left to start her own practice, after which Nick Esmonde joined the clinic.
