The Man Who Would Be Queen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism is a controversial 2003 book by J. Michael Bailey, published by Joseph Henry Press. In it, Bailey lays out an argument that male homosexuality is congenital and a result of heredity and prenatal environment. He also suggests that transsexualism is either an extreme type of homosexuality or an expression of a paraphilia, known as autogynephilia.

The book generated considerable controversy, as well as a formal investigation by Northwestern University, where Bailey was Chair of the Psychology Department until shortly before the conclusion of the investigation.

Written in a popular science style, the book summarizes research done on the topic that supports Bailey's opinions.

1 Background
2 Summary
3 Controversy
4 References
5 External links

[edit] Background

Based on Bailey's interpretation of evolutionary psychology, homosexuality is an evolutionary mistake or paradox, and may represent "a developmental error" (Bailey 1999). He has linked homosexuality to higher levels of psychopathology and has suggested that aborting a fetus after fetal screening for sexual orientation is "morally acceptable" (Bailey 2001).

The book is divided into three sections: The Boy Who Would Be Princess, The Man He Might Become, and Women Who Once Were Boys.

[edit] Summary

[edit] The Boy Who Would Be Princess

The book starts with an anecdote about a child Bailey calls "Danny." Bailey writes of Danny's mother, who has been frustrated by other therapists she has seen about her son's "feminine" behavior: "In spring of 1996 Leslie Ryan came to my Northwestern University office to seek yet another opinion." [1] He then extolls the virtues of Kenneth Zucker's reparative therapy for children with gender identity "disorder". [2] That means taking away anything "feminine" from the child. [3] Bailey warns that a world tolerant of gender-nonconforming boys might "come with the cost of more transsexual adults." [4].

Bailey uses the anecdote to discuss young boys considered to have a psychological condition referred to as gender identity disorder (GID). This term is used to describe patients, usually children, who exhibit a large amount of salient gender-atypical behavior such as cross-dressing, boys preferring to play with dolls, identification with female characters in stories or movies. This section also discusses some case studies of men who were, for varying reasons, reassigned to the female sex shortly after their birth, and emphasizes the fact that, despite this, they tended to exhibit typically male characteristics and often a desire to identify as a male.

Leslie reports back that the cure is working and that "Danny" won't talk about feminine things, and his father is forcing him to play catch. [5]

[edit] The Man He Might Become

The second section deals primarily with homosexual men, including a suggested link between GID and male homosexuality later in life due largely to the research of Richard Green. In particular, he discusses whether homosexuality is a congenitally or possibly even genetically related phenomenon. This includes references to his studies as well as those of Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer. He also discusses the behavior of gay men and its typically masculine and feminine qualities.

[edit] Women Who Once Were Boys

The third section is primarily about male to female transsexualism and has spurred much controversy surrounding the book and its author. In this section, Bailey propounds a behavioral model due to Ray Blanchard that male to female transsexuals fall into two categories related to their reasons for a desire to transition. He also discusses the process by which this transition occurs.

When Bailey runs into Danny in the end of the book, the recommended "cure" has worked. The last paragraph of the book has Danny emphasizing that he needs to go use the men's room. Critics have pointed out the parallels with other "gay cure" narratives, as well as parallels with the success reported by John Money in "treating" David Reimer (later proven to be academic fraud).

[edit] Controversy

Largely because of its third section, the book, as well as Bailey himself, has been surrounded by a great deal of controversy. The major point of contention is Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia, which is presented favorably. This theory categorizes transsexuals into one of two types labeled "homosexual transsexuals" and "autogynephilic transsexuals."

The former term refers to biological males who desire to become female because of identification with this gender and an attraction to heterosexual males. Autogynephilia, on the other hand, refers to a condition in which a predominantly heterosexual biological male desires to transition to the female sex because of arousal at the notion of himself as a woman. The ability of these concepts to accurately describe male to female transsexuals is at the center of the debate.

Bailey's most vocal critics were trans women, including women whose case studies were featured in the book. Bailey's critics claim that his book presents large amounts of speculation and opinion as science. Bailey's replies to such criticisms characterize many of them as being due to "misunderstanding" of the book. Further, he claims that many of his most prominent critics have severely misrepresented his actual claims and attempted to defame him because he dismisses their concerns as self-justification, identity politics, and lies.

His prominent critics also include peers in sexology. Bailey's response was a lecture at the 2003 International Academy of Sex Research titled "Identity politics as a hindrance to scientific truth." ^[1] Immediately after Bailey's presentation, John Bancroft, then head of the Kinsey Institute, told Bailey: "Michael, I would caution you against calling this book 'science' because I have read it ... and I can tell you it is not science."^[2] Eli Coleman, head of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association has described the book as "bad science" and an "unfortunate setback." Clinician Walter Bockting noted that "the book fails to offer a balanced and well-cited review of the scientific literature." (Bockting 2005).

Most GLBT rights groups have spoken out about Bailey's claims in various publications, including the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, GenderPAC, as well as individuals in the transgender community, including renowned computer scientist Lynn Conway, writer and consumer activist Andrea James, and one of the subjects of his book to whom Bailey refers by the pseudonym Cher. While some transgendered people agree with Bailey and Blanchard, many others believe that their behavioral model is not only inaccurate, but a reflection of anti-trans attitudes and a form of defamation.

Originally, the Lambda Literary Foundation nominated the book as a finalist in the transgender award category for 2003. Transpeople immediately protested the nomination and gathered thousands of petition signatures in just a few days. After the petition, LLF's judges examined the book more closely, decided that they considered it transphobic, and removed it from their list of finalists. ^[3]

Many of Bailey's critics attack not only his book, but his personal integrity. Some of the subjects in his book, and several organizations accuse him of several ethical breaches in his research, including not telling people to whom he referred that they were participating in research, and unconfirmed claims that he had sex with one of his patients.

He has also been variously accused of supporting anti-gay and anti-transsexual causes as well as eugenics. Bailey's philosophy regarding homosexual eugenics is most clearly laid out in his 2001 article "Parental selection of children's sexual orientation," in which he argues that parents have a fundamental right to screen for traits they find undesirable in a child, such as homosexuality. He notes that aborting a gay fetus does no harm to the fetus (who never has to experience homosexuality) and adds that "the specific enterprise of selecting for heterosexuality seems to be morally acceptable."

Less prominent controversy includes criticisms by anti-gay organizations, such as NARTH, that take issue with the book's support of the claim that homosexuality is intrinsic, and claims that it was biased against the views of those who believe that homosexuality can be altered.