After The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism by Michael Bailey was published, several transsexuals started an extraordinary defamation campaign against Bailey. The story of this campaign, including interviews, is told in the new paper by Alice Dreger that I mentioned in earlier posts on this topic (Part 1, Part 2).
The defamation campaign was led by professors. They claimed Blanchard’s typology of transsexuals was false, of course, but never clearly explained why. Bailey’s crime wasn’t that his book spread falsehoods; it was that it spread a truth they didn’t want spread.
One of those professors was Deidre McCloskey, the author of Crossing. She wrote an amazing review of Bailey’s book. From her review:
Almost everyone in the scientific study of sex and gender has checked and balanced and resisted the Clarke Institute’s [Blanchard worked at the Clarke Institute] theory. It has proven to be wrong and has been laid aside by the mainstream of gender researchers.
Who are these “almost everyone”? McCloskey never says. And it’s a long review.
Lynn Conway, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Michigan and a member of the National Academy of Engineering, constructed a website called “An investigation into the publication of J. Michael Bailey’s book on transsexualism by the National Academies”. This big website has little to say about Blanchard’s typology other than this, written by Conway:
It is unfalsifiable (note: any trans woman who reports that she doesn’t fit the classifications is explained by the “theory” as being a “liar”). Furthermore, the scheme has no predictive capabilities. Thus it is thus untestable.
Well, which is it? “Proven wrong” by “almost everyone” (McCloskey) or “unfalsifiable” and without “predictive capabilities” and “untestable” (Conway)? McCloskey and Conway must have talked many times. This discrepancy in how they attacked Blanchard’s theory shows how little they cared about its truth — or that they knew it was true.
For people engaged in what they called a noble cause (defending transsexuals), McCloskey and Conway showed a remarkable disinclination to tell Dreger what they had done. Dreger tried hard to interview both of them.
McCloskey gave Dreger some brief email answers and then
refused to tell me anything more substantial unless I first proved to her, by showing her what I was writing, that I agreed with her position.
As for Conway, Dreger was unable to reach her at the University of Michigan. Finally she called Conway at home:
We had a phone call that lasted about a minute (August 16, 2006). She surprised me by being extremely hostile at the outset. She also would not answer a question about whether she was willing to speak to me on the record. This confused me — why would she not just tell me whether or not she wanted to speak on the record. I said as much. She responded that it was very strange that I would call her at home. I told her how many other ways I had tried to reach her with no response before finally calling her home. She then said that I was stalking her and added that she would circulate this fact widely.
Thanks for blogging on this book and the responses to it. Now I will want to read it. Having been married to a cross-gendered person (Type 2 cross-dresser, by the indications you cite) for nearly 40 years, I’m interested in what researchers may find and/or speculate about transexualality, especially concerning cross-gender and cross-dressing.
My comments will stray from the main points of your blog.
Discovery Health aired a fascinating televised documentary, “I Am My Own Twin,” about Natural Chimerism, in which one has two genetically distinct types of cells. In such an instance, a person may also be, essentially, his or her own twin. I immediately wondered if there have been any medical studies to research if chimierism might be a possible root of transexuality, especially cross-gendered behavior, in which, a man feels like he is a woman trapped in a man’s body, or visa versa for a cross-gendered woman?
After knowing and intimately experiencing shared-life with a male cross-dresser for so many years, and realizing that there are an enormous variety of genetic anomalies, some rare, some more common than we may know, I would have difficulty believing transexualism is a completely learned, adopted or adaptive (i.e., mainly psychological) behavior.
From Wikipedia:
““Human chimeras were first discovered with the advent of blood typing when it was found that some people had more than one blood type. Most of them proved to be “blood chimeras” — non-identical twins who shared a blood supply in the uterus. Those who were not twins are thought to have blood cells from a twin that died early in gestation. Twin embryos often share a blood supply in the placenta, allowing blood stem cells to pass from one and settle in the bone marrow of the other. About 8% of non-identical twin pairs are chimeras.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(animal)#Natural_chimerism
An exerpt from the blog, “Insipired Moms.Com”:
During pregnancy, the majority of mothers and children will exchange cellular information in a process called microchimerism. This is actually beneficial to the Mother and Child at this point because it encourages the mother to not treat her child has a foreign body and spontaneous abort or miscarry her child. However, the cells and information received from the child remain. In fact, in some studies it has been shown to remain decades after childbirth in a mother’s system. When a mom has other children, it is highly likely that the DNA information from the other child is passed onto the younger sibling in the womb creating Chimeras, or individuals who have been affected by Chimerism.
https://www.inspiredmoms.com/subpage/FeatureArticles/OctoberNovember2005/healthWendyStewartHamiltonChimera%20OctNov2005.htm
Also:
https://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=8905
The reason we transsexuals have so much problem with the two type is there are so many of us who violate one or more rules about one of those ‘types’. Those come across us as stereotypes, which is why there have been so many attacks on Bailey for his research. Sure there are many who fall under 1 or 2, but there are many that confuse or blend between the two at the same time. Saying there are two types of transsexuals is like saying there are two types of gay men. Feminine gay men, and leather daddies, it’s absurd to think everyone fits into two categories.
Bailey refuses to admit that bisexual men exist, he believes in the ‘gay, straight or lying’ idea.
I myself am a transsexual. I transitioned at age 23 (type 1). I have a Master’s degree in business (type 2). I was feminine as a child (Type 1). I pass fairly well, ie: not a man in a dress (Type 1). I crossdressed when young (Type 2). I date men and women (Neither Type). I didn’t marry a female (Type 1). I don’t obsess over being ‘girly’ insofar as I don’t even own a single dress or pair of high heels. Bailey seems obsessed over the fetishization of female clothing when there are plenty of us who just wear jeans and t-shirts. I don’t know what ‘type’ that qualifies me as.
Bailey seems to refuse to admit people like me exist. Just like he refuses to admit that bisexual men exist.
Source on his bisexual men study. https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/30/health/webmd/main805081.shtml
“So many attacks on Bailey for his research” — well, his research is mostly about male homosexuals. The typology you mention is Blanchard’s research, not Bailey’s. So it is clear that Bailey was not attacked because of his research. He was attacked because he wrote a book that included Blanchard’s research.
The types that Blanchard hypothesizes refer to motivations for sex change. The two hypothesized motivations correlate, but not perfectly, with more visible characteristics, such as married/unmarried. There aren’t “rules” about the two types, just correlations.
I beg to differ. Bailey himself uses the same dichotomy as gay, straight or lying. You are type 1, type 2 or lying. In particular Type 2′s are always lying to make themselves come across as type 1′s. Quotes follow to support this.
“The most important reason that most people do not realize that there are two types of transsexuals is that members of one type sometime misrepresent themselves as members of the other. … they are often silent about their true motivation and instead tell stories about themselves that are misleading and, in important respects, false.” p146
“Once you’ve learned about autogynephilic and homosexual transsexuals and seen several of each, distinguishing them is easy.” p192
“The current popular literature about transsexualism is noteworthy for its ignorance of the distinction between autogynephilic and homosexual transsexuals.” p216
He then also proceeds to defame Type 1′s by calling them uneducated and stupid in various ways, as well as sex crazy.
“Homosexual transsexuals tend to have a short time horizon, with certain pleasure in the present worth great risks for the future.”
“Prostitution is the single most common occupation that homosexual transsexuals in our study admitted to.” p184
“Nearly all the homosexual transsexuals I know work as escorts after they have their surgery.” p184
“As for shoplifting, homosexual transsexuals are not especially well suited as much as especially motivated. For many, their taste in clothing is much more expensive than their income allows.” p185
So, in his book, he says all Type 2′s are lying. All Type 1′s are sex crazed whores. Why wouldn’t we be angry? Shouldn’t it be obvious? Have you ever read The Man Who Would be Queen? All of this is right there. According to him and Blanchard I am either a sociopathic liar, or a sex crazed kleptomaniac obsessed with clothing that’s suited for nothing but prostitution.
Now, I won’t condone what Conway and others have done. I don’t see any reason to make up false accusations of Bailey’s personal behavior when all that’s needed is to well…actually read the book and understand how much it degrades. As for Conway being unable to cite any refuting research, I can tell you from my personal interactions that therapists and psychologists aren’t buying it in the slightest. I’ve been to roughly ten or so since this book has been released and they all disagree with the book almost as vehemently as any transsexual. This is of course only my personal experience and no real survey of any sort, it’s also confined to the state of Virginia, but I still found it interesting.
Seth, your criticisms of Dr Bailey’s detractors seem fine on the surface, except for one small thing – we don’t fit into those neat boxes. Many of us have attributes of both types, as Rachel so eloquently pointed out, and I agree with her that your response to her post did not adequately address her concerns.
To say there are two types and then say they don’t correlate “perfectly” is not only an understatement but it leaves the majority of transsexuals who don’t fit neatly into those types in limbo. If many of us don’t fit the categories, then there are simply not enough categories. Or the wrong ones.
My own background is as confusing as Rachel’s:
I transitioned at age 36 (type 2). I have spent most of my working life in clerical, admin and assistant roles generally held by females (type 1). I refused to see myself as feminine as a child but due to family pressures I had started “shaping myself” male at a very early age, yet schoolmates saw though my act and I was bullied (for being gay and too girly) to the point where I had to leave without any qualifications (Type ?) I pass as a woman in all walks of life and straight men often flirt with me – and I with them (Type 1). I crossdressed when young (Type 2). I am fairly intellectual (Type 2). I date men exclusively and have zero sexual interest in women (Type 1). I married a female earlier on i life (Type 2). Like Rachel, I’m not obsessive about being ‘girly’ and wear jeans, shorts or slacks most of the time.
I agree with Rachel that Dr Bailey oversexualises us. Did he wonder for a moment what could make a male sexually aroused by feminisation? I would have thought that was crucial. It doesn’t take a genius to know that autog, being an unnatural impulse (ie. it is not partner-based), is caused by a form of childhood or teen trauma.
What causes that particular kind of trauma? A devastating sense of emasculation as a child. Does a male child have to be feminine in fact to feel emasculated? No, it’s all relative, and some may be androgynous when young but grow to be masculine, but they still retain the self-image. That’s why some with an autog background are feminine (which is plain old human diversity) and others are not (slow to mature).
This is hardly brain surgery, yet a supposedly serious researcher could not even come close, nor even try coming up with some hypotheses. He did, however, get to spend time in gay bars chatting with – was it 9? – transwomen. Is this the sort of research a “truth teller” does? That’s just one reason why his peers rejected his book.
So where does all that that leave me? I was a Type 1 who fought against my softness through family attitudes, and the resistance and subsequent insecurity and harassment gave me a Type 2 fetish (ie. damaged sexuality). If you accept it, then you’re no going to be as traumatised. My confusion and denial lead to me a misguided Type 2 marriage that I thought would fix me up (and caused unfair problems for an innocent woman). I know now that, as a male, I was always bi with a strong gay preference, yet I feel I was not a “proper” gay because I never felt happy with my “equipment” at the time and pretending to be masculine made me feel disturbed.
I have a fairly androgynous gay friend who knows my past and in talking we noticed how similar aspects of our youth were. One time we sat down and compared notes; we found only a few differences. I always looked more naturally feminine than he ever did. I never liked having a male organ (I used to try to wish cancer on it) and he always did. I never had that rampant male libido that he has. He has always enjoyed casual liaisons whereas they make me feel miserable and as though I’ve wasted my time. He knows more about tupperware, fabrics, homeware and furnishings than I do. He also knows a lot more about cars (which isn’t hard). He’s a bright boy.
Joking aside, when I had the surgery I told myself I was doing it for practical reasons like being able to have face-to-face intimacy, not feel paranoid in change rooms, wearing tight jeans, changing my birth certificate, not worry about going to hospital if in a car accident, etc. Yet I was really surprised to find the surgery had another effect – I started being happy and I became functional. Promotions at work soon followed – for the first time in my life – because I could finally concentrate. I now earn over double what I did 13 years ago in my male life.
I found that unexpected effect of the surgery weird because I never believed in the woman-in-a-male-body line; I always thought of TSism as just being a long way towards the end of the the feminine end of the male scale, to the point where living as a woman was more comfortable and allowed you to be more natural. The fact that I had that reaction suggests to me that there may well be something to the idea of gender identity, despite the naysaying of cynics. Perhaps it’s an interaction of body, mind and emotions?
I had to work hard to shake off the damage to my sexuality caused by autog and I will never be 100% fixed. It seems that, in fantasy, I can replace autog fantasies during those times when I can be bothered pleasuring myself with rape fantasies with good effect. I think that says a lot about the dynamics.
In terms of my REAL orientation, I am now left with a low-intensity heterosexual preference (as in a woman who falls in love with men). One problem in removing the cancer of autog from my sexuality is that my surgery was badly done and I often experience pain during sex, even a decade post-op and despite two follow-up surgeries to remove neuromas. So I can only be with men who are modestly endowed and even then it sometimes hurts.
Transwomen face a lot of problems and the last thing we need is a psychologist publishing his rough guesses and presenting them as The Truth. We have enough problems without that kind of “truth telling”.
A bit of real truth telling (without inverted commas) would be nice. Hopefully you will find this bit of REAL truth-telling of use in your practice.
A theory that there are two underlying reasons for TS doesn’t mean that the two clusters must be perfectly distinct. You seem to be much closer to Type 1 than Type 2. You don’t mention your job; “intellectual” isn’t type 2, it is computer programming, scientist, engineer, and other male-dominated jobs that are type 2.
How were you “damaged” by autog? It’s unclear what you mean.
Thanks for your reply, Seth. I don’t think there are two underlying reasons. Dr Bailey has focused on two underlying reasons but it’s so much more complex. The whole idea that being a “gay boy” is the only possible manifestation of high level male femininity is terribly simplistic. It entirely disregards our ability to shape ourselves and our being, as though suppression and repression don’t exist. It also disregards the varying flexibility of people. Some of us are capable of shaping ourselves to fit others’ conceptions of us very convincingly and others cannot.
How can a person whose specialty is studying the human mind disregard the way we shape ourselves to suit our environment? Any classification system that ignores asseveration and denial in an area where they play such a crucial role due to the intensity of stigma is can only be wrong or, at best, incomplete.
Some people are more motivated than others to do alter themselves to fit the expected mold. If a budding T-woman has highly phobic parents as a child it can cut either way; sometimes we give up ever gaining their affection and camp it up to the max as a form of rebellion. If we feel parental approval is not a lost cause we might try to shape ourselves in a way that makes sure we win their approval. There is also a matter of pride, confidence and character/personality strength. Some of us think “I am who I am and I see no reason to change myself to suit anyone else” while others have more of a “Gee, I’d better be careful of I’ll lose their love” attitude.
The problem with Dr Bailey’s approach is that it doesn’t seem to be presented as “two underlying reasons” but just two types of T-woman. That’s the way it’s presented – is that if you are a transwoman you are either a girly gay guy who like straight men or you are a straight guy who likes wearing dresses or fantasises about having female equipment. No argument. If you say otherwise you are lying.
I have worked in HR for most of my working life. Women abound, gay men are common and potential partners are thin on the ground
Autog is highly damaging to a person’s relationships as is any sexual impulse that is not relationship-based and I talked about this quite a bit in my earlier post. People are supposed to form relationships, not to fantasise about weird self-oriented things. I can be turned on by a gorgeous man or one with whom I share a special connection, but my strongest sexual impulse is towards humiliation and hurt – to myself. How horrible is that??
I am bitter about what I lost through all this and it annoys me when psychologists or psychiatrists create a very rough taxonomy on us that only serves to further damage our standing in the community. It’s like kicking a kitten. As I mentioned in the previous post, the trauma/denial that creates autog can occur in both masculine and feminine kids – in the former due to slow growth, exaggerated cultural masculinity or misconceptions about self, and the latter due to denial of your pronounced feminine or androgynous features.
If you accept and embrace your feminine aspects in youth then you won’t be an autog, but more likely to suffer other neurotic reactions from the victimization you will inevitably suffer (that autogs change themselves to avoid). This can lead supposedly ‘homosexual’ transwomen to have an insatiable hunger for masculine love and acceptance to counter the lack they experienced when thy were young. Then they have to put up with being tagged “sex mad” or “boy crazy”. We can’t win.
In my opinion, TSism in its pure form is about diversity. Males vary from the hyper-masculine to the highly feminine, with most sitting somewhere in between. If you are at the feminine end of the scale then it can make for a more comfortable life to live female because you fulfill more societal/familial expectations naturally without acting or trying to muscle up or whatever. You can be yourself and actually win approval for it. I see it as a mix of the physical, mental and emotional and if you are androgynous is all areas then male life is an endless struggle.
By the way, I think Dr Bailey’s preferred classifications will break down even further due to the internet because more young autogs will change over since they will be more aware of their options and feel more accepted through cyber communities.
Seth, I am disappointed. I thought you would show interest in discussing the issues but you seem uninterested. If you are unable to work past the points I make then you don’t have a right to publicly spread views on the subject, unless they are modified greatly to take our views into account. If Dr Bailey wasn’t so unreachable then I’d put these issues to him, so ti has to be you.
Those who like Dr Bailey’s views have complained a lot about the lack of civility of those with contra views, yet when confronted with reasoned debate it seems they shy away. It doesn’t stop them spreading a hypothesis masquerading as a theory that undermines the lives of transwomen, though.
The “issue” for me is freedom of speech. Not whether Bailey was right, which is what you are talking about. To call what Conway and McCloskey did “lack of civility” is understating it.
Seth, you called this topic is called “Can professors speak the truth?”. If Dr Bailey is right or not – speaking the truth – is exactly the “issue”.
The topic would more accurately be called “Can professors present half baked hypotheses seemingly shaped by their own salacious attitudes as scientific fact with impunity?”.
The answer is no. If Dr Bailey hurts vulnerable people by misleadingly presenting pseudo-science as science, why should he maintain a good scientific reputation and high status? Why should he not suffer sanctions and criticism? It’s nothing compared with having your civil rights damaged; lawmakers are now referring to Dr Bailey’s “work”. It’s so frustrating.
I found your blog through a news article where you were interviewed. You defended Dr Bailey AND championed the whole flawed homo-auto model (further sullying the reputation of transwomen in the process).
How can you now say that the accuracy or not of the material is not the “issue” for you? You might think about admitting you were wrong and apologising. I disagree with personal attacks on Dr Bailey but the harm done by them is minuscule compared with the hurt he has caused – by NOT speaking the truth.
“I found your blog through a news article where you were interviewed. You defended Dr Bailey AND championed the whole flawed homo-auto model (further sullying the reputation of transwomen in the process).”
What news article was that?
I can’t remember now. It was about a month ago. I found it via Google news and I immediately looked you up to see where you were coming from, found this page and thought I might try to clarify a few things.
I have never done in an interview what you say I did.
All I know is that you were quoted extensively in this article found on Google News. I had never heard of you until then. I am very honest and have no agenda. No, I am not part of the anti-autog ring. I just found you quoted heavily via Google news, that’s all. I tried to find it again but I can’t.
This is is bi odd because I can’t imagine you being unaware of articles you appear in unless the journalist quoted you from a website (this website?).