Kenneth Zucker is an American-Canadian psychologist and anti-transgender extremist.
Zucker’s ideology has caused profound harm to sex and gender minorities over a long career. Zucker has created several disease models to describe these minorities and has promoted many more sex and gender “disorders” as editor of The Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Zucker developed a non-affirming model of care for gender diverse youth that has been described as “child abuse.” Zucker was fired by employer CAMH in 2015. Zucker’s clinic was shut down, and non-affirming models of care have been outlawed in many jurisdictions.
After I was defamed in Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2007, I personally began working in earnest to get Zucker fired. Below is the last major exposé I wrote prior to that firing:
Kenneth J. “Ken” Zucker was born on December 29, 1950 to Eugene M. Zucker (1922–1997) and Sara Miller Zucker (1924–2020). Zucker has one sibling, Barbara Ann Zucker-Romanoff aka Barbra Zucker (born 1957). The family lived in Skokie, Illinois. Zucker married Rochelle Fine, also from Niles Township. Their child Simone Zucker is a Toronto-based filmmaker, and their child Josh aka “Concentration Camp” is guitarist in Toronto band Fucked Up.
Zucker attended Southern Illinois University during the Vietnam War and was one of the key campus leaders in the anti-war protest movement there, staging mock trials and declaring people war criminals in absentia (Lagow 1977). Zucker earned a bachelor’s degree there, then a master’s degree at Roosevelt University in 1975.
Zucker headed to Canada eventually just to be safe. Zucker earned a doctorate from University of Toronto in 1982.
Zucker’s frequent collaborator Richard Green had the same impulse for self-preservation: “I left Los Angeles in 1964 to avoid the Vietnam War by going to NIMH [National Institutes of Mental Health]” (Green 2004). In 2001 Green handed over editorial control of Archives of Sexual Behavior to Zucker, to continue pushing their toxic ideology about sex and gender minorities.
Physical attractiveness of children “research” (1993–1996)
Zucker was a psychologist at the Clarke Institute (aka “Jurassic Clarke”) in Toronto. Zucker is infamous for forcing gender-diverse children into reparative therapy to conform to expectations for gendered behavior in children. Zucker considers a gender transition a “bad outcome.”
Zucker had access to hundreds of children through the Clarke and took topless photos of all children brought to the clinic. In one particularly troubling “study,” Zucker wanted to see how “physically attractive” these children’s faces and upper torsos were. Adults were shown images of children in Zucker’s care and asked to rate their attractiveness.
Zucker’s conclusion: “Boys with gender identity disorder were judged to be more attractive than were the clinical control boys.”
Zucker repeated the “research” with the remaining children a few years later, concluding the “Girls with gender identity disorder had significantly less attractive ratings than the normal control girls for the traits attractive, beautiful, and pretty.”
Zucker is a darling of the ex-gay movement because of decades of attempts in “curing” gender-diverse children. Zucker was frequently cited by ex-gay groups like NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuals) and Leadership U.
As the rest of the world begins to understand and accept gender diversity as a trait and not a disease, Zucker has been increasingly cast as the old-school holdout in press coverage. As noted in the New York Times:
Dr. Kenneth Zucker, a psychologist and head of the gender-identity service at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, disagrees with the “free to be” approach with young children and cross-dressing in public. Over the past 30 years, Dr. Zucker has treated about 500 preadolescent gender-variant children. In his studies, 80 percent grow out of the behavior, but 15 percent to 20 percent continue to be distressed about their gender and may ultimately change their sex.
Dr. Zucker tries to “help these kids be more content in their biological gender” until they are older and can determine their sexual identity — accomplished, he said, by encouraging same-sex friendships and activities like board games that move beyond strict gender roles.
Zucker thinks that an important goal of treatment is to help the children accept their birth sex and to avoid becoming transsexual. His experience has convinced him that if a boy with GID becomes an adolescent with GID, the chances that he will become an adult with GID and seek a sex change are much higher. And he thinks that the kind of therapy he practices helps reduce this risk. Zucker emphasizes a three-pronged treatment approach for boys with GID. First, he thinks that family dynamics play a large role in childhood GID—not necessarily in the origins of cross-gendered behavior, but in their persistence. It is the disordered and chaotic family, according to Zucker, that can’t get its act together to present a consistent and sensible reaction to the child, which would be something like the following: “We love you, but you are a boy, not a girl. Wishing to be a girl will only make you unhappy in the long run, and pretending to be a girl will only make your life around others harder.” So the first prong of Zucker’s approach is family therapy. Whatever conflicts or issues that parents have that prevent them from uniting to help their child must be addressed.
The second prong is therapy for the boy, to help him adjust to the idea that he cannot become a girl, and to help teach him how to minimize social ostracism. Zucker does not teach boys how to walk in a manly fashion, but he does give them feedback about the likely consequences of taking a doll to school.
The third prong is key. Zucker says simply: “The Barbies have to go.” He has nothing against Barbie dolls, of course. He means something more general. Feminine toys and accoutrements—including Barbie dolls, girls’ shoes, dresses, purses, and princess gowns—are no longer to be tolerated at home, much less bought for the child. Zucker believes that toleration and encouragement of feminine play and dress prevents the child from accepting his maleness. Common sense says that a boy who wants to play with dolls so much that he is willing to risk his father’s wrath and his peers’ scorn is unlikely to change his behavior due to inconsistent feedback, sometimes forbidding, sometimes tolerating, and sometimes even encouraging it. Inconsistent parenting like this is ineffective in stamping out any kind of unwanted behavior.
Failure to intervene increases the chances of transsexualism in adulthood, which Zucker considers a bad outcome. … Why put boys at risk for this when they can become gay men happy to be men?
Zucker blames poor family dynamics and maternal psychopathology for gender-nonconforming behavior. Zucker claims this phenomenon is more likely in non-white children with lower IQs. As J. Michael Bailey noted:
Ken Zucker, whom we met in Chapter 2, has tried to predict which boys with gender identity disorder (GID) would still have the disorder when they become adolescents. Adolescents with GID are much rarer and presumably much closer to being transsexual. Zucker found several predictors of adolescent GID: lower IQ, lower social class, immigrant status, non-intact family, and childhood behavior problems unrelated to gender identity disorder.
Zucker’s alleged “desistance” rate hides the fact that many children brought to Zucker’s clinic are hardly success stories in terms of quality of life outcomes:
Yet Zucker’s approach has its own disturbing elements. It’s easy to imagine that his methods—steering parents toward removing pink crayons from the box, extolling a patriarchy no one believes in—could instill in some children a sense of shame and a double life. A 2008 study of 25 girls who had been seen in Zucker’s clinic showed positive results; 22 were no longer gender-dysphoric, meaning they were comfortable living as girls. But that doesn’t mean they were happy. I spoke to the mother of one Zucker patient in her late 20s, who said her daughter was repulsed by the thought of a sex change but was still suffering—she’d become an alcoholic, and was cutting herself. “I’d be surprised if she outlived me,” her mother said.
Lagow, Larry Dwane (1977). A history of the Center for Vietnamese Studies at Southern Illinois University, 1969-1976. Ph.D. dissertation; typescript in Hoover Institution Archives https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt0d5nd9g7/entire_text/
Staff report (December 29, 1997). Obituary: Eugene Zucker. Chicago Tribune
Eugene Zucker. 75. beloved husband of Sara, nee Miller; loving father of Dr. Ken (Rochelle) Zucker and Barbra (Steven) Romanoff; devoted grandfather of Joshua and Simone Zucker and step-grandfather of Samantha Sprigel: fond brother of Howard (Shirley) Zucker; dearest uncle of Deborah, Adina, David, and Ellen. Mr. Zucker was a life-long intellectual.
Sandeen, Autumn (May 20, 2009). GID Reform Now Protest At Annual APA Meeting. Pam’s House Blend http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11064/gid-reform-now-protest-at-annual-apa-meeting-speaker-madeline-deutch-md [archive]
Conway, Lynn (April 5, 2007). “Drop the Barbie”: Ken Zucker’s reparatist treatment of gender-variant children. http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/News/Drop%20the%20Barbie.htm
Conway, Lynn (April 30, 2009). “The War Within: CAMH scathing internal report Zucker’s and Blanchard’s gender clinics http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/News/US/Zucker/The_War_Within_CAMH.html
Conway, Lynn (February 18, 2009). Kenneth Zucker’s legal threats: Part of a pattern of silencing transgender critics. http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/News/US/Zucker/Kenneth_Zucker%27s_pattern_of_silencing_transgender_critics.html
Winters, Kelley (2009). Gender Madness in American Psychiatry: Essays from the Struggle for Dignity BookSurge, ISBN 978-1439223888 – see also (gendermadness.com) [harchive]
Staff report (July 1997). Childhood Gender-Identity Disorder Diagnosis Under Attack. Leadership U http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/childhood.html [archive] – now merged with Cru: Campus Crusade for Christ International (cru.org)
Singh D, Bradley SJ, Zucker KJ (2021). A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder. Front. Psychiatry, Volume 12 – 28 March 2021 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784
Brown, Patricia Leigh (December 2, 2006). Supporting Boys or Girls When the Line Isn’t Clear. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/02/us/supporting-boys-or-girls-when-the-line-isnt-clear.html
Rosin, Hannah (November 2008). A Boy’s Life. The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/a-boys-life/307059/
Note: In 2025, this site phased out AI illustrations after artist feedback. The previous illustration is here.
Paul L. Vasey is a Canadian psychologist who promotes harmful ideas about sex and gender minorities, especially transgender and gender diverse people and those who love us:
Vasey is one of the last of the old-school Canadian evolutionary psychologists allied with fired sexologist Kenneth Zucker. Vasey’s coauthors and associates are part of an activist minority in sexology, most of whom are cisgender and born before 1970. Vasey holds some supportive views, but they are all colored by an embrace of unscientific and pseudoscientific terminology created by Vasey’s friends. Science and its operational definitions must be value-neutral in order to produce bias-free scientific results.
Background
Paul L. Vasey (born January 30, 1966 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada) earned a bachelor’s degree from University of Alberta in Edmonton in 1989, then earned a master’s degree from Simon Fraser University in 1991. Vasey earned a doctorate from Université de Montréal in 1997. Vasey’s dissertation was on Japanese macaques under advisor Bernard Chapais. Vasey then did postdoctoral work at Université de Montréal, Concordia University (Montréal) and York University.
Vasey was hired as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Lethbridge in 2000. While preparing to teach a course on sex and gender, Vasey became interested in Samoan fa’afafine culture. Vasey describes them as “feminine, same-sex attracted males that are recognized as a non-binary gender.” Vasey’s partner is Vaitulia Alatina Ioelu, a self-identified Samoan fa’afafine.
Vasey co-authored a paper with two Concordia University psychologists on childhood gender diversity.
Bartlett NH, Vasey PL, Bukowski WM (2000) Is gender identity disorder in children a mental disorder? Sex Roles, 43 11/12, 753-785. Article ID: 299688
Empirical studies were evaluated to determine whether Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in children meets the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-4th Edition ( DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association, 1994) definitional criteria of mental disorder. Specifically, we examined whether GID in children is associated with (a) present distress; (b) present disability; (c) a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom; and if (d) GID represents dysfunction in the individual or is simply deviant behavior or a conflict between the individual and society. The evaluation indicates that children who experience a sense of inappropriateness in the culturally prescribed gender role of their sex but do not experience discomfort with their biological sex should not be considered to have GID. Because of flaws in the DSM-IV definition of mental disorder, and limitations of the current research base, there is insufficient evidence to make any conclusive statement regarding children who experience discomfort with their biological sex. The concluding recommendation is that, given current knowledge, the diagnostic category of GID in children in its current form should not appear in future editions of the DSM .
Below is a course description for Vasey’s Sex & Gender Diversity (Psychology 3850) Spring 2003
In this course, we will explore issues related to sex and gender diversity. To this end, we will critically examine the binary construction of sex and gender through such topics as intersexuality, gender identity disorder, and “third” sexes and genders in non-Western societies. A central part of this theoretical examination involves discussing the real-world consequences individuals face for deliberately or inadvertently transgress dichotomous sex and gender boundaries.
Required Readings:
(1) Kessler, S. (1997). Lessons From the Intersexed. Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, New Jersey.
(2) Course-pack containing Chapter #1, “Behavior,” from: Burke, P. (1996). Gender Shock: Exploding the Myths of Male and Female.Anchor Books, Doubleday: New York.
(3) Additional short readings drawn mainly from popular magazine will be distributed in class.
Below is a course description for Vasey’s Science & Sexuality (Psychology 4000NA) Spring 2004
In this seminar, we will explore the controversy surrounding the publication of J. Michael Bailey’s book, “ The Man Who Would be Queen .” Bailey’s book deals with the subject of male femininity through such topics as gender identity disorder in childhood, homosexuality, transvestitism, and male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism. Although reaction from the gay community has been largely unremarkable, the book has ignited a storm of protest in the MtF transexual community. In particular, some transsexual women dispute Bailey’s claim (based on the work by Toronto sexologist, Ray Blanchard) that there are two distinct sub-categories of MtF transsexuals: homosexual versus autogynephilic.
We will familiarize ourselves with the controversy by reading The Man Who Would be Queen and the contents of two websites managed by transsexual women, [] & Lynn Conway, who are spearheading the response to Bailey. We will then critically investigate the evidence for each point of view. We will begin by examining the claim that two specific types of MtF transsexuals exist primarily by reading scientific articles written by Ray Blanchard and Anne Lawrence. Anne Lawrence, a Seattle-based doctor who specializes in sexual medicine, is a self-identified autogynephilic transsexual woman and a supporter of Blanchard’s work. We will then read “ True Selves: Understanding Transsexualism ” by Mildred L. Brown & Chloe Ann Rounsley and “ Mom, I Need to Be a Girl ,” by Just Evelyn, which [], Lynn Conway and several transsexual advocacy groups highly recommend as a more accurate depiction of the MtF transsexual experience and an alternative to the Bailey/Blanchard model. Through the semester we will weigh the evidence for, and against, Blanchard’s dichotomous conceptualization of transsexuality. In addition to the readings, documentary films on homosexuality, cross-dressing and transsexualism will be screened during the last hour of some seminar classes.
Required Readings :
(1) Bailey, J.M. (2003). The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science and Psychology of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism . NY: Joseph Henry Press.
(2) Additional required readings will be placed on reserve in the library.
Anne Lawrence’s writings on autogynephila can be found at:
http://www.annelawrence. com/sexualityindex.html
see: (1) “Men Trapped in Men’s Bodies:” An Introduction to the Concept of Autogynephilia” (2) Sexuality and Transsexuality: A New Introduction to Autogynephilia (3) Autogynephilia: Frequently-Asked Questions (4) 28 Narratives About Autogynephila (5) 31 New Narratives About Autogynephilia
Michael Bailey’s responses to his critics can be found at:
The reading “Transgendering, Migrating and Love of Oneself as a Woman: A Contribution to a Sociology of Autogynephilia,” by Richard Ekins and Dave King can be found at:
www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtvo05no03_01.htm .
A reading by Carl Elliot on apotemnophilia can be found at:
Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht (2016). Sexual orientation, controversy, and science (vol 17, pg 45, 2016) Psychological Science in the Public Interesthttps://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616637616
LJ Petterson, BJ Dixson, AC Little, PL Vasey (2018) Viewing time and self-report measures of sexual attraction in Samoan cisgender and transgender androphilic males. Archives of Sexual Behavior 47 (8), 2427-2434 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1267-7
Do not go to Morandini for therapy of any kind. Instead look for supportive local resources where practitioners do not promote unscientific ideas like “autogynephilia” or “autoandrophilia.”
Background
James Simon Morandini earned a bachelor’s degree in 2009 from University of Newcastle and a doctorate from University of Sydney in 2016. Morandini is the founder and director of King Street Psychology, the largest private gender clinic in Australia.
Morandini is the National Convener of the Australian Psychological Society Gender & Sexuality Interest group. Morandini is also a psychologist at The Gender Centre, founding a clinical psychology internship while there “to ensure the next generation of clinical psychs are trained in evidence based and culturally competent gender care.”
Anti-transgender activism
Morandini is an activist in the “autogynephilia” and “autoandrophilia” movements. These transphobic sex-fueled mental illnesses were created in 1989 and are supported by a small group of activists from sexology’s conservative fringe. Morandini claims to be interested in “understanding and destigmatising trans women/non-binary femmes who experience autogynephilia/autoheterosexuality.”
At the 2023 Puzzles of Sexual Orientation meeting, Morandini presented research titled “Bisexual Phenomena Among Autogynephilic Men.”
On October 26, 2023, Morandini respectfully requested that this page be removed or revised. The reasons mentioned included Morandini’s therapeutic support for hundreds of gender diverse adolescents and supportive involvement in trans-led organizations. My response is below.
Thank you for your message. The term “autogynephilia” is transphobic in the same way “nymphomania” is misogynistic. The issue is not the phenomenon, but your reification of an idea that is at its core biased and thus unscientific.
It took feminist activists over a century to convince misogynistic and biased scientists to stop using the term “nymphomania” because it is unscientific. It has taken trans activists and scientist allies decades to convince transphobes to stop using the term “autogynephilia.” You are one of the last holdouts.
I understand that some people have latched onto “autogynephile” as an identity the way some women latched onto “nymphomaniac” as an identity. “Autogynephilia” as a term appeals to a very specific type of person: neurodiverse, fixated on collecting and categorizing, socially isolated/eccentric, rigid thinking. That makes it very hard for them to let go of bad ideas, in the way it’s hard to convince believers that horoscopes or Myers-Briggs types are unscientific. It helps them make sense of the world, and they “see themselves” in the scheme.
Via Ekins and King (2012):
[Anne] Lawrence says that on reading Blanchard’s journal articles that she experienced the ‘kind of epiphany that trans people often feel when first coming across words and formulations that fit and work for them’ (Lawrence 1999a). Not only do they feel empowered to make sense of their predicament, but the formulations are proof to them that they are not alone.
People have invested their lives in this bad idea, and they succumb to the sunk cost fallacy rather than entertain the idea they might be mistaken about something so deeply important to them.
I know there is hope for someone like you. Even transphobic sexologists walked away from “erotic target location error” because of its obvious bias, replacing it with “identity inversion.” The issue is not the phenomenon, but the term. “Paraphilia” in general and “autogynephilia” in particular are based on a disease model that impedes scientific progress.
I have written extensively about value-neutral alternatives proposed by scientists and activists:
genderplay or gender play (used since middle 20th century)
I have also written extensively about value-neutral terms used by these communities to describe themselves, like fujoshi and sissy. The issue is not the phenomenon, but the biased term you are using.
Science proceeds through definitional refinement, and activism is an important part of guiding science toward value-neutral terminology.
If you are interested in learning about the bleak future of “autogynephilia” and its proponents, I recommend Nymphomania: A History by Carol Groneman.
I have spoken at The Gender Centre and consider it an important resource. I hope for the sake of your career and legacy that you reconsider your allegiance to a transphobic cult within sexology and within the community of sex and gender minorities.
Morandini, James (June 18, 2024). Understanding gender dysphoria.ReachOut Australia https://au.reachout.com/identity/gender/understanding-gender-dysphoria
Media
Kristina Anj (July 11, 2023). Transgender In A Blender: Episode 3 – Youth Is Not Wasted On The Young with James Morandini. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMvNkGQCogs [deleted]
Kevin J. Hsu is an American psychologist and anti-transgender activist.
Hsu published pathologizing research on “shemales” while working with dissertation advisor J. Michael Bailey at Northwestern University. Hsu is a “gender critical” millennial associated with sexology’s conservative fringe.
Background
Hsu was born in ~1990, grew up in Texas, and attended Northwestern, earning a bachelor’s degree in 2012 and a doctorate in 2019. Hsu did a psychology internship in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
His research has focused broadly on understanding sexual orientation using a variety of methods. His clinical work has focused primarily on the assessment and treatment of adults with various psychiatric problems, including anxiety, depression, and substance abuse.
Hsu’s dissertation was titled “Erotic Target Identity Inversions in Male Furries, Adult Baby/Diaper Lovers, and Eunuchs.” Hsu acknowledges advisor J. Michael Bailey; committee members Ray Blanchard, Renee Engeln, and Vijay Mittal; as well as Anne Lawrence, Galen Bodenhausen, Richard Zinbarg, Susan Mineka, Wendi Gardner, Marzena Nowicka, Paul Vasey, John Sylla, Gerulf Rieger, Debra Soh, James Morandini, Heather Hoffmann, and David Moskowitz.
.
Anti-trans activism
Hsu diagnoses the common attraction to trans women as a made-up disease called “gynandromorphophilia” (GAMP), which Hsu and colleagues describe as “sexual interest in gynandromorphs (GAMs; colloquially, shemales).” Hsu and conservative colleagues are the only people who publish medicalized and pornographic neologisms rather than using scientific and value-neutral terms used by ethical sexologists.
Hsu also diagnoses furries as “autozoophiles,” ageplay enthusiasts as “autopedophiles,” and many trans women as “autogynephiles.” Hsu has published on sex and gender minorities with David I. Miller and Allen Rosenthal. Hsu is one of the few “autogynephilia” activists under age 50.
Hsu was barred from recruiting participants at Midwest FurFest in December 2013 by the organizers, but attended anyway and tried to talk to several furries about their sexuality.
Violative online survey
A complaint to Northwestern’s Institutional Review Board resulted in Hsu taking down an online survey. Matt Healy attempted to reason with Hsu before contacting Northwestern about a survey that the furry community and ethical furry researchers like Kathleen Gerbasi found concerning. Below is an excerpt from Healy’s complaint:
Kevin’s survey uses several trans slurs
Kevin’s survey uses very poor language. Furry has a large proportion of transgender people and genderqueer people – around one in four based on the data I have seen – people who are vulnerable and sensitive to poorly-chosen language.
Kevin’s survey most egregiously uses the offensive term “shemale”, and also uses terms like “transsexual” in ways that would be considered passe or problematic by people active in the area of queer politics. There are many of such people within furry.
When pressed, Kevin countered that “shemale” is acceptable because it is “used in professional literature.” He cited me two examples: one from [Ray Blanchard and Peter Collins in] 1993, the other from 2011. I reviewed the 2011 (Escoffier) paper, in which “shemale” is only used as a descriptor for a mainstream pornography category. Kevin’s use of this paper as a rationalization strikes me as either disingenuous or willfully misleading. His willingness to defend offensive terminology on specious grounds is consistent based on my conversations with him.
I advised him to use the GLAAD media guidelines as reference for appropriate use of language. Kevin replied: “The GLAAD guidelines are merely guidelines, and they are catered to the media, which we are not. They don’t dictate the discourse in academia, research, or really anything.”
Hsu often presents cherry-picked data in an attempt to prove pet ideologies like “autogynephilia.” In 2021, Hsu began promoting a sex survey on non-representative gender diverse forums primarily associated with the sissy community and with “autogynephilia” activists:
Broadly speaking, we are hoping to better understand how gender, sexuality, mental health, personality, attitudes, and relationships intersect with one another in cross-dresser, transfeminine, and other communities (e.g., sissy), and how they might change over time.
When questioned about the obvious bias in the sampling methodology, Hsu said:
Thank you for raising these concerns. We agree that recruiting from only those subreddits that you mentioned would not capture the wide range of experiences within cross-dressing and transfeminine communities. We do plan to recruit not only from more cross-dresser communities online, but also transfeminine communities as well. We hope to recruit as much of a representative sample of cross-dresser and transfeminine people as possible; if we fall short of that for whatever reason, we can assure that we will be transparent about the limitations of the sample and generalizing of the results.
When questioned another time, Hsu claimed:
We fully intend to post advertisements on and recruit from many other subreddits, forums, and communities to ensure a wide range of participants are included in the study. We have just not had the chance to do that yet
That has not happened as of 2023. The subreddits Hsu contacted are:
askAGP
MEFetishism
TGandSissyRecovery
sissyology
sissyhypno
ForcedFeminization
Feminization
sissyplace
Sissy
Sissies
forcedfem
genderotica
gendertransformation
girlschool
SissyHeaven
SissificationProject
sissydressing
asiansissification
The project’s consent for research states at item 9: “Funds from the Conru Foundation will be used to support this research.”
Hsu KJ, Rosenthal AM, Miller DI, Bailey JM (2015). Who are gynandromorphophilic men? Characterizing men with sexual interest in transgender women. Psychological Medicine. 2016 Mar;46(4):819-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291715002317 Epub 2015 Oct 26.
Hsu KJ, Rosenthal AM, Bailey JM (2015). The psychometric structure of items assessing autogynephilia. Archives of Sexual Behavior 44, 1301-1312 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0397-9
Hsu KJ, Rosenthal AM, Miller DI, Bailey JM (2015). Sexual Arousal Patterns of Autogynephilic Male Cross-Dressers. Archives of Sexual Behaviorhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0826-z
Rosenthal AM, Hsu KJ, Bailey JM (2017). Who are gynandromorphophilic men? An internet survey of men with sexual interest in transgender women. Archives of Sexual Behavior [17 Nov 2016, 46(1):255-264] 10.1007/s10508-016-0872-6
Hsu KJ, Bailey JM (2019). The “Furry” Phenomenon: Characterizing Sexual Orientation, Sexual Motivation, and Erotic Target Identity Inversions in Male Furries. Archives of Sexual Behavior 48, 1349–1369 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1303-7
Bailey JM, Hsu KJ (2022). How Autogynephilic Are Natal Females? Archives of Sexual Behavior Oct;51(7):3311-3318 10.1007/s10508-022-02359-8
Bailey JM, Hsu KJ, Jang HH (2023). Elaborating and Testing Erotic Target Identity Inversion Theory in Three Paraphilic Samples. Archives of Sexual Behaviorhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02647-x
Note: In 2025, this site phased out AI illustrations after artist feedback. The previous illustration is here.
Ray Blanchard is an American-Canadian psychologist and anti-transgender activist. Blanchard is a key historical figure in academic exploitation and oppression of sex and gender minorities.
Blanchard’s Toronto gender clinic rejected 90% of trans people seeking healthcare. Blanchard also created several obscure diseases to categorize trans people and those who love us, including the mental disorders “autogynephilia” and “gynandromorphophilia.”
Following a long career of gatekeeping trans healthcare and creating transphobic diseases, Blanchard has become a key figure in anti-transgender extremism.
Overview
See this biography for Blanchard’s background and motivations.
Blanchard’s “contributions” to the field of gender identity and expression to date have been:
Regressive requirements for access to medical service
Forced submission to sexualized testing in order to get access to medical services
An obscure and largely-forgotten disease model of gender identity cribbed from Magnus Hirschfeld
A disease model of attraction to transgender people, which Blanchard called “gynandromorphophilia.”
Blanchard created a system in which only two subgroups of people could get through the Clarke Institute/CAMH program:
“Homosexual transsexuals,” or “gay males” who fetishize straight men
“Autogynephilic transsexuals,” or “nonhomosexual males” who fetishize feminizing themselves
“A man without a penis… is in reality what you are creating.”
From a June 2004 article :
Toronto psychologist Ray Blanchard, one of Canada’s leading — and most controversial — gender experts, argues the transgender movement is rife with delusion. “This is not waving a magic wand and a man becomes a woman and vice versa,” he says. “It’s something that has to be taken very seriously. A man without a penis has certain disadvantages in this world, and this is in reality what you’re creating.” [1]
A 1984 article in the Toronto Star indicated that between 1969 and 1984, 90% of all people seeking trans health services were turned away at The Clarke. The Clarke averaged about 5 acceptances a year, totaling about 100 people. In other words, they denied access to over 900 applicants during that time. [2]
Blanchard’s program was more like a parole office than a therapeutic setting. It was a system based on mutual distrust, and treats gender diverse clients like sex offenders. In fact, Blanchard’s program used the same halls, offices, and staff for treating sex offenders. Imagine the dynamic that creates. Following in the footsteps of mentor Kurt Freund, B;anchard even subjects clients to the same sort of testing used on sex offenders (see plethysmograph: a disputed device).
By selecting for these patients and rejecting the rest, Blanchard has been able to advance the claim that being trans is all about sex, rather than gender identity. Blanchard published several articles regarding this theory, which went unnoticed until disgraced anesthesiologist Anne Lawrence latched on to them as a form of validation.
1998 was the year the Clarke Institute lost its federal funding for vaginoplasties, and the year Anne Lawrence wrote the pro-“autogynephilia” essay “Men Trapped in Men’s Bodies.” Blanchard’s sudden irrelevance in the field of gender identity and to indigent patients in Toronto seeking funding for surgery made Anne Lawrence’s interest a natural opportunity for teamwork to advance their mutually beneficial agendas.
Following the publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey, trans people and concerned professionals from around the world decided enough was enough with these people and started a public awareness campaign about Blanchard’s ties to a conservative-run eugenics think tank and behind-the-scenes bullying of dissenting peers. Once peers at HBIGDA expressed their concerns about Bailey to Northwestern University, Blanchard resigned in protest in November 2003.
Blanchard is going to go down in history as the George Rekers of gender diversity. Rekers was one of the most vocal critics of the American Psychiatric Association’s depathologization of homosexuality in 1973.
“Autogynephilia”
“Autogynephilia” is a sex-fueled mental illness made up by Blanchard, who defines it as “a man’s paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman.” [2]
This diagnosis appeals to some transgender people, who see the scientific-sounding term as a way to “elevate” themselves in social acceptability rather than compulsive masturbators, sex addicts, or people with a fetish for possessing a piece of female clothing or anatomy.
Look at the definition of “paraphilia” put forth in the textbook used by Bailey in his cancelled Sexuality course (LeVay and Valente, Human Sexuality, p. 454). LeVay’s description of paraphilias as “problematic sexual behavior” and “illnesses that need treatment” is a major insight into their entire project. These academic imply that “autogynephilia” involves non-consenting adults, that being trans is a form of exhibitionism that requires responses from others. The suggest that coming out to friends and family and asking for public acceptance is a form of sexualized humiliation brought on by the very expression of gender.
Blanchard ideas appeal to a small group of other “autogynephilia” activists and conservative supporters. Most trans people and most mainstream scientists criticize “authogynephilia” as being similar to “nymphomania” and other fake sex diseases created to oppress others.
The Man Who Would Be Queen (2003)
Below is a shill review by Blanchard, posted on Amazon.com defending J. Michael Bailey.
[five stars] Man Who Would Be Queen, April 17, 2003 Reviewer: Ray Blanchard from Toronto
The explosion of rage detonated by the publication of J. Michael Bailey’s book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, has largely obscured an important message of that book: There are two fundamentally different types of male-to-female transsexualism, and they are equally valid. The homosexual type are erotically aroused by other (biological) males, and the autogynephilic type are erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women.
When I joined the Clarke Gender Identity Clinic in 1980, the literalist interpretation of transsexualism as the condition of men-trapped-in-women’s-bodies reigned supreme. Many clinicians dismissed all transsexuals with a history of sexual arousal in association with cross-dressing as “mere transvestites” and summarily excluded them from consideration for sex reassignment surgery. This situation was extremely confusing to many male-to-female transsexuals who desperately wanted to undergo sex reassignment and live their lives as women, but who thought that their past history of masturbation in women’s attire meant that they were “merely” transvestites.
Fortunately for these patients, the policy of “one erection and you’re out” was never followed at the Toronto clinic. Several of the earliest patients approved for sex reassignment had been husbands and fathers in the male role, and they freely reported clear-cut histories of sexual arousal in association with cross-dressing or cross-gender fantasy. It gradually became clear to me that for such patients the erotic value of becoming a woman was the essential motive behind the desire for sex reassignment, and that erection and ejaculation in women’s attire were not simply accidental by-products. I never saw this as an invalid reason for desiring sex reassignment, I never saw these patients as some lesser breed of transsexuals, and I never designated their form of gender dysphoria as “secondary.”
During the years when I was publishing the autogynephilia papers, several autogynephiles wrote me to express their relief at learning that there were many others like themselves, and that their feelings of being transsexual were not a delusion. Those articles were published in specialty journals with limited circulations, and it is remarkable that any autogynephiles encountered them at all. Prof. Bailey’s book, which is written for a general audience in a clear and accessible style, has the potential to bring the same reassurance to a much larger group of people. The audiences for which this book was intended, which include students, clinical professionals, and laypersons, should not mistake the campaign of disinformation (verging at times on hate-mail) currently being waged by an ideologically-driven group of self-appointed “activists” as the universal view of all transsexual and transgender persons.
APA DIV 44
From an August 2003 CAMH newsletter: http://www.camh.net/careers/bt_pdfs/bt_august292003.pdf
Holding the framed citation is Ray Blanchard. Right is James S. Fitzgerald, Ph.D., President of Division 44 of the American Psychological Association.
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.”
Resignation from HBIGDA
On 4 November 2003, Blanchard resigned from HBIGDA in protest of a letter they sent to Northwestern University regarding charges of ethical misconduct leveled at J. Michael Bailey.
November 4, 2003 Walter J. Meyer III, MD President, HBIGDA Bean Robinson, PhD Executive Director, HBIGDA
Dear Drs. Meyer and Robinson:
It is with deep regret that I tender my resignation in the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA). I have long supported the goals of the HBIGDA. I have been involved in the clinical care of transsexual persons for 24 years. During the years 1983 to 1991, I conducted eight research studies on the therapeutic impact of hormonal and surgical treatment of transsexuals, studies that were reported in six refereed journal articles and two book chapters. I published an additional article on the desirability of insurance coverage for sex reassignment surgery as recently as 2000. It is therefore a matter of some sadness that the recent actions of the HBIGDA Executive have made it necessary for me to disassociate myself from this organization.
I am referring to the appalling decision of the HBIGDA Officers and Board of Directors to attempt to intervene in Northwestern University’s investigation into the allegations made by certain members of the transsexual community against Prof. J. Michael Bailey. This decision is documented in the attached letter, which is prominently displayed on a popular transsexual Web site. Such an intervention, undertaken without any effort by the HBIGDA to conduct their own systematic inquiry or to learn all the relevant facts of the matter, could only be prejudicial to Northwestern’s investigation. In fact it has the appearance, whether this is accurate or not, of being a deliberate and improper attempt to bias that investigation. The HBIGDA would have been better advised to allow the Northwestern authorities, who are actually taking the trouble to investigate the allegations, to reach an impartial decision based on all relevant testimony and factual evidence.
I do not know the motives behind the Officers’ and Board of Directors’ actions, but those motives are irrelevant. It is their actions that are unacceptable and that make it impossible for me to continue to belong to the HBIGDA.
Very truly yours, Ray Blanchard
Blanchard and DSM
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association lists three “mental disorders” that can be diagnosed in gender variant people: gender identity disorder, transvestic fetishism, and childhood gender nonconformity.
Blanchard, who happens to be an American citizen, says a DSM listing has different implications in Canada than in the U.S. “This question of whether autogynephilia should be listed as a disorder is strictly an American preoccupation,” he says. “In the U.S. there is no universal health insurance plan, so people will pay for their SRS out of their own pocket. But in most of the Western world, where there is government-run health insurance, in order for their sex reassignment to be paid for, it has to be a disorder, it has to be in the DSM. Health plans don’t pay for surgery that is elective. They pay for surgery that is medically necessary.”
He points out that from 1970 to ’99 the Ontario Health Insurance Plan covered sex-reassignment surgery for patients who’d been approved for it by the Clarke Institute. But the conservative government that came to power in 1999 stopped paying for it. “Now a group of transsexuals have brought a human rights complaint against removal of sex-reassignment surgery as a benefit,” he says. “Their argument is that this is a recognized treatment for a psychiatric disorder. It’s got to remain in the DSM. The DSM has no formal jurisdiction in Canada, but in fact it’s taken as the standard.” [4]
Many are beginning to question whether these diagnoses are really necessary in order to receive health services. Many are even questioning whether these are diseases at all. Because Blanchard and several cronies are heavily involved in the DSM’s language about these “disorders,” it is likely that we will see a pitched battle about this matter when the next DSM revision is made.
In the meantime, Blanchard’s star continues to fade, reduced to eugenicists, old-school sexologists and psychologists, and those self-hating gender variant people who seek a “cure” for their gender variance. The Clarke has been surpassed by several other Toronto facilities offering more flexible and inclusive access to health services. As numbers at those clinics continue to surge, numbers at The Clarke continue to decline, a harbinger of Blanchard’s place in history as an interesting curiosity from the waning years when our community was considered disordered and diseased.
Blanchard on fifth estate
In October 2004, Ray Blanchard and team were featured in a news magazine program on transsexualism, reported by Hana Gartner. Below is a transcript of selected sections:
Gartner voiceover: One of the most established gender clinics in the world is at Toronto’s Center for Addiction and Mental Health. It’s run by psychologist Ray Blanchard, who has been studying transsexuals for the past 25 years. He says they have a serious illness.
Blanchard: Transsexualism is considered a psychiatric disorder by the World Health Organization and by the American Psychiatric Association. We probably know more about how to treat them or manage them than we do know about what causes them.
Gartner voiceover: Those who come here looking for help must first be diagnosed and assessed by this panel of experts.
Blanchard to experts: They told the GP that they had some gender problem. It’s a biological female. It looks to me that the patient hasn’t been started on a testosterone medication yet.
Gartner voiceover: The only effective treatment for this psychiatric disorder is a combination of hormones and surgery.
Gartner to Blanchard: Can cosmetic surgery cure this disorder?
Blanchard: You are giving someone surgeries that enable them to be accepted as the opposite sex. Cosmetic surgery can help people lead much happier and more productive lives.
Blanchard: Her vocal cords will thicken and her voice will drop into the male range, and that is a permanent change.
Gartner voiceover: Ray Blanchard, who is in charge of Canada’s top gender clinic, believes very few people should go on hormones or change their sex. His clinic sees only about 50 patients a year, and he rejects most of them.
Blanchard: We are not trying to encourage people to have sex reassignment surgery; on the contrary, we encourage people to try and make an adjustment to their biological gender.
Gartner: A 17 year old female, if she came to see you, what advice would you give her?
Blanchard: At our clinic, the minimum age we would consider a patent for hormonal treatment would be 20 years, and the minimum age for considering them for surgical treatment would be 21 years.
1. Armstrong J. The Body within, the body without. Globe and Mail, 12 June 2004, p. F1. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040612/COVER12/TPComment/TopStories
2. Newbery L. Trans-sexuals happier after operation, MD says. Toronto Star, 27 November 1984, p. H2.
3. Bailey JM. (Chair), Phenomenology and classification of male-to-female transsexualism. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research, Paris. June, 2000. Slide 38. http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/Blanchard’s%20Paris%20Talk.ppt
“The foregoing studies indicate that there are only two fundamentally different types of transsexualism in males: homosexual and nonhomosexual. This finding points to the next question: What do the three nonhomosexual types have in common? I have suggested that the common characteristic is an erotic orientation that I have labeled autogynephilia. Autogynephilia may be defined as a man’s paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman.”
4. Rodkin D. Sex and Transsexuals. Chicago Reader December 12, 2003
‘The Man Who Would Be Queen’ Controversy Continues: Professor Blanchard Quits HBIGDA NTAC press release 10 November 2003 http://www.ntac.org/pr/release.asp?did=81
Magnus Hirschfeld and Max Tilke, Die Tranvestiten. Eine Untersuchung über den erotischen Verkleidungstrieb mit umfangreichen casuistichem und historischem Material
These are URLs from the original version of this site.
Ray Blanchard motivations for oppressing sex and gender minorities: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/ray-blanchard-motivations.html
“Male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists:” How Ray Blanchard sees us
Clarke Institute Clearinghouse: documenting the words and actions of CAMH staff
Toronto: epicenter of pathologization of sex and gender minorities: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/ray-blanchard-hypotheses.html
Ray Blanchard’s place in history: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/ray-blanchard-history.html
Notes, updates, further reading: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/ray-blanchard-notes.html
Note: In 2025, this site phased out AI illustrations after artist feedback. The previous illustration is here.
John Michael “Mike” Bailey (born 1951) is an American psychologist, considered one of the most unethical sexologists in history. Bailey’s checkered career is a series of ethics scandals and controversies.
Since 2003 this site has documented Bailey’s central role in the academic exploitation of sex and gender minorities. One history book says my work coordinating the community response to anti-trans academics “represented one of the most organized and unified examples of transgender activism seen to date.” In 2021 the United States Library of Congress selected this site for archiving because it is “an important part of this collection and the historical record.”
Bailey’s notable ethical scandals
Children and sex
supporting “many offending pedophiles who are usually punished far more harshly than research suggests is warranted by the harm they cause.”
supporting leniency for a rapist whose victims are infants and young children: “if he didn’t physically hurt them, and if they didn’t remember traumatically, his actions should be penalized less than had he physically hurt them and they did remember.”
promulgating the concept of “pre-homosexual” children: “pre-homosexual children tend to be relatively gender nonconforming.”
claiming to know the sexual orientation of children
supporting fired sexologist Kenneth Zucker, whose “therapy” of gender diverse children has been widely outlawed and described as “child abuse”
supporting penile plethysmography, a controversial device for measuring genital arousal; some sexologists have attached plethysmographs to the penises of children to measure their erections for “research”
Supporting convicted serial child rapist Jerry Sandusky: “In an exchange with Wright County Circuit Court Judge Craig Carter, Bailey affirmed his belief that Sandusky’s accusers had lied. ‘You believe the people testifying against Jerry Sandusky are lying?’ Carter asked. Bailey responded, ‘I can see that if you are not familiar with the evidence that I am familiar with, you would be shocked.'”
Eugenics
dissertation advisor and mentor Lee Willerman was a member of the American Eugenics Society
stating it is “morally acceptable” to screen for and abort gay fetuses: “selection for heterosexuality may benefit parents and children and is unlikely to cause significant harm.”
arguing that “offering sex offenders the opportunity to be castrated in return for a reduced sentence is not ethically problematic coercion.”
Signing a 2018 letter from hate group American College of Pediatricians to the Trump Administration. Bailey demanded “upholding the scientific definition of sex in law and policy,” adding “an individual who identifies as transgender remains either a biological male or female.”
Note: In 2025, this site phased out AI illustrations after artist feedback. The previous illustration is here.
Sasha Ayad is a conservative American psychologist and a key figure in anti-transgender extremism. Ayad and collaborator Stella O’Malley are world leaders in the gender critical movement attacking transgender people, especially children.
Do not under any circumstances go to Ayad for any counseling of any kind. If you are a minor forced to see Ayad, do everything in your power to end the sessions and find a supportive local therapist instead.
Background
Sasha Ayad was born February 1, 1982 and attended University of Houston, earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees in psychology.
Anti-trans activism
Ayad is connected to a number of anti-trans organizations, most of which are just part of a web farm with reciprocal links to make Ayad’s allies and their fringe ideologies seem more numerous and influential than they are.
Note: In 2025, this site phased out AI illustrations after artist feedback. The previous illustration is here.
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.
