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
Note: In 2025, this site phased out AI illustrations after artist feedback. The previous illustration is here.
David Buss is an American evolutionary psychologist whose life’s work is dedicated to maintaining and reinforcing a sex binary.
Buss is a frequent supporter of anti-trans psychologist J. Michael Bailey. Of all the people in the investigation to date, Buss has the most overlapping interests and experiences with Bailey:
Buss earned a doctorate in the notoriously anti-trans psychology department at University of California, Berkeley in 1981.
Buss was married to Cynthia Louise “Cindy” Refhues (1958-2012) in 1981.
The Man Who Would Be Queen
He was cited in promotional materials for Bailey’s book.
âBailey is one of a rare breed of writers who manages to combine first-rate science with deep
psychological understanding, resulting in great breadth of vision. He takes us on an unforgettable
journey into the minds and lives of feminine men. Bailey skillfully interweaves vivid case studies
with cutting-edge scientific findings, placing both in a deep historical context from the sexual
playground of ancient Greece to the dilemmas of gender in the modern world. Refreshingly
candid, remarkably free of ideology, this book is destined to become a modern classic in the field.
But readers should be prepared to have some cherished assumptions about human nature
shattered.â
â David M. Buss, author of The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating and Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind
Sexuality and Its Disorders
College textbooks on psychology and human sexuality are consistently among the most transphobic knowledge produced in academia. A 2017 textbook by Mike Abrams lays out Buss’s views.
Teachings
A reader reports:
“Every Spring semester since 2016, Dr. Buss has co-taught PSY 306: Introduction to Human Sexuality, a seminar class, with Dr. Cindy Meston. The class is taught in a live-streaming, online format. There’s a little studio on-campus. The professors show up 15 minutes before class time, then sit in the studio to give their lecture in front of some cameras and a small live studio audience of 20 of their students. That lecture gets broadcast live to a much larger number of students – typically between 250 – 700 students each semester. So, 1000s of students have seen this class. Each semester, there is a lecture on Gender Dysphoria. I’ve attached a .txt file of the transcript. Here’s a particularly concerning section from that class (as spoken by Dr. Meston):
I think what’s happening is that people are more aware of the disorder. Absolutely, people like Jazz Jennings. This is the little girl that was on the 20/20 video you watched. She is now a huge voice for the transgendered community. She’s set up a foundation. She’s done a lot of good will for the transgender community. She has put out many videos giving advice and education. She’s had a reality show.
There was actually the first transgendered doll launched a few years ago in her image. So people like this, people like, and a few years ago, the very first transgendered Playmate appeared.
So what’s happening is there’s a lot more talk about transgender, a lot of famous people have come forward to talk about their struggle with gender dysphoria, and so this has been, has had a remarkable good impact, I believe, in the sense that, when it’s so much more visible and so much more talked about, people become educated.
They learn about the disorder, and when you learn about a disorder then you’re less afraid of it. And not always, sadly, but a lot of the time, people become more accepting, and you know, we see now, compared to even a decade ago, that there are policy changes made with regard to transgendered individuals in, for example, washrooms.
So that’s something that never would have occurred even, you know, a decade ago. So this awareness has clearly made many people more comfortable in coming forward and talking about their problem, and seeking help, which is a good thing.
Now, I want to mention, just on the other hand, why sometimes social media may not be in one’s best interest. So what is happening is that, among young people, teenagers, early 20s, there’s this rise in the prevalence rates of gender dysphoric individuals. That’s really unusual and it doesn’t seem to fit the pattern of what we know clinically, and have known for many, many years about individuals who have gender dysphoria.
So, for example, adults, who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they almost always have been either diagnosed as having childhood gender identity dysphoria, or gender dysphoria I should say, and if not diagnosed as a child, they showed signs as a child. Their tales are that they have struggled with this most of their lives, or there has been some pattern very early on that there were signs of gender dysphoria. This group that has emerged in young people presents a very different picture.
They present, often, as suddenly realizing they’re gender dysphoric, and so some researchers are concerned by this, and clinicians, and have talked about this disorder, which has been given the name rapid-onset gender dysphoria. And rapid-onset gender dysphoria is exactly as it sounds, the development of gender dysphoria begins suddenly, during or after puberty, in adolescents or a young adult, who would not have met the criteria in childhood.
So this is not a typical etiology because, as I just described, the typical etiology is that they would’ve met the criteria in childhood. And so this has led to a debate or a discussion in the research and clinical community as to the possible role of social media and online content in possibly leading a group of young adults to self-diagnosing themselves incorrectly as having gender dysphoria.
Now, we know that, oftentimes, depression, or anxiety, or autism, individuals along the autism spectrum, some of you may have heard the term, Asperger’s. This term is no longer used in the DSM, it’s now just considered part of the autism spectrum, but it refers to individuals who struggle somewhat with social aspects of their lives.
And sometimes, what may be happening is individuals who are experiencing some type of mental disorder, they google on the internet, or they do some research online to figure out what’s wrong with them, and there’s so much information out there now on transgendered individuals, that they may be incorrectly identifying as a transgendered individual as opposed to some other underlying mental disorder.
The legal uncertainties reflect widespread puzzlement about the basic science. What is transsexualism’s connection to homosexuality? Does it signify mental illness? The American Psychiatric Association long ago (1973) eliminated homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, but its fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) still lists “gender identity disorder,” also mystifying to many people. Why does it cause thousands of Americans to powerfully desire membership in the opposite sex, leading some subset of this population to undergo transformative genital surgery?
A good recently published guide to all these questions is The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, by J. Michael Bailey, 46, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University who teaches an undergraduate course in human sexuality. The book is mostly about effeminate boys and men and how they got that way, but its concluding chapters zero in on the world of transsexuals–not all of whom were effeminate. The book has ignited a firestorm of protest from some transsexuals.
This despite the fact that Bailey, himself a standard-model male heterosexual, is warmly sympathetic to gays and transsexuals and argues persuasively that for the great majority of individuals taking the male-to-female route, the decision is rational.
The size of the transsexual population is itself a matter of controversy, and their propagandists endlessly seek to inflate the numbers. DSM-IV estimates that 1 in 30,000 males (and 1 in 100,000 females) opts for the surgery. Bailey’s estimate is 1 in 12,000 males, implying 8,000 gender-crossers now living in the country.
Transsexual Lynn Conway–who has been a computer scientist at IBM and is a professor emeritus at the University of Michigan–is now an activist for the cause. She says the figure is 30,000 to 40,000.
But the transsexuals’ attack on the Bailey book is not based on his population estimates. The main point of the protests is Bailey’s explanation of the roots of gender-crossing. Relying heavily on the work of Ray Blanchard, who heads the clinical sexology program at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, Bailey tells us that there are two different, quite distinct types of male-to-female transsexuals.
First is the “classic” homosexual type: the effeminate boy who, from early childhood, is profoundly convinced that he was meant to be a woman. A likely but still unproven interpretation of this feeling is that it traces back to an inadequate dose of male hormones six or seven weeks after conception. The result could be a young man sexually attracted to other men and gravitating toward a transsexual solution.
The second type bears the label “autogynephilia,” a clunky term invented by Blanchard, who coined it to describe that sizable fraction (perhaps half) of male-to-female transsexuals that he found to have a different version of gender identity disorder. They are erotically stimulated not by other men, and not primarily by women, but by the image of themselves as women. Except for their cross-dressing propensities, these transsexuals tend to lead rather ordinary heterosexual lives.
I spoke recently with an eminent transsexual who Bailey believes to be autogynephilic. Deirdre McCloskey, 61, is distinguished professor of the liberal arts and sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is a quantitatively oriented Chicago-school economist, a huge fan of Milton Friedman, and a dazzling writer, who is also a professor in the university’s English and history departments. Until she underwent the sex change in the mid-1990s, her name was Donald McCloskey, and she was a cross-dresser with a wife and two grown kids.
It is Bailey’s impression that the first type–the homosexual gender-crossers–are relatively indifferent to his book and that the protest emanates mainly from the autogynephiles. It is possible to understand their rage. The Blanchard diagnosis is hard to live with: Cross-dressing strikes most Americans as ridiculous, and its specified erotic role only makes matters worse. McCloskey, for one, is furious about the book and told the Northwestern newspaper: “He’s saying âLook, they’re driven by sex, sex, sex. They’re men, men, men.'”
The Bailey book sheds some much-needed light on the topic of transsexualism. But it is not destined to end the debate, or the lawsuits. Expect this difficult topic to keep judges and equal-opportunity commissions busy for a long while to come.
References
Seligman, Dan (October 13, 2003). Transsexuals And the Law. Forbes http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/068.html
Drew Pinsky is an American physician who has covered issues related to trans and gender diverse people.
Background
David Drew Pinsky was born on September 4, 1958 in Pasadena, California to physician Morton Pinsky (1926â2009) and entertainer Helene Stanton (1925â2017).
After graduating from Polytechnic School in 1976, Pinsky earned a bachelor’s degree from Amherst College in 1980 and a medical degree from University of Southern California in 1984.
Pinsky had a longstanding goal of covering medical issues in the media. After about a decade of radio appearances, Pinsky’s radio show Loveline was syndicated in 1995. MTV premiered a television version in 1996, hosted by Pinsky and Adam Carolla. From 2007-2008 Pinsky hosted Dr. Drew Live. From 2015 to 2019, Pinsky co-hosted Dr. Drew Midday Live. Loveline continued until 2016.
Pinsky hosted several other TV programs, including Strictly Sex with Dr. Drew, Strictly Dr. Drew, Sex…with Mom and Dad, Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew, Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew, Dr. Drew On Call . Pinsky has made many cameos and is often sought for comment on medical issues, especially drug and alcohol use.
Pinsky and spouse Susan Sailer married on July 21, 1991 and had triplets Douglas, Jordan, and Paulina in 1992. Pinsky has had treatments for prostate cancer. Pinksy has espoused libertarian and sometimes conservative views.
Transgender coverage
Pinsky hosted the program “Transgender in America” on August 26-27 2015 on HLN. The show included Ian Harvie, Marci Bowers, Bamby Salcedo, and DâLo.
In 2015, Pinsky invited anti-trans extremist Ben Shapiro and trans journalist Zoey Tur on an episode of Dr. Drew on Call to discuss an award won by Caitlyn Jenner. After Shapiro insulted trans people in general and Tur in particular, Tur told Shapiro “You should cut that out now, or you’ll go home in an ambulance.” Shapiro, visibly shaken, later threatened to file police reports and lawsuits, but nothing came of any of it. Pinsky later apologized to Shapiro.
Ennis, Dawn (August 26, 2015). Can Dr. Drew Capture the Trans Experience?The Advocate https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2015/08/26/can-dr-drew-capture-trans-experience
Robinson, Judah (August 26, 2015). Dr. Drew Says Special On Transgender Issues Was Inspired By Caitlyn Jenner. HuffPost https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dr-drew-special-transgender-caitlyn-jenner_n_55ddb666e4b04ae49705143e
Caitlyn Lance Antrim was born on August 30, 1949 at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. Antrim’s parents were Admiral Richard Nott Antrim and Mary Jean (Packard) Antrim.
She earned her SBME from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and was commissioned in the U.S. Navy in 1971. On returning to civilian life, she returned to MIT to earn the professional degree of Environmental Engineer in 1977, specializing in ocean mineral development, international law and public policy.
A noted expert on the Law of the Sea, she was Executive Director of the Rule of Law Committee for the Ocean. She died on July 28, 2018 while attending the International Seabed Authority Conference in Kingston, Jamaica.
In the course of some work on the internet I came across your post to âCurrents of Justiceâ in Atlanta. You were promoting the idea of having Professor Michael Bailey appear on the show to promote his recent book.
I believe in social justice. I have worked to promote justice at the national and international levels in the US government, for NGOs and at the United Nations â I have even worked at the National Academy of Sciences. Because of this connection, particularly my involvement with the Academies and friendships with many of the staff, I feel competent to write to you on this subject.
Years ago a feminist author published a book called âThe Transsexual Empire.â This book, which put forth the idea that men were trying to take over the womenâs movement by becoming ersatz women and supplanting ârealâ women, was a hurtful, biased book. In spite of its lack of substantive research or analysis, it continued to arise year after year, denying that transsexuals could ever be real women, causing hurt to many and relegating them to a lesser role, or denying them a role at all, in the womenâs movement. I hope that you will understand that the lesson of âThe Transsexual Empireâ has been that such publications, based on bias and pre-conceived opinions, cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. If you wish to understand the current relevance of this lesson, you may search the internet where you will find that Baileyâs book receives strong support in very conservative web sites where it is used to degrade both gays and transsexuals.
Professor Bailey has proven to be intolerant of disagreement with his book, his ideas and his methods. He has declared that the many people who have transitioned across genders who claim they do not fit into his two categories are lying about their experience. I am insulted by his arrogance, and I am disappointed by the glowing recommendations that the Academy Press has provided, particularly now that Professor Bailey has stated that he did not base his book on original research and that he even fabricated the ending of at least one story to support his personal position.
Most hurtful of all â I find that when I attend meetings in the Academy building and stop in the first floor bookstore, I am met by the cover of âThe Man Who Would Be Queenâ. At that moment, as I stand in the doorway, I feel that it is the Academy itself that is insulting me by promoting this book that not only presents a view of transsexuals that does not apply to me, but denies that I have the self-understanding or the right to exclude myself from its categorization. It is only when I remember my friends and colleagues throughout the Academy who have supported me in my own transition that I regain my balance.
Ms. Pinnel, if you truly value social justice, I hope you will consider the injustice that Michael Baileyâs presentation does to the many, many transsexuals he never considered in all his study, indeed, that he refused to consider â those of us who work throughout society, who teach at universities, who lead major businesses, who practice compassionate medicine, who work to improve the lot of the oppressed, and who work at the Academy, participate in its committees and are even elected to its membership. We are the people who Michael Bailey never considered; we are those he refused to meet even before the Joseph Henry Press ever heard of his book. We simply seek our deserved recognition as women (and as men for those who transitioned from female to male). Justice cries out for us to be heard! Are you listening? Are you willing to?
In closing, I ask you to try to consider what it would be like for a prominent institution, one that you respect most highly, to publish a book that denied to you recognition of something of great personal importance â your religion, perhaps, or your ethnic heritage â how would you feel? How would you feel toward the people who, perhaps in ignorance, promoted that book and further denied you the understanding that you deserved?
On that question, I will close and ask you to ponder your response. If you would like more understanding, I would welcome your questions and would even be willing to discuss the matter with you and your colleagues to develop ways to redeem the injustice.
Mary Kate Fain is an American publisher and anti-transgender extremist. Fain created gender critical projects Spinster and 4W and is co-host of Identity Crisis with Plebity cofounder Sasha White. Fain also jelped with the initial launch of Ovarit after r/gendercritical was banned from reddit.
Background
Mary Kate Fain was born in October 1992, one of six children born to Karen Marie Fain (1965â2015) and Michael L. Ozlek (born 1954).
Fain graduated from Phoenixville Area High School and earned a bachelor’s degree from Ithaca College in 2013. From 2016 to 2018, Fain founded and ran animal rights organization Liberation Philadelphia.
Fain’s concerns center around maintaining sex segregation in remaining institutions and in creating platforms that allow participants to express anti-trans opinions.
