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]
Satoshi Kanazawa (born 1962) is an American-born British evolutionary psychologist. He considers fellow evolutionary psychologist J. Michael Bailey “one of the greatest behavior geneticists and sex researchers in the world today.”
Logrolling with J. Michael Bailey
Kanazawa wrote a Psychology Today blog called The Scientific Fundamentalist until his dismissal in 2011 for his claim about race and attractiveness.
Kanazawa’s 2016 research on female sexuality cites several works by Bailey.
To return the favor, Bailey convinced two psychology department colleagues to co-sign Bailey’s request to host Kanazawa as a visiting scholar at Northwestern University in 2018.
When students and faculty objected, Bailey said he “didn’t invite him, in the usual sense of that word.” He claimed Kanazawa was just asking for “a desk and library access.”
Northwestern’s Psychology Department once again rallied around Bailey and his two colleagues, refusing to intervene or comment on the matter.
Kanazawa S (2016). Possible evolutionary origins of human female sexual fluidity. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2017 Aug;92(3):1251-1274. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12278. Epub 2016 May 16.
As a social psychologist (PH), a consultant counselling psychologist (PL) a social psychologist (MB) ) and a chartered counselling psychologist (LM), we are challenged and heartened by Joan Roughgarden’s call for psychologists to condemn transphobic and otherwise bigoted research. Like Roughgarden we were troubled upon reading Bailey’s book for its explicit transphobic assumptions that trans adults are a negative outcome of development and for the heterosexism, sexism and racism which Roughgarden describes so well. Trans men, gay and bisexual women are notable by their invisibility in the text. The use of the authors friends’ opinion of bisexuality as “gay, straight or lying” in the book itself, and now it seems in advertisements is not perceived as amusing or trivial in our opinion in view of the slow progress there has been in developing a bisexual psychology, and the real effects of biphobia in blighting people’s lives. There is very little recognition in mainstream psychology generally which is further perpetuated by this book, that someone could be attracted to both sexes or have relationships with both, with many theorists favouring the general binary construction of sexuality which does not allow for an ‘in between’ position; people are either gay or straight (Ochs, 1996). Generally, many bisexuals are seen as straight if in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, and gay if in a relationship with someone of the same sex and that experience of having an imposed social identity which conflicts with a personal identity, and the confusion it engenders can have commonalities with trans experience. In respect to the “Gaydar” and discussion of sexual orientation and related behaviour described in the book, a whole literature of gay and lesbian psychology which has been painstakingly developed and promoted within mainstream psychology, appears to have been excluded.
We are particularly concerned that Bailey’s work will be seen as representative of scientific psychological research, both by the trans community and by other sections of the public. Bailey relies on a sample size of six – which would not be sufficient for any experimental or survey research to be published in a peer reviewed psychology journal. (Indeed, the standard statistical assumptions upon which quantitative psychological research rests – such as the central limit theorem – cannot apply to samples of this size). In this regard Bailey’s work is an outlier rather than the norm for quantitative psychology.
Sometimes psychologists do conduct research with small sample sizes, and rely on qualitative data rather than quantitative data. Such research can be particularly useful when conducted among under-represented and difficult-to-access populations as it can inform psychologists about a group that it might be difficult to study statistically. Does Bailey’s research then fit the model for acceptable qualitative psychology? This is questionable. A hallmark of good qualitative research is reflexivity – an awareness and description of the way that qualitative data is shaped by the researcher’s own position. Qualitative researchers also frequently understand their participants as directing the research and informing its questions. The participants in this research have provided the case material but cannot be said to be participants in the sense that is currently considered good practice in psychological research. There is insufficient discussion of the limitations of his interviews and too many conclusions are drawn about the essence of transsexual psychology from casual talk in bars, occasional anecdotes and the opinions of the author’s friends. The persistent critiques from the trans community (including Bailey’s own participants) support our criticism of this not being collaborative qualitative research.In spite of the differences between them, and the debates between quantitative and qualitative methods in particular, all social scientific methodologies are designed to ensure that we do not inflate our own opinions into evidence. In quantitative research this is done by using methods that limit the effects of the researchers’ own perspective on the data. In qualitative research, it is done by making those effects part of the data itself. This is not in evidence in the research reported in “The Man Who Would Be Queen”.
As a result the danger that Bailey’s expressed anti-trans opinions might be confused with scientific evidence is particularly high in this case. Indeed, Bailey repeatedly uses a non-scientific form of argument, the ‘ad hominum’, to lend scientific credence to his point of view. He often cites his own status within scientific communities (and those of colleagues) but it is important to note that status within one’s own field, (or elsewhere), should count for nothing in academic debates. For these reasons, the consistent criticism of Bailey’s work from trans scholars, scientists from other disciplines and activists such as Joan Roughgarden, Jed Bland and Lynn Conway is particularly welcome to us as psychologists who are concerned with standards of ethical and scholarly conduct within our field. Roughgarden is right that there is a history of transphobic research in psychology. In fact we are surprised that she describes Bailey’s research as ‘surprising’ as he has been involved in research on childhood ‘gender non-conformity’ for some time (e.g., Bailey & Zucker, 1996). Most of the psychological research on transsexuality and transgender falls into the abnormal clinical literature, as did most research on homosexuality up until the 1970s. Indeed, in contrast to the well-developed fields of research on heterosexism (and also sexism, ageism, and racism) there are few studies of transphobia in psychology journals, and no standardized attitude measure has been published. Clearly there is a wide open field of trans psychology, premised on the assumption that trans people are people rather than clinical cases, which is crying out to be developed. However, it would be wrong to assume that the methods of psychology are so completely flawed that they render Bailey’s research as paradigmatic.
As psychologists with a special interest in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender psychology and civil rights, we accept the need to change the way psychology has constructed all of these populations and to draw from recent works within the field of psychology to expand our everyday reality about our social worlds. However, we also recognise the need to become more interdisciplinary and even multidisciplinary if we really do want to move lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (and dare we say ‘queer’) studies into the 21st Century. There are growing numbers of critical psychologists challenging traditional psychological theories and shifting paradigms. This is particularly evident in the Lesbian and Gay Psychology Section of the British Psychological Society which promotes and develops lesbian, gay and bisexual psychological research and practice not framed from within a heterosexist framework, as well as including a significant number of psychologists with a special interest in developing a transgender psychology which does not pathologise trans people . This will inevitably take time and patience – despite the need for those impatient enough to want change, to come forward and become more visible.
Suggestions for future considerations for transgender psychology research both for participants to raise prior to being involved in research and for psychologists to address when designing and seeking ethical approval for such research:
1. The employment of standard ethical and scientific procedures.
2. Wide consultation with trans people and trans activists about hypotheses, research questions, etc, and a commitment to applying current good practice more commonplace now in regard to user involvement in more mainstream fields of research to trans research, particularly when the principal researchers come from outside the trans community
3. Not to use trans people as ‘natural experiments’ to test hypotheses about ‘gender’ , ‘sexual orientation’ etc. in static categorical terms.
4. Inclusion of qualitative and quantitative data.
5. Development of prejudice research.
6. Recognition that there is an interface with other minority areas (e.g., psychology of women, lesbian, gay and bisexual psychology) but not a tokenistic addition of trans issues to these areas without substantial engagement.
7. Sensitivity to the ways that research on prejudiced groups will be received and to reflect that awareness in how the research is disseminated.
National Convener Mr Gordon Walker Department of Psychology, Monash University PO Box 197, Caulfied East, VIC, 3145 Tel: (03) 9903 2728 Fax: (03) 9903 2501 Email: [email protected]
GLIP News Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology An Interest Group of the Australian Psychological Society Ltd. Volume 2, Issue 2 August 2003 page 5
by Gordon Walker, Convener
Book review: Bailey, J.M. (2003). The man who would be queen: The science of gender-bending and transsexualism. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
This is a book, written by a leading researcher in the field, is about understanding sexual orientation and identity. Although the author makes much use of research, this is not a textbook; any educated person with an interest in this topic would find the material very accessible. The stories of various boys and men are woven together with the discussion of research to create a highly interesting and very worthwhile book. In fact once I started I had difficulty putting down! Broadly speaking it is an examination of the relationship between male homosexuality and femininity. As the author says, to say that femininity and homosexuality are closely bound together has been politically incorrect for some time now, but nevertheless factually correct. The book then goes on to demonstrate this across the sexual orientation spectrum.
The book is therefore a challenge to the postmodern position on gender, although the author clearly occupies the middle ground between social constructionism and essentialism. This is demonstrated in his discussion of feminine boys and of those labeled gender identity disordered (GID) in particular. In looking at the debate between those on the left who want them left alone to be as feminine as they want to be and those on the extreme right who view homosexuality as arrested psychosexual development, he draws the reader’s attention to research that shows that therapy directed at reducing femininity in highly feminine boys reduces the number who ultimately seek a sex-change, and therefore increases the number who as adults identify as gay. He suggests that an alternative to this would be to allow such boys to become women very early (pre-puberty) so that they can have better outcomes as women.
The author uses a range of research to clearly challenge the view that pronounced femininity in boys is the result of socialisation. The question of where does extreme femininity come from is also examined
Similarities and differences between gay and straight men are also examined. Broadly speaking, although gay men have interests more in line with those of women, in attitudes to sex and the body homosexual and heterosexual men were shown to be essentially the same; the differences in behaviour come about because heterosexually men are basically constrained in their behaviour by women. The author provides a very accessible and readable account of the sometimes confusing array of studies that have attempted to account for sexual orientation and draws the conclusion that there is some fundamental biological influence that transcends culture. The last section of the book focuses on transsexualism, and produces a compelling argument for recognising two main types: homosexual and non-homosexual types, with the latter being erotically obsessed with the image of themselves as women. A very much more complex picture emerges than the popular image of a woman being trapped inside a man’s body.
The great value of this book lies in the way it has brought together a wide range of research on important questions relating to sexual orientation. This gives the reader a wonderful opportunity to reflect further on what being other than heterosexual might mean.
Gordon Walker Department of Psychology School of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine Monash University
Letter to Dr. Walker from WOMAN Network
“We write to express our concern that the Special Interest Group on Gay and Lesbian Issues of the Australian Psychological Society has been implicated in support for the writings of Prof J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University.
In this respect, we draw your attention to the following quote from GLIP News, August 2003:
“…any educated person with an interest in this topic would find the material very accessible. The stories of various boys and men are woven together with the discussion of research to create a highly interesting and very worthwhile book. In fact once I started I had difficulty putting down! … The author provides a very accessible and readable account of the sometimes confusing array of studies that have attempted to account for sexual orientation and draws the conclusion that there is some fundamental biological influence that transcends culture. … The great value of this book lies in the way it has brought together a wide range of research on important questions relating to sexual orientation. This gives the reader a wonderful opportunity to reflect further on what being other than heterosexual might mean.”
The book referred to is “The Man Who Would Be Queen” which was published under the imprimateur of the National Academies of Sciences. It has brought huge condemnation for its inaccurate and highly offensive portrayal of transsexualism and the people who are affected by it. This has culminated recently in legal action against the author, who is accused of failing to obtain the necessary informed consents of the subjects of his material. Importantly, the scientific veracity of the work has now been shattered in a most public way at the recent IASR Conference in the United States.
Bailey seized on earlier work by Ken Zucker of the somewhat infamous Clarke Institute, and categorised us as either excessively homosexual males or autogynaephilic males. He deliberately excluded the anecdotal evidence of those, the vast majority, who did not fit with his theory and ignored completely the prevailing hard science pointing to the somatic nature of transsexualism. The fall out from this scientific fraud is gaining momentum and it would be very unfortunate if Monash University were to be included in this.
You can gauge the international responses to the issue by visiting these websites:
One matter of very real concern is the way in which the religious right has already seized on Bailey’s writings to further justify their rejection of transsexualism as a valid condition of human sexual formation and their condemnation of those affected by it. These same condemnations will undoubtedly be directed at gay and lesbian people to the detriment of us all.
We therefore ask you to consider repudiating Bailey’s work and ensure your next newsletter contains a suitable disclaimer.”
It is reported that Dr. Walker is making inquiries about the matter and will respond after he’s had time to review the matter.
The CAMH Gender Identity Clinic is delighted to announce that our clinic received a Presidential Citation from Division 44 of the American Psychological Association (the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues) at a ceremony on August 9, 2003.
The text of the Citation reads as follows:
The Gender Identity Clinic has established itself as the premier research center on gender dysphoria research and clinical care since 1968, and is celebrating its 35th year.”
APA DIV 44 also allowed James Cantor to write a glowing review of The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey. Joseph Henry Press was later forced to attribute the review to Cantor by name, rather than their earlier attempts to imply that the review was the consensus of APA DIV 44.
James Neal Butcher (born November 20, 1933) is an American psychologist who has published pathologizing materials about sex and gender minorities. His college textbook Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life was influenced by the toxic ideology of Ray Blanchard, who promotes disease models of gender identity and expression.
Background
Butcher was born in Bergoo, West Virginia. His father was killed in a coal mining accident when Butcher was 8. His mother and five children moved to Charleston, where she died when Butcher was 11. Butcher then took a job selling newspapers, and he and three minor siblings raised themselves without an adult in the home.
In 1950, Butcher enlisted in the Army, serving in Korea. After his discharge, he earned a BA in psychology from Guilford College in 1960. In 1964 he earned a PhD in clinical psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He then served as a professor of psychology and as Director of the Clinical Psychology Program at the University of Minnesota, where he was appointed Professor Emeritus after 40 years. He is best known for his work on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and has published fifty-eight books and more than two hundred fifty articles in personality assessment, abnormal psychology, and crisis-intervention.
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.
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.
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
• 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¬Found=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: 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
• 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
• (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
• (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
• (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.
