Skip to content

psychology


James S. Fitzgerald, Ph.D., is President of Division 44 of the American Psychological Association.

DIV 44 has been praising the Clarke Institute of all places.

APA DIV 44 connection

From an August 2003 CAMH newsletter:

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.”

APA DIV 44 also allowed James Cantor to write a glowing review of The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey. Joseph Henry Press was later forced to attribute the review to Cantor by name, rather than their earlier attempts to imply that the review was the consensus of APA DIV 44.

Other Fitzgerald facts

Airborne Missile Maintenance Squadron

email: Jfitz404ATaol.com

See also:

Clarke Institute Clearinghouse: documenting the words and actions of CAMH staff

LINK: ‘The Man Who Would Be Queen’ Controversy Continues: Professor Blanchard Quits HBIGDA NTAC press release 10 November 2003

“Male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists:” How Ray Blanchard sees us

James Neal Butcher (born November 20, 1933) is an American psychologist who has published pathologizing materials about sex and gender minorities. His college textbook Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life was influenced by the toxic ideology of Ray Blanchard, who promotes disease models of gender identity and expression.

Background

Butcher was born in Bergoo, West Virginia. His father was killed in a coal mining accident when Butcher was 8. His mother and five children moved to Charleston, where she died when Butcher was 11. Butcher then took a job selling newspapers, and he and three minor siblings raised themselves without an adult in the home.

In 1950, Butcher enlisted in the Army, serving in Korea. After his discharge, he earned a BA in psychology from Guilford College in 1960. In 1964 he earned a PhD in clinical psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He then served as a professor of psychology and as Director of the Clinical Psychology Program at the University of Minnesota, where he was appointed Professor Emeritus after 40 years. He is best known for his work on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and has published fifty-eight books and more than two hundred fifty articles in personality assessment, abnormal psychology, and crisis-intervention.

See also

Robert C. Carson

Susan Mineka

Resources

Ken Pope (kspope.com)

Several academic journals that are ostensibly “peer reviewed” are getting “peer-packed” with sympathetic ideologues and old-style cronyism. These include Archives of Sexual Behavior and Behavior Genetics.

These connections have been coming out as part of our investigation into J. Michael Bailey and the systemic problems that allowed his book The Man Who Would Be Queen to be published as “science.”

Sheri Berenbaum

Bailey’s colleague and co-author is one of the editors. Now at Penn State, did her post-doc at Minnesota before going to Southern Illinois.

Lisabeth DiLalla

Southern Illinois (where Bernbaum was a few years ago)

David A Blizzard (Penn State)

Gerald McClearn (Penn State)

Robert Plomin (formerly from Penn State)

Matt McGue

Thomas Bouchard

Mentor to Berenbaum and McGue, who has been slammed for his unethical work with twins at Minnesota, notably the “Jim Twins”.

John Loehlin

Bailey’s Ph.D. mentor. On the editorial board. Co-authored many articles with Lee Willerman.

Nick Martin

Queensland Institute

David Duffy

Queensland Institute


David C Rowe

Eugenics researcher who writes on criminality…

Martin Lalumiere is currently working at the Clarke Institute. He has published work with Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey.

Lalumiere has joined the International Academy of Sex Research and the editorial board at the journal controlled by Clarke Institute personnel, The Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Martin Lalumiere, B.Sc., M.Ps., Ph.D. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 
Unit 3 
Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1H4 
Tel: (416) 535-8501, 2669 
Fax: (416) 583-4327 
Email to:[email protected] 

Dr. Lalumière obtained his B.Sc. (1989) and his M.Ps. (1990) from the Université de Montréal (1990), and his Ph.D.(1995) from Queen’s University at Kingston (where he received the Governor General’s Academic Gold Medal). He is currently a Research Psychologist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Law and Mental Health Program. Previously, he was a Research Psychologist at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, Research Department (1996-1997), and a Research Fellow in Psychology and Psychiatry at Queen’s University (1994-1996). Most of his time is spent conducting research on the causes of sexual aggression, sexual preferences, and psychopathy. 

Recent Publications 

Lalumière, M. L., Blanchard, R., & Zucker, K. J. (2000). Sexual orientation and handedness in men and women: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 575-592. 
Lalumière, M.L., Chalmers, L., Quinsey, V.L., & Seto, M.C. (1996) A test of the mate deprivation hypothesis of sexual coercion. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 299-318. 
Lalumière, M.L., Harris, G.T., Quinsey, V.L., & Rice, M.E. (1998) Sexual deviance and number of older brothers among sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse, 10, 5-15. 
Lalumière, M. L., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2001). Psychopathy and developmental instability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 75-92. 
Lalumière, M.L., & Quinsey, V.L. (1994). The discriminability of rapists from non-sex offenders using phallometric measures: A meta-anaylsis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 150-175. 
Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1999). A Darwinian interpretation of individual differences in male propensity for sexual aggression. Jurimetrics, 39, 201-216. 
Quinsey, V. L., & Lalumière, M. L. (2001). Assessment of sex offenders against children (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 
Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., & Blanchard, R. (2000). The discriminative validity of a phallometric test for pedophilic interests among adolescent offenders against children. Psychological Assessment, 12, 319-327. 
Seto, M. C., Lalumière, M. L., & Kuban, M. (1999). The sexual preferences of incest offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 267-272.

Lisa Diamond is an associate professor of psychology and gender identity at the University of Utah. She was quoted by the Washington Blade on 8 July 2005 praising a study by Gerulf Rieger which claimed male bisexuality does not exist.

“Research on sexual orientation has been based almost entirely on self-reports, and this is one of the few good studies using physiological measures.”

Rieger is a Ph.D. candidate in clinical psychology at Northwestern University. He is being groomed by his mentor J. Michael Bailey to engage in “science by press conference,” a way of getting publicity and attention through carefully timed media manipulation.

Dr. Diamond was not involved in the study, which involved the use of plethysmograph quackery.

Lisa M. Diamond website:

http://www.psych.utah.edu/diamond/diamond.html

Benedict Carey. Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited. New York Times, July 5, 2005.

Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science

J. MICHAEL BAILEY (NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY), PAUL L. VASEY (UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE), LISA M. DIAMOND (UNIVERSITY OF UTAH), S. MARC BREEDLOVE (MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY), ERIC VILAIN (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES), AND MARC EPPRECHT (QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY)

Psychological Science in the Public Interest (Volume 17, Number 2)

Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science

Show lessJ. Michael Bailey, Paul L. Vasey, Lisa M. Diamond, S. Marc Breedlove, Eric Vilain, Marc EpprechtFirst Published April 25, 2016 Research Article 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616637616
Article information 

The Man Who Would Be Queen is a notoriously anti-transgender book by J. Michael Bailey.

In March 2003, Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey published The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism.

The Man Who Would Be Queen was crafted and marketed in ways influenced by academic racists and others in the neo-eugenics movement. Bailey uses scientific-sounding arguments to claim sexual minorities and people who display gender diversity are “evolutionary mistakes,” and he claims those who disagree with his ideas are liars.

Normally, a book this scientifically unsound and tainted with charges of academic misconduct, practicing without a license, fabricating data, and sex with a research subject would not even be dignified with a response by many involved, but The Man Who Would Be Queen somehow got published through the Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press which specializes in science books for popular audiences.

Published commentaries on Bailey

A selection of comments from people concerned about this book and its message

J. Michael Bailey was Chair of the Psychology Department at Northwestern University until 2004. He stepped down in the wake of an investigation into charges of ethics violations surrounding his 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. Many see this book as the most defamatory book written about gender variance since Janice Raymond wrote The Transsexual Empire in 1979.

Below are some published peer reviews and commentaries about the quality of his “science.”

Selected published commentaries and coverage

• LINK: Kinder, gentler homophobia (by David Ehrenstein, The Advocate) http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid29121.asp

• LINK: Biological reductionism meets gender diversity in human sexuality (by Walter O. Bockting, Journal of Sex Research) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Bockting/Bockting%20Review.html and commentary by Christine Burns http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Bockting/Burns%20commentary.html

• LINK: Ethical minefields: The sex that would be science (by Julie M. Klein, Seed Magazine) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Ethics/Ethical%20Minefields%20-%20Seed%20Magazine.html

http://www.seedmagazine.com/?p=article&n=above&id=130

• LINK: Queer Science: An ‘elite’ cadre of scientists and journalists tries to turn back the clock on sex, gender and race http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=96 (01-01-2004) LINK:(by Heidi Beirich and Bob Moser, Southern Poverty Law Center)

• LINK: Book review (by Pauline Park, Ph.D. Gay Today) http://gaytoday.com/reviews/061603re.asp

• LINK: Bailey on gay femininity (by Paul Varnell, Chicago Free Press) http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/varnell/varnell109.html

• LINK: Why are you a queen? (by Paul Varnell, Washington Blade) http://www.washingtonblade.com/2003/10-17/view/columns/queen.cfm

• LINK: Weird science (by Kim McNabb, Chicago Free Press) http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/mcnabb/mcnabb1.html

• LINK: Author is ripped for transsexual research (by Robert Becker, Chicago Tribune) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/ChicagoTribune-7-29-03.html

• LINK: Dr. Sex (by Robin Wilson, Chronicle of Higher Education) http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i41/41a00801.htm

• LINK: New gene theory rests on bad science (by Vernon Rosario, Gay & Lesbian Review) http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3491/is_200311/ai_n8283071

• LINK: Trans activists file charges against NU professor (by Gary Barlow, Chicago Free Press) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Chicago%20Free%20Press%20-%20Trans%20Activists%20File%20Charges.htm

• LINK: NU panel to investigate prof’s research tactics (by Sheila Burt and Laurel Jorgensen , Daily Northwestern) http://media.www.dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2003/11/18/Campus/Nu.Panel.To.Investigate.Profs.Research.Tactics-1912932.shtml

• LINK: Bailey accused of having sex with research subject (by Sheila Burt, Daily Northwestern) http://media.www.dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2004/01/06/UndefinedSection/Bailey.Accused.Of.Having.Sex.With.Research.Subject-1913112.shtml

• LINK: University examining Bailey’s sex research (by Katie Walton, Daily Northwestern) http://media.www.dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2004/02/09/Campus/University.Examining.Baileys.Sex.Research-1913654.shtml

• LINK: University investigates ethics of sex researcher (by Robert Stacy McCain, Washington Times) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Washington%20Times%2011-25-03.html

• LINK: NIH director defends funds for criticized sex research (by Robert Stacy McCain, Washington Times) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Washington%20Times%201-30-04.html

• LINK: Northwestern U. psychologist is accused of having sex with research subject (by Robin Wilson, Chronicle of Higher Education) http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i17/17a01702.htm

• LINK: NU professor faces sexual allegations (by Gary Barlow, Chicago Free Press) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Chicago%20Free%20Press%2012-17-03.html

• Letters re: Dr. Sex (in Chronicle of Higher Education) /info/dr-sex.html

• LINK: Dr. Sex (by Kate Gambreno, Newcity Chicago) http://www.newcitychicago.com/chicago/2392.html

• LINK: Book review (by Geoff Parkes) http://web.archive.org/web/20031024053250/http://www.adequacy.net/features/book/book160.shtml

• LINK: Book review (by Deirdre McCloskey, Reason) http://www.reason.com/0311/cr.dm.queer.shtml

• Een Mann gevangen in een mannenlichaam (by Peter Vermey, NRC, excerpts translated by Arianne ven der Ven) /info/louis-gooren.html

• LINK: Sex and Transsexuals (by Dennis Rodkin, Chicago Reader) https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/Archive/abridged2.bat?path=2003/031212/TRANS&search=transsexual

• LINK: Transsexual Travesty (by Deirdre McCloskey, Chicago Reader) https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/Archive/abridged2.bat?path=2003/031219/LETTERS/MCCLOSK&search=transsexual

• LINK: The man who would write about queens (Transgender Tapestry) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/IFGE-Reviews.html

• LINK: Tapestry review: The Man Who Would be Queen (by Christine Beatty, Transgender Tapestry) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/IFGE-Reviews.html

• LINK: Not a man, not the queen (by Gwen Smith, Bay Area Reporter) http://www.gwensmith.com/writing/transmissions67.html

• LINK: Book review of The Man Who Would Be Queen (by Liza Mundy, Washington Post) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61894-2003Mar20&notFound=true

• Lost in the Male (by John Derbyshire, National Review) https://www.transgendermap.com/?page_id=18388

• LINK: Book review of The Man Who Would Be Queen (by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, NARTH) http://www.narth.com/docs/queen.html

• Transsexuals and the Law (by Dan Seligman, Forbes) /info/dan-seligman.html

• LINK: Bailey’s Wick (by Jamison Green, Planet Out) http://www.planetout.com/pno/people/columns/green/archive/20031014.html

• LINK: Autogynephilia: A Mistaken Model (by Beth Orens) http://www.starways.net/beth/ag.html

• LINK: To call a woman a queen (by Alison Campbell, Diverse City) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/DiverseCity/DiverseCity.html

• LINK: 2 Transsexual Women Say Professor Didn’t Tell Them They Were Research Subjects (by Robin Wilson, Chronicle) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Chronicle-7-17-03.html

• LINK: Transsexuals file complaints over book (by Lindsey Tanner, Associated Press) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/ChicagoTribune-7-30-03.html

• Transsexuality treatise triggers furor (by Constance Holden, Science) /info/sciencenow.html

• Transsexuals protest (by Jon Marcus, Times Higher Education Supplement) /info/bailey-protest.html

• LINK: Diagnosis as libel: A letter of warning to Bailey (by Deirdre McCloskey, U. of Illinois at Chicago) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Reader/Deirdre%20McCloskey%20puts%20Bailey%20on%20notice.html

Community response /info/bailey-commentary.html

The trans community has mobilized around this matter, with a wide variety of letters, published commentaries, petitions, etc.

Primary resources include an Investigation by Professor Lynn Conway http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/LynnsReviewOfBaileysBook.html

and the Clearinghouse on this site. /info/bailey-blanchard-lawrence.html\

This page has selective commentary from the trans community on J. Michael Bailey’s book on gender variance.

J. Michael Bailey is Chair of the Psychology Department at Northwestern University. In March 2003, he published a book called The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. Many see this book as the most defamatory book written about gender variance since Janice Raymond wrote The Transsexual Empire in 1979.

• (05-02-2003) LINK: Critique of The Man Who Would Be Queen (by Jed Bland) http://www.gender.org.uk/chstnuts/queen0.htm

• (03-14-2004) The Man Who Would Be Queen: A response (by Caillean McMahon, D.O.) /info/queen-response.html

• (05-27-2003) LINK: Comments (by Ben Barres, M.D., Ph.D. Stanford University) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/BaileyA1.html#anchor141609

• (08-18-2003) LINK: The Aforementioned Ugly (by S. Bear Bergman) http://www.butchdykeboy.com/bdb/bear.a1

• (06-27-2003) LINK: Essay from a young transitioner (by Nell) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Nell%27sEssayOnBBL.html

• (08-17-2003) Letter from Europe (by Karla) /info/karla.html

• (05-04-2003) LINK: Bailey’s “poster child for autogynephilia” in her own words (by “Cher” aka Anjelica Kieltyka) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Anjelica.html

• (06-06-2003) Slavery through essentialism (by Tati do Ceu) /info/bailey-slavery.html

• (06-09-2003) A Youth TS Perspective (by Bonnie Jackson) /info/bailey-autogynephile.html

• (06-09-2003) Why Bailey’s book is offensive (by Kelly Novak, M.S.) /info/bailey-transgender.html

• (06-11-2003) Direct effect: how Bailey personally made my life harder (by women he’s hurt) /info/bailey-defamation.html

• (06-12-2003) LINK: The Man Who Wouldn’t Leave Us Alone (by Ryka) http://www.geocities.com/rykaryka/Baileyrant.html

• (05-02-2003) Northwestern U. Psychologist J. M. Bailey Debases Social Science In Quest For Celebrity (by Sonia John). /info/bailey-psychology.html

• (04-27-2003) LINK: The National Academy meets the National Enquirer (by Rebecca Allison, M.D.) http://www.drbecky.com/blog05.html#apr13

• (06-17-2003) Bailey on institutional reading lists (by Andrea James) /info/bailey-university.html

• (06-16-2003) My correspondence with Northwestern Student Affairs (by Andrea James) /info/bailey-psychologist.html

• (06-23-2003) LINK: Open letter to Northwestern Administration (by Lynn Conway) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/NorthwesternLetter1.html

• (06-18-2003) LINK: Transphobia for Dummies (by Lynn Conway) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/BooksForDummies.html

• (06-19-2003) Bailey’s sexism and analogies of race (by Andrea James) /info/bailey-racism.html

• (06-20-2003) Mike Bailey and “homosexual transsexuals” (by Andrea James) /info/bailey-homosexual.html

• (06-21-2003) A note regarding Bailey’s children (by Andrea James) /info/bailey-children.html

• (06-18-2003) LINK: Transphobia for Dummies (by Lynn Conway) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/BooksForDummies.html

• (06-26-2003) The Man Who Would Be A Scientist (by Gwyneth Rhian Morgan) /info/bailey-scientist.html

• (06-25-2003) LINK: Bailey ignores community criticism (by Lynn Conway) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/BaileyDeclinesContacts.html

• (06-25-2003) LINK: Review (by Lisa Lees) http://www.lisalees.com/trans/reviews/bailey.html

• (06-21-2003) LINK: The Bailey Controversy, Trans Activism, and Prudery (by Harper Jean) http://www.livejournal.com/users/garconfille/122906.html

• (05-15-2003) I’m Me, Therefore I Am [PDF file- requires reader] (by Christine Burns) http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/Im_Me.pdf

• (05-15-2003) Not Quite So Incredibly Brave [PDF file- requires reader] (by Christine Burns) http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/NotBrave.pdf

• (05-24-2003) When Sally Met Harry [PDF file- requires reader] (by Christine Burns) http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/sally.pdf

• (04-14-2003) My first response to Bailey’s book (by Andrea James) /info/j-michael-bailey-blanchard.html

• (04-15-2003) Original introductory materials (by Andrea James) /info/autogynephilic-intro.html

• (04-24-2003) My spin on Bailey (by Helen) /info/bailey-transsexual.html

• (04-23-2003) Because I Am: A letter to J. Michael Bailey (by Annette) /info/bailey-northwestern.html

• (05-01-2003) Book review of The Man Who Would Be Queen (by Christine Johnson) /info/bailey-autogynephilia.html

• (05-06-2003) “Political correctness” (by Richard Green, M.D., J.D. and comment by Christine Burns) /info/bailey-richard-green.html

• (05-14-2003) Correspondence on Bailey’s book and Northwestern’s legal liability (by Australian WOMAN Network) /info/bailey-lawsuit.html

• (05-14-2003) Letter to Bailey (by Australian WOMAN Network) /info/bailey-transsexualism.html

• (07-17-2003) Brochure given to attendees at International Academy of Sex Research (ed. by Andrea James) /bailey/index.html

• (06-20-2003) LINK: Press release (by National Transgender Advocacy Coalition) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/NTACpressrelease.html

• (03-09-2004) LINK: Investigative report (by Professor Lynn Conway) http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/LynnsReviewOfBaileysBook.html

• (08-06-2003) John Money vs. J. Michael Bailey (intro by Andrea James) /info/bailey-john-money.html

• (04-19-2003) Divided we fall: the dangers of categorizing transsexual women (by Evelyn, intro by Andrea James) /info/divided.html

• (05-17-2003) LINK: Excerpts from other community responses (by Rebecca Allison, M.D.) http://www.drbecky.com/blog06.html

• (07-17-2003) LINK: Identity rape: psych exposed women without their consent (via PsychWatch) http://psychwatch.blogspot.com/2003_07_13_psychwatch_archive.html#105845090093478495

• (08-07-2003) Biology is destiny: new book drawing fire (via GenderPAC) /info/bailey-genderpac.html

• (09-13-2003) HBIGDA President blasts Bailey book (courtesy Eli Coleman) /info/eli-coleman.html

• (09-30-2003) LINK: Book review (via Logged Off) http://home.iprimus.com.au/laurapalmer/manwhowouldbequeen.htm

• (08-17-2003) Gordon Walker review (via GLIP Newsletter) /info/gordon-walker.html

• (11-09-2003) Bailey potpourri (via contributors) /info/bailey-misc.html

• (06-30-2003) LINK: Book review (via GID.info) http://www.angelfire.com/psy/gid/bailey.htm

• (07-01-2003) LINK: Book review (by Christine Beatty) http://www.glamazon.net/bailey.html

• (05-14-2003) Overview of Bailey’s methodology and bias (by Andrea James) /info/bailey-transgendered.html

• (05-14-2003) LINK: It’s a guy thing (by Julie Marie) http://www.geocities.com/juliemarielee2001/blog2004-04.htm#anchor20040410

Transkids.us is a site with some controversial opinions from authors who identify as “homosexual transsexual.” This site suggests that any young person dealing with these feelings who is not exclusively attracted to males is not a “transkid.” The fact that they strongly endorse the views of J. Michael Bailey is also a cause for concern.

Commentaries on this collection of materials

• (05-14-2003) Anne Lawrence’s responses to critics /info/lawrence-autogynephilia.html

• (05-28-2003) LINK: Book Launches Controversy Among Transsexual Women (by Debra Hyde) http://www.yesportal.com/news.cfm/1341 http://www.pursedlips.com/

• (05-18-2003) LINK: …and the Cat Fight Gets Even Nastier (by Jamie Faye Fenton) http://members.tgforum.com/jamie/blog/2003_07_01_archive.html

• (06-16-2003) Kathleen Becker on “autogynephilia” /info/kathleen-becker.html

• (05-18-2003) Kendra Blewitt on “autogynephilia” /info/kendra-letter.html

• (05-06-2003) Willow Arune on “autogynephilia” and exchange with Dana Beyer, M.D. /info/dana-beyer-willow-arune.html /info/bailey-willow-arune.html

• (01-19-2004) Jamie Faye Fenton on “autogynephilia” /info/jamie-faye-fenton.html

• (05-15-2003) Selected letters and excerpts from readers /info/selected-letters.html

The “brain sex” concept put forth by Moir and Jessel is far more troubling to me than the Bem Sex Role Inventory.

Description: The purpose of the Moir-Jessel Brain Sex Test is “to determine whether your brain functions within the normal range for a male or a female.” This test gives two scores of which the participant selects the correct one for their sex. The interpretation of these scores, breaks the male and female scores each into three categories.

  • Males scoring less than 0 are “Extremely Masculine.”
  • Males scoring between 0 and 60 are “Normal Males.”
  • Males scoring greater than 60 are “Feminine Males.”
  • Females scoring less than 50 are “Masculine Female.”
  • Females scoring between 50 to 100 is “Normal Female.”
  • Females scoring greater than 100 is “Extremely Feminine.”

Anne Lawrence states: “The book BRAIN SEX, from which the test is derived, is a sloppy piece of pop science, full of oversimplifications, unsupported inferences, and speculations presented as though they were facts.” She adds, “The test has not been validated by actual samples of male and female subjects… [T]he test has never been validated with a sample of transsexuals, either.”

I agree about the lack of scientific validity in this extremely controversial book. I would also add that science can be used, or misused, for social purposes. Valid observations can be used to draw absurd conclusions, like the concept of “social Darwinism” put forth by racists and proponents of eugenics.

Moir and Jessel’s Brain Sex is to sexism what Murray and Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve is to racism: a veneer of scientific methodology laid over an agenda that is sexist at its very core. I find the fact that this book is warmly embraced by many transgender women to be a highly troubling commentary on our community’s attitude toward gender stereotypes.

To argue that social inequalities between the sexes is based on brain structure is simply misogyny draped in a labcoat.

Resources

Brain Sex (2015 edition)

Gender tests

The Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) is a gender test that was developed by Sandra Lipsitz Bem (1944–2014), who began researching sex roles since the early 1970s. The Bem test indicates the degrees of absorption of cultural definitions of gender, as reflected in the user’s personality.

Overview

Cynthia Connor and colleagues summarize Bem’s findings in an interesting article titled “Intrinsic Motivation and Role Adaptability with Regards to Drama Students:”

The possession of both masculine and feminine characteristics has important consequences for behavior (Bem, S. L., 1974). An expanded behavioral repertoire gives androgynous individuals superior sex-role adaptability in comparison to sex-typed individuals. The androgynous individual is able to adapt to a variety of situations. Sex-typed people internalize societies sex-appropriate behaviors as being desirable and exclude cross-sexed behaviors from their behavioral repertoires. Sandra Bem’s pioneering research on the dimensions of masculinity and femininity led to the development of the Bem Sex Role Inventory, (1974). The Bem Sex Role Inventory measures masculinity and femininity as two discriminable dimensions. The androgynous individual scores high on both dimensions. Sex-typed individuals score high on one dimension and reject while rejecting the characteristics of the other dimension. Androgynous people enact their masculine and feminine on different occasions (Vonk, R. & Ashemore, R. D., 1993). In describing their masculine, feminine and gender neutral attributes sides, Androgynous subjects use more situational qualifiers to explain their behavior. This supports Sandra Bem’s theory that androgyny is manifested as situational flexibility (1975).

After continued research into androgyny, Bem developed a cognitive schema theory of sex role behavior (Cook, E. P. 1985). Androgyny is a particular way of processing information. Androgynous individuals do not use sex-role related schemas to guide their information processing. Gender schematic individuals divide the world into masculine and feminine. They use traditional sex-role standards in their processing of information. Gender schema theory does not emphasize the degree to which an individual is masculine or feminine, but rather the extent to which they process new information along in terms of sex roles (Hargreaves, D. J. & Colley, A. M., 1987).

This inventory (BSRI) provides independent assessments of masculinity and femininity in terms of the respondent’s self-reported possession of socially desirable, stereotypically masculine and feminine personality characteristics. This can also be seen as a measurement of the extent to which respondents spontaneously sort self-relevant information into distinct masculine and feminine categories. The self administering 60-item questionnaire measures masculinity, femininity, androgyny, and undifferentiated, using the Masculinity and Femininity scales.

Criticisms

While Bem’s theories are very interesting, the test itself for use in our community is problematic for several reasons:

  • Reliance on gender stereotypes which can be recognized as male or female by the test taker.
  • Self-reporting by the test taker based on the above can influence the outcome.
  • While Bem asserts that androgynous takers will score high on both scales, this may not be true for trans people. Many people in our community are gender schematic, or very invested in culturally defined sex-appropriate behaviors, and a baseline has not been established for us.

References

  • Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Counseling & Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
  • Bem Sex – Role Inventory. Bem, Sandra L. USA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1981.

Resources

Gary Sturt (garysturt.free-online.co.uk)

Mindgarden (mindgarden.com)

The COGIATI is an online “gender test.” COGIATI stands for Combined Gender Identity And Transsexuality Inventory. It sounds like it is a science test (even though it is not). It was made to tell if someone is a transgender woman, but it can not tell you that.

I like and respect Jennifer Diane Reitz. Jennifer created the COGIATI as part of a series Transsexual Tests. She has helped many people. However, I disagree strongly and respectfully with Jennifer on the COGIATI test. I do not think it will help people. These kinds of tests are not scientific. They do not have scientific validity.

The COGIATI has questions that Jennifer says are based on sex differentiation. The scores are:

  • -650 to -390: Class 1 (Definite Male)
  • -389 to -130: Class 2 (Feminine Male)
  • -129 to 129: Class 3 (Androgyne)
  • 130 to 389: Class 4 (Probable Transsexual)
  • 390 to 650: Class 5 (Classic Transsexual)

Many questions are like questions on other tests by Bem and Moir-Jessel. Those tests have problems, too.

Jennifer says:

The COGIATI is a prototype. It was designed for only one target: the curious, unsure, pre-operative POTENTIAL Male-To-Female transsexual (not a post-op, not someone who is already certain, not a Female-To-Male, not anyone else who fails to fit the stated definition target). Further, it was constructed for that given target only because no scientifically and medically based test for such people exists. None. Anywhere. I saw that there was a void, no physicians were filling it, and so I set to work. The COGIATI is a challenge to the scientific and medical community to follow my example, and do a better job than I.

While this is a good goal, I think the test is based on bad ideas and bad science. Some tests look like science, but they are not. This fake science is called pseudoscience.

People who like their score will think it is a good test. That is called bias.

To learn more on why gender tests are bad, go here.

Resources

Transsexuality (transsexual.org)

  • Gender Test Center
  • https://www.transsexual.org/TEST0.html

Some gender questioning people ask me about online “gender tests.” I think gender tests are pseudoscience. They look like science but are not. I worry these tests might hurt some people who take them. They might make a bad choice in life because of the results. I think these tests are very bad for young people and for people without much school.

Why gender tests are bad

1. You do not learn anything new from gender tests

  • Some people take the tests for fun or as a joke. That is great!
  • If you are taking one because you are questioning your gender and want answers, you need to be careful. You already know that you might want to make changes. It is better to talk in person with people who can help. Online tests seem like easy answers, but there are no easy answers.

2. You can often get the score you want

  • You can often tell which answers are “masculine” or “feminine.” Your score may also change based on when or how you take the test.

3. You might make big choices based on your score

  • A quick test with a score is less work than thinking hard about how you feel. Some people use the score as “proof” they should do something. Big choices should not be based on an online test. Do not use a number or category from your test score to make a big life choice.
  • Some people do not like to make big choices. They want to be told what to do. That way if things go wrong, they can blame something.

4. Gender tests look like science, but they are not

  • I am happy people study sex and gender. I would be happy if a test could tell if you should make a gender change. No test can do that yet.
  • We do not know why some people are transgender or gender diverse yet.
  • That means the tests are not based on proven things.

5. Gender tests will give the wrong result to some people

  • Even good tests are not always right. Think of a test for cancer. Most of the time, the test is right, but sometimes it is wrong. There are two ways it can be wrong:
    • It says you have cancer when you do not have it (a false positive)
    • It says you do not have cancer, but you do (a false negative)
  • If enough people take a test, even a good one, some will get put in the wrong group.
  • Some people make a gender change, but later they wish they had not done it. This happens when you do not think hard enough about why you want to make a gender change. People who like gender tests may not want to think hard.

6. Some people use gender test scores like game scores

  • Some people think their score means they are “more transgender” than someone with a lower score.
  • Many people want to know where they stand among other people:
    • Grades in school
    • Standardized tests (SAT, ACT, GRE, LSAT, GMAT, etc.)
    • IQ tests
    • Mensa
    • “Rate your mate” quizzes
    • Beauty pageant scores
    • Sports rankings
  • Gender tests seem real to some who think that “numbers don’t lie.” But gender identity can not be reduced to a number or score.

7. Gender tests say there are simple “types” for things that are not simple

  • People do not fit into simple types. That is what is great about people!
  • Many of the ways we divide people into types are too simple.
  • For instance, dividing people as only “gay” or “straight” gets rid of a lot of big differences. The same is true with dividing people as only “male” or “female.” Sexuality and gender are a spectrum, not a binary of two things.
  • Think of a rainbow. Imagine saying there are only two colors: warm and cool. That would get rid of a lot of colors!

Background

When I was in grade school, there was a “gender test” we used to tell if someone was a boy or girl by how they looked at their fingernails: if you look at your nails with fingers bent and palm facing you, you were a boy, and if you looked at them with fingers straight and the back of your hand facing you, you were a girl.

This kind of belief is called a stereotype. A stereotype is an idea or image of a group of people or things that is too simple. Some people might not match their stereotype. Some adults think we can split people in types based on stereotypes.

A note on horoscopes

Horoscopes are another way to classify people that is fake science. It takes something scientific (looking at the stars and when you were born) and says that you are a type based on that stuff. People who believe in it say everyone falls into one of twelve types. Each type acts in different ways. Capricorns act this way, and Cancers act that way.

Horoscopes are a lot like gender tests. People hear what they want in the results. In science, this is called confirmation bias. There are even people who plan their day based on a horoscope. That is about as smart as planning your life based on a gender test.

Things like “gender tests” and horoscopes should only be done for fun.

Here are some of the “gender tests” you might hear people talk about:

These are all fake science and should not be taken seriously.

This page uses easy words. This helps young people read it. This also helps people who don’t know many English words. The words in bold are hard. You need to know what they mean, or this will be hard to read. You can use these links to looks up words you don’t know:
Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary
Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary