Marc Breedlove is an American psychologist and anti-transgender activist.
Background
Stephen Marc Breedlove was born in 1954 in Missouri. After graduating from Springfield High School in 1952, Breedlove aerned a bachelor’sdegree from Yale University, then attended University of California, Los Angelesm earning a master’s degree and doctorate.
Breedlove was a professor of psychology at the notoriuosly transphobic psychology department at University of California, Berkeley, from 1982 to ~2002. Â Breedlove then moved to Michigan State University.
Breedlove was featured on a show about homosexuality with Bailey and his usual suspects:
The Sex Files HOMOSEXUALITY IN THIS EPISODE
Why are some people gay? That’s the $64,000 question – at least in the scientific community. Is it something genetically predetermined? Or does environment have an impact on whether an individual turns out to be gay or lesbian? These questions are beginning to be probed in ways that might finally be leading to an answer, and the Sex Files has interviewed the foremost authorities on the topic to uncover some of those scientific clues:
Dr. Devendra Singh, University of Texas psychologist specializing in the evolutionary significance of human physical attractiveness
Dr. Ken Zucker, head of the Child and Adolescent Gender Identity Clinic at the University of Toronto’s Clarke Institute of Psychiatry
Dr. Marc Breedlove, professor* specialising in the sexual differentiation of the brain.
* The original episode guide described Dr. Breedlove as a “professor of psychology at UCLA.” Dr. Breedlove noted in 2008 “I am not, and have never been, a professor of psychology or of anything else at UCLA.” Breedlove earned his Ph.D. at UCLA but taught at UC Berkeley before taking an appointment at Michigan State.
Whatâs the fuss about? Read the book, think for yourself
Why this vehement response to this terrific book? Because Bailey describes male-to-female transsexuals who report an experience that is quite different from the familiar “a woman trapped in a man’s body”. Bailey never casts doubt that there are such people, in fact he interviews and describes several. But he finds that not all M2F transsexuals fit that mold. So the fuss you’re reading in these reviews are from M2F transsexuals who refuse to acknowledge that other M2F transsexuals might have a different experience than their own. There’s no reason to think the women Bailey interviewed would have been lying to him, and why isn’t their experience as valid as yours, mine or that of other transsexuals?
So get past all the landmines the critics are trying to use to deflect you from reading a thought-provoking, honest and entirely sympathetic view of the fascinating phenomenon of transsexuality.
By the way, it’s a great read, not at all stodgy. I promise you the pages will fly by.
Whom You Love (2014)
In 2012 Breedlove launched a failed crowdfunding campaign for a film called Whom You Love: the biology of sexual orientation. The project was then relaunched and reached half its original funding goal.
In 2014, Breedlove released a series of YouTube videos on a channel with that name, featuring many key anti-trans activists in academia.
Maxine E. Petersen-Lee is a Canadian psychologist and prominent supporter of disease models of gender identity and expression. Petersen is transgender and is best known for being quoted by J. Michael Bailey in The Man Who Would Be Queen saying, âMost gender patients lie.â
Background
Petersen earned a master’s degree from University of Toronto in 1986 with a thesis titled “Male gender dysphoria and criminality.” Petersen then worked at Toronto’s notorious Clarke Institute, making a gender transition in 1991. Petersen worked closely with Ray Blanchard, Betty Steiner, and Robert Dickey at “Jurassic Clarke,” as the facility was known for its regressive views and policies. Petersen was called an “ace clinician” by Bailey. Petersen and spouse had two children before divorcing. Since starting a new relationship, Petersen sometimes uses the surname Petersen-Lee. Petersen has lived in Innisfil, Ontario and participated in motorsports competitions.
Biographer Zagria Cowan outlined just a few of the ways Petersen was involved in gatekeeping:
In 2000, she and Robert Dickey denied Synthia Kavanagh approval for SRS in that, being in prison, she could not do a Real Life Test. In the same year they were quoted in Vivian Namasteâs book defending the requirement that a trans person should do a yearâs Real Life Test before starting hormones, and as critical of activists demanding hormones and surgery as a right. In September 2003 Maxine testified at an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal that government funding should be re-instated for SRS. In November 2003 she resigned from HBIGDA X (Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, now WPATH) when her boss Ray Blanchard did because it criticized Michael Baileyâs book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, 2003, an act which she described as âpolitical correctnessâ. She now lists her name as Maxine Petersen-Lee and offers private counselling.
Resignation from HBIGDA (2003)
Petersen was part of the committee that revised the HBIGDA Standards of Care in 1998. Petersen resigned from the organization when boss Ray Blanchard did.
From: Maxine Petersen Sent: 11/5/03 8:10 AM Subject: Letter of Resignation November 4, 2003
Walter J. Meyer, III., M.D. President, Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association Department of Psychiatry University of Texas Medical Branch 301 University Blvd. Galveston, TX 77555-0189 USA
Bean Robinson, Ph.D. Executive Director, Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association 1300 South 2nd St., #180 Minneapolis, MN 55454 USA
Dear Drs. Meyer and Robinson:
I am writing today regarding the letter sent on behalf of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association Board of Directors and Officers in response to a letter from a number of transsexual Internet activists who have taken exception to the work of Professor J. Michael Bailey.
As a transwoman and a member of the committee that was responsible for the 1998 revision of the Standards of Care, I am intensely saddened and shocked that the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association has taken such an irresponsible action. I have worked for more than twenty-one years for the betterment of hundreds of transsexual patients/clients and have consistently supported healthcare funding for sex reassignment surgery in my home province. I have also published a number of papers on the treatment of transsexual individuals.
As recently as September of 2003 I testified against our government at a Provincial Human Rights Tribunal in support of a number of complainants seeking to have funding for sex reassignment surgery restored to our publicly funded Provincial healthcare plan.
The actions of the Board in this matter have tarnished the reputation of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association. By failing to grasp the importance of scientific research to be above the political correctness that is so pervasive in our society, you have perhaps unwittingly but clearly sent a signal to other researchers that they “dare not” explore certain areas of research for fear of the same or similar threat to their career. If there has been any breach of ethical standards, it is up to Northwestern University to investigate these allegations, and that is what they are in the process of doing.
I am certain not one of us wants to see the day when politics trumps scientific inquiry. I have noted recently the considerable justifiable concern expressed by scientists in the U.S. about the Federal Government interfering with or even hinting at withdrawal of funding for research in sexology and the chilling effect this appears to have had on researchers. It is ironic that the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association seems to have taken a page out of the book of the Bush government and done exactly the same thing.
Regrettably, your actions leave me with no option but to resign my membership in the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association.
Sincerely,
Maxine Petersen, MA, C. Psych. Assoc. Coordinator, Gender Identity Clinic Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Lecturer, University of Toronto, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry
Johnson, Micheline (2017). A History of Trans-People. In A History of Trans, a Canadian Perspective. https://web.ncf.ca/fm120/Trans/History/Chapter_2-Trans-People.pdf
Influx (June 2, 2008). CAMH Support Group, Part 2.I’m In Flux. http://iminflux.blogspot.com/2008/06/camh-support-group-part-2.html
Bailey JM (2003). The Man Who Would Be Queen: the science of gender-bending and transsexualism. Joseph Henry Press ISBN 978-0309084185
Namaste VK (2000). Invisible Lives: The Erasure of Transsexual and Transgendered People. University of Chicago Press, 199-201. ISBN 978-0226568102
Levine SB et al. (1999). The Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality. Volume 11, 1999 – Issue 2Pages 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v11n02_01
Petersen ME, Dickey R (1995). Surgical sex reassignment: A comparative survey of International centers. Archives of Sexual Behavior, volume 24, pages135â156 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541578
[Publications under the name Leonard H. “Len” Clemmensen]
Stermac L, Blanchard R, Clemmensen LH, Dickey R (1991). Group therapy for gender-dysphoric heterosexual men, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 17:4, 252-258. https://doi.org/0.1080/00926239108404349
Blanchard R, Steiner BW, Clemmensen LH (1989). Prediction of Regrets in Postoperative Transsexuals. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, February 1, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674378903400111
Blanchard R, Clemmensen LH (1988) A test of the dsmâIIIâR’S implicit assumption that fetishistic arousal and gender dysphoria are mutually exclusive. The Journal of Sex Research, 25:3, 426 432. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551472
Blanchard R, Clemmensen LH, Steiner BW (1987). Heterosexual and homosexual gender dysphoria. Archives of Sexual Behavior. volume 16, pages139â152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542067
Blanchard R, Clemmensen LH, Steiner BW (1985). Social desirability response set and systematic distortion in the self-report of adult male gender patients. Archives of Sexual Behavior 14, 505â516. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541751
Blanchard R, Steiner BW, Clemmensen LH (1985). Gender dysphoria, gender reorientation, and the clinical management of transsexualism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(3), 295â304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.53.3.295
Blanchard R, Clemmensen LH, Steiner BW (1983). Gender reorientation and psychosocial adjustment in male-to-female transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior 12, 503â509. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542212
Clemmensen LH (1990). The “Real Life Test” for Surgical Candidates, in Blanchard R, Steiner BW (eds). Clinical management of gender identity disorders in children and adults (pp. 121-135). ISBN 978-0880481878
Clemmensen LH (1986). Male gender dysphoria and criminality. University of Toronto, Unpublished master’s thesis, 1986.
Blanchard R, Steiner BW, Clemmensen LH (July 1985). Gender Dysphoria, Gender Reorientation, and the Clinical Management of Transsexualism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(3):295-304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.53.3.295
Blanchard R, Clemmensen LH, Steiner BW (1983). Gender reorientation and psychosocial adjustment in male-to-female transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior 1983 Dec;12(6):503-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542212
Kenneth Zucker is an American-Canadian psychologist and anti-transgender extremist.
Zucker’s ideology has caused profound harm to sex and gender minorities over a long career. Zucker has created several disease models to describe these minorities and has promoted many more sex and gender “disorders” as editor of The Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Zucker developed a non-affirming model of care for gender diverse youth that has been described as “child abuse.” Zucker was fired by employer CAMH in 2015. Zucker’s clinic was shut down, and non-affirming models of care have been outlawed in many jurisdictions.
Kenneth J. “Ken” Zucker was born on December 29, 1950 to Eugene M. Zucker (1922â1997) and Sara Miller Zucker (1924â2020). Zucker has one sibling, Barbara Ann Zucker-Romanoff aka Barbra Zucker (born 1957). The family lived in Skokie, Illinois. Zucker married Rochelle Fine, also from Niles Township. Their child Simone Zucker is a Toronto-based filmmaker, and their child Josh aka “Concentration Camp” is guitarist in Toronto band Fucked Up.
Zucker attended Southern Illinois University during the Vietnam War and was one of the key campus leaders in the anti-war protest movement there, staging mock trials and declaring people war criminals in absentia (Lagow 1977). Zucker earned a bachelor’s degree there, then a master’s degree at Roosevelt University in 1975.
Zucker headed to Canada eventually just to be safe. Zucker earned a doctorate from University of Toronto in 1982.
Zucker’s frequent collaborator Richard Green had the same impulse for self-preservation: âI left Los Angeles in 1964 to avoid the Vietnam War by going to NIMH [National Institutes of Mental Health]â (Green 2004). In 2001 Green handed over editorial control of Archives of Sexual Behavior to Zucker, to continue pushing their toxic ideology about sex and gender minorities.
Physical attractiveness of children “research” (1993â1996)
Zucker was a psychologist at the Clarke Institute (aka “Jurassic Clarke”) in Toronto. Zucker is infamous for forcing gender-diverse children into reparative therapy to conform to expectations for gendered behavior in children. Zucker considers a gender transition a “bad outcome.”
Zucker had access to hundreds of children through the Clarke and took photos of all children brought to the clinic. In one particularly troubling “study,” Zucker wanted to see how “physically attractive” these children’s faces and upper torsos were. Adults were shown images of children in Zucker’s care and asked to rate their attractiveness.
Zucker’s conclusion: “Boys with gender identity disorder were judged to be more attractive than were the clinical control boys.”
Zucker repeated the “research” with the remaining children a few years later, concluding the “Girls with gender identity disorder had significantly less attractive ratings than the normal control girls for the traits attractive, beautiful, and pretty.”
Zucker is a darling of the ex-gay movement because of decades of attempts in “curing” gender-diverse children. Zucker was frequently cited by ex-gay groups like NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuals) and Leadership U.
As the rest of the world begins to understand and accept gender diversity as a trait and not a disease, Zucker has been increasingly cast as the old-school holdout in press coverage. As noted in the New York Times:
Dr. Kenneth Zucker, a psychologist and head of the gender-identity service at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, disagrees with the âfree to beâ approach with young children and cross-dressing in public. Over the past 30 years, Dr. Zucker has treated about 500 preadolescent gender-variant children. In his studies, 80 percent grow out of the behavior, but 15 percent to 20 percent continue to be distressed about their gender and may ultimately change their sex.
Dr. Zucker tries to âhelp these kids be more content in their biological genderâ until they are older and can determine their sexual identity â accomplished, he said, by encouraging same-sex friendships and activities like board games that move beyond strict gender roles.
Zucker thinks that an important goal of treatment is to help the children accept their birth sex and to avoid becoming transsexual. His experience has convinced him that if a boy with GID becomes an adolescent with GID, the chances that he will become an adult with GID and seek a sex change are much higher. And he thinks that the kind of therapy he practices helps reduce this risk. Zucker emphasizes a three-pronged treatment approach for boys with GID. First, he thinks that family dynamics play a large role in childhood GIDânot necessarily in the origins of cross-gendered behavior, but in their persistence. It is the disordered and chaotic family, according to Zucker, that canât get its act together to present a consistent and sensible reaction to the child, which would be something like the following: âWe love you, but you are a boy, not a girl. Wishing to be a girl will only make you unhappy in the long run, and pretending to be a girl will only make your life around others harder.â So the first prong of Zuckerâs approach is family therapy. Whatever conflicts or issues that parents have that prevent them from uniting to help their child must be addressed.
The second prong is therapy for the boy, to help him adjust to the idea that he cannot become a girl, and to help teach him how to minimize social ostracism. Zucker does not teach boys how to walk in a manly fashion, but he does give them feedback about the likely consequences of taking a doll to school.
The third prong is key. Zucker says simply: âThe Barbies have to go.â He has nothing against Barbie dolls, of course. He means something more general. Feminine toys and accoutrementsâincluding Barbie dolls, girlsâ shoes, dresses, purses, and princess gownsâare no longer to be tolerated at home, much less bought for the child. Zucker believes that toleration and encouragement of feminine play and dress prevents the child from accepting his maleness. Common sense says that a boy who wants to play with dolls so much that he is willing to risk his fatherâs wrath and his peersâ scorn is unlikely to change his behavior due to inconsistent feedback, sometimes forbidding, sometimes tolerating, and sometimes even encouraging it. Inconsistent parenting like this is ineffective in stamping out any kind of unwanted behavior.
Failure to intervene increases the chances of transsexualism in adulthood, which Zucker considers a bad outcome. … Why put boys at risk for this when they can become gay men happy to be men?
Zucker blames poor family dynamics and maternal psychopathology for gender-nonconforming behavior. Zucker claims this phenomenon is more likely in non-white children with lower IQs. As J. Michael Bailey noted:
Ken Zucker, whom we met in Chapter 2, has tried to predict which boys with gender identity disorder (GID) would still have the disorder when they become adolescents. Adolescents with GID are much rarer and presumably much closer to being transsexual. Zucker found several predictors of adolescent GID: lower IQ, lower social class, immigrant status, non-intact family, and childhood behavior problems unrelated to gender identity disorder.
Zucker’s alleged “desistance” rate hides the fact that many children brought to Zucker’s clinic are hardly success stories in terms of quality of life outcomes:
Yet Zuckerâs approach has its own disturbing elements. Itâs easy to imagine that his methodsâsteering parents toward removing pink crayons from the box, extolling a patriarchy no one believes inâcould instill in some children a sense of shame and a double life. A 2008 study of 25 girls who had been seen in Zuckerâs clinic showed positive results; 22 were no longer gender-dysphoric, meaning they were comfortable living as girls. But that doesnât mean they were happy. I spoke to the mother of one Zucker patient in her late 20s, who said her daughter was repulsed by the thought of a sex change but was still sufferingâsheâd become an alcoholic, and was cutting herself. âIâd be surprised if she outlived me,â her mother said.
Lagow, Larry Dwane (1977). A history of the Center for Vietnamese Studies at Southern Illinois University, 1969-1976. Ph.D. dissertation; typescript in Hoover Institution Archives https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt0d5nd9g7/entire_text/
Staff report (December 29, 1997). Obituary: Eugene Zucker. Chicago Tribune
Eugene Zucker. 75. beloved husband of Sara, nee Miller; loving father of Dr. Ken (Rochelle) Zucker and Barbra (Steven) Romanoff; devoted grandfather of Joshua and Simone Zucker and step-grandfather of Samantha Sprigel: fond brother of Howard (Shirley) Zucker; dearest uncle of Deborah, Adina, David, and Ellen. Mr. Zucker was a life-long intellectual.
Sandeen, Autumn (May 20, 2009). GID Reform Now Protest At Annual APA Meeting. Pam’s House Blend http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11064/gid-reform-now-protest-at-annual-apa-meeting-speaker-madeline-deutch-md [archive]
Conway, Lynn (April 5, 2007). “Drop the Barbie”: Ken Zucker’s reparatist treatment of gender-variant children. http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/News/Drop%20the%20Barbie.htm
Conway, Lynn (April 30, 2009). “The War Within: CAMH scathing internal report Zuckerâs and Blanchardâs gender clinics http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/News/US/Zucker/The_War_Within_CAMH.html
Conway, Lynn (February 18, 2009). Kenneth Zucker’s legal threats: Part of a pattern of silencing transgender critics. http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/News/US/Zucker/Kenneth_Zucker%27s_pattern_of_silencing_transgender_critics.html
Winters, Kelley (2009). Gender Madness in American Psychiatry: Essays from the Struggle for Dignity BookSurge, ISBN 978-1439223888 – see also (gendermadness.com) [harchive]
Staff report (July 1997). Childhood Gender-Identity Disorder Diagnosis Under Attack. Leadership U http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/childhood.html [archive] – now merged with Cru: Campus Crusade for Christ International (cru.org)
Singh D, Bradley SJ, Zucker KJ (2021). A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder. Front. Psychiatry, Volume 12 – 28 March 2021 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784
David Buss is an American evolutionary psychologist whose life’s work is dedicated to maintaining and reinforcing a sex binary.
Buss is a frequent supporter of anti-trans psychologist J. Michael Bailey. Of all the people in the investigation to date, Buss has the most overlapping interests and experiences with Bailey:
Buss earned a doctorate in the notoriously anti-trans psychology department at University of California, Berkeley in 1981.
Buss was married to Cynthia Louise “Cindy” Refhues (1958-2012) in 1981.
The Man Who Would Be Queen
He was cited in promotional materials for Bailey’s book.
âBailey is one of a rare breed of writers who manages to combine first-rate science with deep
psychological understanding, resulting in great breadth of vision. He takes us on an unforgettable
journey into the minds and lives of feminine men. Bailey skillfully interweaves vivid case studies
with cutting-edge scientific findings, placing both in a deep historical context from the sexual
playground of ancient Greece to the dilemmas of gender in the modern world. Refreshingly
candid, remarkably free of ideology, this book is destined to become a modern classic in the field.
But readers should be prepared to have some cherished assumptions about human nature
shattered.â
â David M. Buss, author of The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating and Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind
Sexuality and Its Disorders
College textbooks on psychology and human sexuality are consistently among the most transphobic knowledge produced in academia. A 2017 textbook by Mike Abrams lays out Buss’s views.
Teachings
A reader reports:
“Every Spring semester since 2016, Dr. Buss has co-taught PSY 306: Introduction to Human Sexuality, a seminar class, with Dr. Cindy Meston. The class is taught in a live-streaming, online format. There’s a little studio on-campus. The professors show up 15 minutes before class time, then sit in the studio to give their lecture in front of some cameras and a small live studio audience of 20 of their students. That lecture gets broadcast live to a much larger number of students – typically between 250 – 700 students each semester. So, 1000s of students have seen this class. Each semester, there is a lecture on Gender Dysphoria. I’ve attached a .txt file of the transcript. Here’s a particularly concerning section from that class (as spoken by Dr. Meston):
I think what’s happening is that people are more aware of the disorder. Absolutely, people like Jazz Jennings. This is the little girl that was on the 20/20 video you watched. She is now a huge voice for the transgendered community. She’s set up a foundation. She’s done a lot of good will for the transgender community. She has put out many videos giving advice and education. She’s had a reality show.
There was actually the first transgendered doll launched a few years ago in her image. So people like this, people like, and a few years ago, the very first transgendered Playmate appeared.
So what’s happening is there’s a lot more talk about transgender, a lot of famous people have come forward to talk about their struggle with gender dysphoria, and so this has been, has had a remarkable good impact, I believe, in the sense that, when it’s so much more visible and so much more talked about, people become educated.
They learn about the disorder, and when you learn about a disorder then you’re less afraid of it. And not always, sadly, but a lot of the time, people become more accepting, and you know, we see now, compared to even a decade ago, that there are policy changes made with regard to transgendered individuals in, for example, washrooms.
So that’s something that never would have occurred even, you know, a decade ago. So this awareness has clearly made many people more comfortable in coming forward and talking about their problem, and seeking help, which is a good thing.
Now, I want to mention, just on the other hand, why sometimes social media may not be in one’s best interest. So what is happening is that, among young people, teenagers, early 20s, there’s this rise in the prevalence rates of gender dysphoric individuals. That’s really unusual and it doesn’t seem to fit the pattern of what we know clinically, and have known for many, many years about individuals who have gender dysphoria.
So, for example, adults, who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they almost always have been either diagnosed as having childhood gender identity dysphoria, or gender dysphoria I should say, and if not diagnosed as a child, they showed signs as a child. Their tales are that they have struggled with this most of their lives, or there has been some pattern very early on that there were signs of gender dysphoria. This group that has emerged in young people presents a very different picture.
They present, often, as suddenly realizing they’re gender dysphoric, and so some researchers are concerned by this, and clinicians, and have talked about this disorder, which has been given the name rapid-onset gender dysphoria. And rapid-onset gender dysphoria is exactly as it sounds, the development of gender dysphoria begins suddenly, during or after puberty, in adolescents or a young adult, who would not have met the criteria in childhood.
So this is not a typical etiology because, as I just described, the typical etiology is that they would’ve met the criteria in childhood. And so this has led to a debate or a discussion in the research and clinical community as to the possible role of social media and online content in possibly leading a group of young adults to self-diagnosing themselves incorrectly as having gender dysphoria.
Now, we know that, oftentimes, depression, or anxiety, or autism, individuals along the autism spectrum, some of you may have heard the term, Asperger’s. This term is no longer used in the DSM, it’s now just considered part of the autism spectrum, but it refers to individuals who struggle somewhat with social aspects of their lives.
And sometimes, what may be happening is individuals who are experiencing some type of mental disorder, they google on the internet, or they do some research online to figure out what’s wrong with them, and there’s so much information out there now on transgendered individuals, that they may be incorrectly identifying as a transgendered individual as opposed to some other underlying mental disorder.
Devendra Singh was an Indian-American evolutionary psychologist who held harmful and biased views about sex and gender minorities.
Background
Singh was born January 12, 1938 in Urai, India. Singh earned a master’s degree in philosophy at Agra University before earning a doctorate in psychology at Ohio State University in 1966. Following positions at Wright State University and North Dakota State University, Singh began teaching at University of Texas at Austin in 1969.
Singh is best known for research about waist-to-hip ratio in women, which Singh claimed has evolutionary significance.
Singh was married to Barbara Singh (1943â2022) and had three children. Singh died on May 18, 2010.
Views on sex and gender minorities
In 2000 Scott M. Strong, Singh, and Patrick K. Randall published an article that claimed “a ‘high feminine’ subtype of gay males had greater body dissatisfaction than ‘less feminine’ subtypes had.”
Singh appeared with a number of anti-trans activists on the series The Sex Files in an episode titled “Homosexuality.”
Why are some people gay? That’s the $64,000 question – at least in the scientific community. Is it something genetically predetermined? Or does environment have an impact on whether an individual turns out to be gay or lesbian? These questions are beginning to be probed in ways that might finally be leading to an answer, and the Sex Files has interviewed the foremost authorities on the topic to uncover some of those scientific clues:
Dr. Devendra Singh, University of Texas psychologist specializing in the evolutionary significance of human physical attractiveness
Dr. Michael Bailey, professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Illinois and specialist in the genetics and environment of sexual orientation
Dr. Marc Breedlove, professor of psychology* specialising in the sexual differentiation of the brain.
Singh was also a mentor to J. Michael Bailey’s son Drew Bailey.
Exploration Production (November 20, 2000). S02 E08: Homosexuality. The Sex Files
Strong SM, Singh D, Randall PK (2000). Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Body Dissatisfaction in Gay and Heterosexual Men. Sex Roles https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007126814910
* The original episode guide described Dr. Breedlove as a “professor of psychology at UCLA.” Dr. Breedlove noted in 2008 “I am not, and have never been, a professor of psychology or of anything else at UCLA.” Breedlove earned his Ph.D. at UCLA but taught at UC Berkeley before taking an appointment at Michigan State.
Chloe Ann Rounsley is an American writer and photographer who co-wrote True Selves with therapist Mildred L. Brown in 1996.
Background
Chloe Ann Rounsley was born in 1950.
As a staff photographer for newspapers, Rounsley “has always focused on the visual and photographic aspects.” Rounsley has written feature stories, book reviews, a regular column called Faces (with portraits and stories), and magazine articles on a variety of subjects.Â
One of Rounsley’s relationship articles for the San Francisco Chronicle led to the book True Selves.
Rounsley has also worked as a public relations manager, staff writer, and copywriter for ad agencies. Rounsley’s own creative agency, Rounsley Associates, develops corporate identity and ad campaigns.
Barbara P. Nash is a noted American geologist and geophysicist. The mineral nashite is named in Nash’s honor, and Nash reported on 75 new minerals later approved by the International Mineralogical Association.
Barbara P. “Barb” Nash was born in 1944. Nash earned a doctorate from University of California, Berkeley in 1971. Nash was named Director of the University of Utahâs Electron Microprobe Laboratory starting in 1970. Nash was appointed Professor, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Utah in 1978. Nash retired in 2019 and was appointed Emerita Professor that year.
The Man Who Would Be Queen letter
May 12, 2003
Bruce Alberts President, the National Academy of Sciences The National Academies 2101 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20418
Harvey V. Fineberg President, the Institute of Medicine The National Academies 2101 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20418
Dear Drs. Alberts and Fineberg,
I am writing to express my deep concern about the National Academies publication of a book by J. Michael Bailey entitled The Man Who Would be Queen. The book reflects poorly on the Academies’ usually high standards for publication. Despite its subtitle of “The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism”, it is nothing of the sort. The author’s approach is entirely unscientific, and his conclusions pose a danger to transgender individuals particularly as the book may be used to influence public policy. Publication by the National Academies Press unfortunately lends both a presumption of academic legitimacy and significant visibility to this work of unsubstantiated personal opinion.
While Mr. Bailey is entitled to his opinions, my major concern is that the National Academies Press would place its imprimatur on this particular book. I shall return to that concern momentarily. I am aware that my colleague Joan Roughgarden at Stanford has already provided a detailed account to you of problems with this book. I won’t go into as much detail here, but I do feel the need to point out the most egregious instances of absence of scientific integrity in the work.
Mr. Bailey’s book doesn’t even rise to the standard of “junk science”. Junk science at least purports to be scientific by presenting observational data and interpretations made from those data that are expressed in the context of contemporary thought and argument. Mr. Bailey on the other hand eschews traditional data gathering techniques. Rather, he relies on recruiting research subjects (a convenience survey as opposed to more traditional survey instruments) by “cruising” gay clubs frequented by transsexuals who engage in survival sex. No wonder that Bailey later concludes that one of his two classes of transsexuals consists of homosexuals that are commonly engaged in the sex trade. Bailey’s data are anecdotal and subject only to his personal interpretation in which he expresses great confidence in his preface: “Knowing his occupation and observing him briefly and superficially were sufficient for me to guess confidently about aspects of (his) life that he never mentioned…. I know what kinds of activities interest him and what kinds do not.” (p. ix). Is this the standard for data acquisition – conjecture as evidence? It would be as if as a volcanologist I could discern the life history of a rock by noting its glint in the sun and its heft in my hand. There is a reason we invest in mass spectrometers and electron beam instruments. It is to provide tangible, reproducible observations that are ultimately shared and interpreted, perhaps in differing and more enlightened ways by interested parties. Nowhere in Bailey’s book are there raw data or tabulated results of surveys. When survey results are mentioned there is never a reference to the original data source, nor is there a description of sample size, variance or standard deviation. No references are provided to any other studies that are mentioned as supporting evidence. In fact, with the one exception of a 1991 paper by his colleague Ray Blanchard in the list of suggested readings at the end of the book, there are no specific literature references to any other research studies on the subject.
Bailey distinguishes two classes of transsexuals, homosexual and autogynephilic. This distinction is not new with Bailey – it was originally proposed by Ray Blanchard over 20 years ago, and it has enjoyed very little resonance in transgender studies. Mr. Bailey has no trouble distinguishing between the two groups because “Most homosexual transsexuals are much better looking than most autogynephilic transsexuals.” (p. 180). This inelegant dichotomy is simply inadequate to describe the diversity the transgender spectrum and experience. But Bailey has no interest in directly confronting contemporary alternative views. He simply dismisses them. People who disagree with him are liars (“Most gender patients lie,…” p. 172) (…”many autogynephiles provide misleading information about themselves…” p. 175). transgender narratives are not to be trusted and are ignored (“…(transsexuals) tell stories about themselves that are misleading and, in important respects, false.” p. 146). Or his detractors are incompetent (“… sex researchers are not as scholarly as they should be and so don’t read the scientific journals.” p. 176). For someone who neglects to cite the literature, this is an amazing statement.
Bailey concludes that the overwhelming majority of transgender persons are autogynephilic transsexuals, and indicts and stigmatizes that entire group by stating that autogynephilia is a paraphilia linked with masochism, sadism, exhibitionism, frotteurism, necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia (p. 171). This is an outrageous and unsubstantiated statement. He further asserts that “…there are two reasons to think that these sexual paraphilias have some causes in common.” His reasons? “Paraphilias occur exclusively (or nearly exclusively) in men. Second, paraphilias tend to go together.” (p. 171). Surely if one were to honestly arrive at such a conclusion, one would feel compelled to supply a more substantial scientific argument than guilt by association.
Throughout the book there is also a consistent theme of homophobia and stereotyping of gay men. For example: “I cannot imitate the gay accent, and I cannot even describe it, but chances are, you know what I’m talking about.” (p. 70). Or, “I often don’t have to hear a man talk or know what he does in order to have a strong suspicion he’s gay. Sometimes it’s enough just to see him move.” (p. 73). These types of statements remind me of anti-Semitic diatribes about how to identify Jews by facial type and speech patterns.
I won’t take the time here to enumerate the factual errors in the book and the failure to reference or confront contemporary studies that may disagree with the author’s contentions. Science succeeds in part through self-regulation arising from the variable interpretation of observational data. Bailey makes this a daunting task for critics because he provides only his personal opinion based on anecdotal accounts stemming mostly from a limited and self-selecting population. It doesn’t even meet the lowest standards of junk science. It more closely resembles a lengthy op-ed piece.
As a professor of geology and geophysics for 32 years whose research has been supported by NSF, NASA, DOE and the U.S. Geological Survey, I am confident that I can distinguish good science from bad science. Recently, I have designed a course on transgender studies. Part of the course examines scientific approaches to the phenomenon. Some studies are good, others are not, and students are asked to assess why. The Man Who Would be Queen will not be on the reading list because it lacks any scientific rigor whatsoever and would be a waste of students’ time as well as a source of considerable misinformation. What distresses me is that that the book may be adopted uncritically in courses taught in social sciences or humanities especially because of the imprimatur provided by the National Academies Press and its promotion by the Press. Further the I fear the work may be deemed credible because of the reputation of its publisher, thus facilitating incorporation of its uncritical and erroneous assertions into the formulation of public policy contesting civil rights and social justice for transgender individuals. There is no question in my mind of such an application. As Bailey says, ” “My undergraduate students … are especially hesitant to support surgery for nonhomosexual transsexuals, once they learn about autogynephilia.” (p. 206).
The promotional materials for the book are unbecoming a professional scientific association. As Presidents of your respective academies, I recommend you take a moment to view the web site of the National Academies Press promoting your book. It is sensational and lurid. The Press says, “the book is grounded firmly in science” and presents a cover showing a pair of hairy legs in high heels. The opening line is “Gay. Straight. Or Lying.” The ad poses the critical question, “Are gay men genuinely more feminine than other men? And do they really prefer to be hairdressers rather than lumberjacks?” And if you buy the book you can read about “Kim, a strikingly sexy transsexual who still has a penis and works as a dancer and a call girl for men who like she-males while she awaits sex reassignment surgery.” It reads more like the headline in a supermarket tabloid rather than what one would expect from the respected press of the National Academies.Â
I am reminded of a recent controversy in the social sciences over published research findings in the arena of firearms regulation that had bearing on the formulation of public policy. In 2000 Michael Bellesiles wrote the book Arming America that argued that firearm ownership was far less common in early American history, that the gun culture revered by the National Rifle Association is a recent phenomenon, and their interpretation of the Second Amendment is in error. He received the prestigious Bancroft Prize for his book. Subsequently, inspection of his data revealed that much was fabricated. The prize was withdrawn, and Prof. Bellesiles resigned his faculty position at Emory University. More recently, the source of some statistical data in More Guns, Less Crime (1998) by John Lott, an advocate of arming citizens, has come under scrutiny, and his credibility is currently being questioned despite his highly complex econometric analysis. What made the challenges to these works possible is that the authors presented data, true or false, that were available for scrutiny and evaluation by interested parties. In The Man Who Would be Queen, the reader is not presented with such an opportunity to formulate a reasoned response.Â
The National Academies should not be in the business of supporting such unscientific and prejudicial works. To do so can only reflect poorly on the Academies and their scientific integrity. I believe it is only appropriate that the National Academies withdraw their support for the book.
Sincerely,
Barbara Nash Professor of Geology and Geophysics
Letter to Chronicle of Higher Education (2003)
Following a puff piece on Bailey in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Nash wrote to the editors, and part of her response was published.
To the Editor:
The Chronicle correctly reports that J. Michael Bailey’s work on transsexuals is anecdotal and lacks data to back up his assertion that all transsexual women are either homosexual men or male sexual fetishists (“‘Dr. Sex,'” June 20). Bailey’s unscientific methodology and his resulting unsubstantiated characterizations pose a threat to transgendered individuals, particularly as his book may be used to influence public policy. … Bailey studiously ignores contemporary research on the etiology of transsexualism and the formulation of gender identity, and he extinguishes the voices of authentic lives. He vilifies as liars the many transsexuals who describe experiences and motivations for gender transition that are inconsistent with his narrow taxonomy. …
While Bailey is entitled to his opinion, the danger lies in his book’s being deemed credible because of the reputation of its publisher, thus facilitating the incorporation of its uncritical and damaging assertions into the formulation of public policies opposing civil rights and social justice for transgendered individuals.
Barbara P. Nash Professor of Geology and Geophysics University of Utah Salt Lake City
Media appearances
Nash appeared in the “Yellowstone” episode of the 2009 series How the Earth Was Made.
Below, Nash talks about her first visit to Utah’s Spiral Jetty in 1994.
Tamara Roberson is an American software engineer and “autogynephilia” activist. Roberson is a key figure in the transkids.us hoax website and identifies as a “gender critical” Christian trans person. As with many “autogynephilia” activists, Roberson believes others have that disease, but Roberson does not identify as an “autogynephile.”
Background
Tamara Zoe Roberson was born November 16, 1984. Roberson attended Marysville-Pilchuck High School in Marysville, Washington, then attended Western Washington University in Bellingham from 2003 to 2005. Roberson earned an associate’s degree from Everett Community College in 2020 and a bachelor’s degree from Washington State University in 2022. Roberson worked at Target and Walmart for about ten years before taking a role as a software engineer at Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories (SEL) in 2022.
Roberson has maintained an extensive trolling online presence since the 1990s. Usernames include:
Justanormalgirl
TGirlZoe
Foxxygirltamara
TamaraZRoberson
Roberson became a religious conservative later in life.
“Autogynephilia” activism
âAutogynephiliaâ (“AGP”) is a sex-fueled mental illness created by Ray Blanchard in 1989. Blanchard defines it as âa manâs paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman.â Support for this disease model of gender diversity is almost nonexistent, limited to a small group of conservative activists and supporters.Â
âAutogynephiliaâ as a taxonomy appeals to a very specific type of person: neurodiverse, fixated on collecting and categorizing, socially isolated/eccentric, rigid thinking. “Autogynephilia” appeals to Roberson, who claims to be the other type in the two-type taxonomy: “homosexual transsexual,” or “HSTS.” To that end, Roberson supported the trolling efforts of Denise Magner, creator of the transkids.us hoax site. All of the people involved in that project identify as “HSTS” but would be categorized by Blanchard as “AGP.”
Stephen Mautner is an American publishing executive responsible for fact-checking and releasing one of the most transphobic books ever written, The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey.
Background
Stephen M. Mautner was born on April 13, 1952. Mautner earned a bachelor’s from Brown University and a master’s degree from Johns Hopkins University. Mautner met spouse Ellen in Chicago and married there in 1986. They moved to Rockville, Maryland in 1989 for Mautner’s new job, and Mautner joined the National Academies around 1991. The Joseph Henry Press imprint began operation in 1992. After it was disbanded in 2008, Mautner remained Executive Editor of the National Academies Press (NAP), publisher for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Washington, D.C. Mautner has helped develop online projects to make those works more accessible to general audiences.
Anti-transgender activity
Mautner was responsible for fact-checking and publishing psychologist J. Michael Bailey’s 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism.
Mautner edited and published what is widely considered the most unscientific and deliberately offensive book on gender diversity since Janice Raymond’s 1979 screed The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male. Mautner was completely surprised by the 2003 response, which shows how poorly he handled his editing responsibilities on this controversial book.
After selling about 4,200 print copies, The Man Who Would Be Queen went out of print in 2008. It remained available for purchase as a PDF on the National Academies site.
The question of how this salacious bigotry got past Steve Mautner and got published by the National Academies Press remains unanswered. National Academies employees Mautner and Barbara Kline Pope refuse to disclose who did the “peer review,” because it’s clear Mautner’s choices were Bailey cronies. In the wake of the 2003 protests, Mautner even defended this book as a âresponsible work.â
Open letter from Stephen Mautner (2003)
On 24 June 2003, Mautner sent out the following open letter. See below for Mautner’s letter as a PDF. Notations and links in the text are mine.
In March of 2003 the Joseph Henry Press published J. Michael Baileyâs The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, a work intended to inform general audiences about one scholarâs efforts to understand aspects of homosexuality and gender identity within a psychological framework. Some readers have vehemently disagreed with the book, calling it defamatory and offensive to the transgender community. For example, they contest the implication that most transsexuals fit the categories described by Bailey.
Overall, the book has been greeted with a wide range of responses, from high praise to harsh criticism. Kirkus Reviews called the book âa scientific yet superbly compassionate expositionâ (January 2003). Publishers Weekly said âBailey writes with assuredness that often makes difficult, abstract material–the relationship between sexual orientation and gender affect, the origins of homosexuality and the theoretical basis of how we discuss sexuality–comprehensible. He also, especially in his portraits of the women and men he writes about, displays a deep empathy that is frequently missing from scientific studies of sexualityâ (April 2003). However, the same review in Publishers Weekly goes on to say that âBailey tends towards overreaching, unsupported generalizations.â And a reviewer in Frontiers, a Southern California gay news magazine, states that the author âdoesnât need to inject his biases as often as he doesâ (March 2003). A sense of the polarity of opinion about the book can also be derived from a scan of the reader responses to the work on Amazon.com, where among the forty-three responses posted on June13, 2003, twenty-seven gave the book a 1-star (lowest) rating and eleven gave it a 5-star (highest) rating, with only five responses in between.
The Joseph Henry Press (JHP), publisher of Baileyâs book, is an imprint of the National Academies Press engaged in publishing books on science, engineering, and medicine for popular audiences. JHP books are individually authored works, each carrying a notice that the opinions expressed are solely the authorâs and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academies. JHP follows clear decision rules for selecting books for publication and for scientific review of manuscripts. The work in question was reviewed as a well-crafted and responsible work on a difficult topic, reflecting one approach to a legitimate avenue of scholarship and research.
None of us involved in the publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen imagined the extent of the controversy that its publication would trigger. We deeply regret the fact that some have found the book harmful or offensive. Our intention in publishing it was certainly not to offend any individual or group, but rather to offer insight into how one scientist has arrived at his views on certain aspects of sex and human behavior.
The appropriate response to this endeavor, we believe, is not to silence the scientist or to censor the expression of his findings and opinions. Rather we hope that the publication will inspire a productive discussion about future directions and methodologies in research on issues of gender and sexuality, and thereby promote the proper course of future scientific investigation on this important but very sensitive topic.
Sincerely, [unsigned]
Stephen Mautner Executive Editor The National Academies Press The Joseph Henry Press
Below is selected correspondence about Mautner’s editorial choices.
My response of 16 July 2003
Mr. Mautner:
I have recently read an open letter with your name affixed regarding your responsibility for the publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey. The version I read was electronic and was unsigned and undated.
Please provide me with verification that you are responsible for this letter, as well as the date(s) it was written and released by JHP, as these dates will be important in understanding what you knew about Professor Bailey at the time you wrote the letter.
Thank you.
Mautner’s reply of 18 July 2003:
The date of the open letter was June 24, 2003. I will ask that the date be added to the letter.
Sincerely,
Stephen Mautner Executive Editor The National Academies Press/Joseph Henry Press
2 August 2003 letter to Mautner from prominent trans scientists
August 2, 2003
Stephen Mautner, Executive Editor The National Academies Press The Joseph Henry Press 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
Dear Mr. Mautner,
We are writing in response to your recent open letter regarding your publication of the Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey. You are probably now aware that several individuals who were subjects of Bailey’s research have filed formal complaints with his institution to the effect that he apparently did not seek review or approval by Northwestern’s Institutional Review Board for the research involving human subjects described in detail in his book. In particular, they were not informed that they were subjects of his research nor did they sign consent forms as is required by federal regulations governing protection of human research subjects.
Federal regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge”. Human subject “means a living individual about whom an investigator conducting research obtains data through intervention or interaction with the individual”, where interaction “includes communication or interpersonal contact between investigator and subject”. The Joseph Henry Press describes Professor Bailey’s work as based on his own research, and the book contains detailed interviews with human subjects.
In recent years publishers of scientific research involving human subjects have established procedures to assure that research studies whose results they publish have complied with ethical standards for the treatment of human subjects, and that authors have stipulated in writing that the conduct of their research was in compliance with those legally mandated standards. For example, instructions to authors for Nature Genetics state:
In cases where a study involves the use of live animals or human subjects, the Methods section of the manuscript should include a statement that all experiments were performed in compliance with the relevant laws and institutional guidelines, and should identify the institutional committee(s) that have approved the experiments. A statement should also be included that informed consent was obtained for any experimentation with human subjects. Referees may be asked to comment specifically on any cases in which concerns arise.
Similar requirements are adhered to by other major publishers of scientific research, and we have appended the guidelines for several publications, including JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, and journals of the American Psychological Association which has its own comprehensive statement of Ethical Principles that provides for the protection of human subjects.
In your letter you say that “Our intention in publishing it was … to offer insight into how one scientist has arrived at his views on certain aspects of sex and human behavior”, and that “we hope that the publication will inspire a productive discussion about future directions and methodologies in research on gender and sexuality…” In regard to how Professor Bailey “arrived at his views” and “discussion about … methodologies”, we have two questions to ask of you.
1. Does the National Academies Press – Joseph Henry Press require that authors affirm in writing that their research involving human subjects has been approved by an appropriate institutional review committee and that informed consent was obtained from human subjects involved in the research?
2. If such a policy is in place for the Joseph Henry Press, did J. Michael Bailey stipulate to having adhered to that policy?
If you do not have a policy that requires authors to stipulate that they have adhered to ethical standards for research involving human subjects, we strongly urge you to develop one along the lines of other publishers of scientific research. Note that Genetics Nature invites comment from reviewers in cases where there may be concern about the ethical use of human subjects. It is clearly inappropriate for the National Academies to publish and promote the results of research that fails to conform to federally mandated requirements for the protection of human subjects in research.
We appreciate your assistance in answering our inquiry and in addressing these serious concerns about the conduct of the research in question.
Sincerely,
Barbara Nash., Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics University of Utah
Lynn Conway, Ph.D. Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Emerita University of Michigan Member, National Academy of Engineering
Deirdre McCloskey, Ph.D. UIC Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, and English University of Illinois at Chicago Tinbergen Professor of Philosophy, Economics, and Art and Cultural Studies, Erasmus University of Rottterdam
Ben Barress, M.D., Ph.D. Professor of Neurobiology and Developmental Biology Stanford University
Joan Roughgarden, Ph.D. Professor of Biological Sciences Stanford University
c: Bruce Alberts, President, the National Academy of Sciences Harvey V. Fineberg, President, the Institute of Medicine
Thank you for adding the release date to your June 24 letter regarding your responsibility for bringing out the Bailey book under the Joseph Henry Press imprint. Your letter states:
âJHP follows clear decision rules… for scientific review of manuscripts. The work in question was reviewed as a well-crafted and responsible work.â
As you may know, this was not the expert assessment of Dr. John Bancroft, the Director of the Kinsey Institute, who stood up immediately after a Bailey presentation in July and told a lecture hall full of sex researchers that Baileyâs book âis not science.â
Please provide the names and credentials of those who participated in the scientific review of this manuscript and came to the conclusion it was well-crafted and responsible.
I look forward to learning the names of the scientific reviewers you selected who disagree with Dr. Bancroft.
Thank you in advance.
cc: Suzanne Woolsey
My letter of 21 August 2003:
Mr. Mautner:
I have not yet received a reply to my August 12 email requesting the names and credentials of those who participated in the “scientific review” of J. Michael Baileyâs manuscript and came to the conclusion it was “well-crafted and responsible” (see below).
I already have my copy of the dismissive form letter from Dr. Woolsey advising everyone with opposing views to present and publish evidence and reasoning. Iâd appreciate the courtesy of a personal reply with this evidence so I can do just that.
cc: Suzanne Woolsey, Bruce Alberts, Harvey V. Fineberg
Dr. Dana Beyer’s correspondence of 30 July 2003 with Mautner
Dear Mr. Mautner:
[…] I recently discovered that your press was located here in DC, and I would like the opportunity to visit with you to discuss J Michael Bailey’s recently published book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen.”
Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Dana Beyer, M.D.
Mautner’s reply on 7 August 2003
Dear Dr. Beyer,
I apologize for the delay in responding.
Given the deluge of mail we have received concerning Dr. Bailey’s book and our wish to catalog the responses, I would much prefer it if you could submit your comments in writing.
Sincerely, Stephen Mautner
My follow-up with Mr. Mautner one year after he brought out The Man Who Would Be Queen
15 March 2004
Mr. Mautner:
Lest you think we have forgotten about you and your JHP team, I wanted to update you on the J. Michael Bailey situation and your historical role in this matter.
Unlike you, the Lambda Literary Foundation had the integrity to admit last week they had made an âunprecedentedâ error in their initial assessment of The Man Who Would Be Queen. Though it was a âhumbling experienceâ according to their Executive Director, they had the integrity to withdraw support for the book when it became clear to them it was not science but propaganda in service of the neo-eugenics movement.
I also wanted to update you on an ongoing problem at Amazon.com. As many lazy editors and publishers are wont to do, you cited Amazon.com reviews in your 24 June 2003 open letter as an accurate gauge of response to this book:
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-reviews.html
Publishers increasingly use these unconfirmed reviews edited by an unnamed editor as evidence about a book’s reception.
“As of June 13, 2003 there were 27 1-star (lowest) ratings, and 11 5-star (highest) ratings, with only 5 in-between.”
Since Amazon has rewritten history by removing 18 of the reviews you cite in March, you need to revise your letter:
“As of June 13, 2003 there were 9 1-star (lowest) ratings, and 11 5-star (highest) ratings, with only 5 in-between.”
This new statistic suggests that the world is evenly split on this book. That does not reflect the 1300+ signatures gathered in a few days from people in 35 countries who protested the book, or the consensus of almost every professional organization that deals with gender variance.
Clearly, Amazon needs to be more transparent in the process, as do editors like JHP and publishing trade groups like Lambda Literary Foundation. These organizations are covering book promotion with a façade of objectivity and editorial rigor that simply does not exist.
As I have said all along, this is being waged as a war of propaganda and not a science fight. Once again, we have more evidence.
I can assure you that you will be held personally accountable for what is the most spectacular misstep of your career as an editor, and we will most certainly get to the bottom of who gave you the go-ahead on this book. Iâd bet money they are listed here:
This is going to be painstaking and methodical, and no stone will go unturned in determining who allowed this book to be published by the National Academies Press.
Additional Mautner information
Here’s a rather inaccurate description from 2004 detailing what Mautner does (emphasis mine):
Stephen Mautner, executive editor of Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press, was the fourth panelist. The Joseph Henry Press was founded to look for authors outside the national academies and to contract with individual authors to write books on science topics for general audiences. Editors look for serious scientific books that will have commercial success. Mautner sees a great future for work that takes content from the National Academies and massages it into a form accessible to a wider audience. How do editors at the Joseph Henry Press hire writers? Currently, they recruit very few book writers because they can only award contracts to six or eight authors a year. However, Mautner said that they are willing and eager to give writers who have a compelling record of excellent journalism a chance to write their first book.
Mautner sent his children to St. Albans, an exclusive Washington DC-based private prep school, using the money he made disseminating Bailey’s tripe.
Anyone with additional information on Steve Mautner’s responsibility for the review and publication of Bailey’s defamatory book is encouraged to contact the author of this site.
According to anti-trans activist Alice Dreger, as of August 2006, the book had sold about 4200 copies and had about 900,000 visits to the electronic version.
References
Weintraub, Judith (April 27, 1997). Intertwining Roots.Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1997/04/27/worlds-apart/1b438573-c351-4711-b0b3-734fa7770c06/?utm_term=.42613ccc11be
(Stephen Mautner to Michael Bailey, copy to Alice Dreger, p.e.c., August 11, 2006).
Media
CPNAS (May 7, 2013). Stephen Mautner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Ya6nNA5jk
The legal uncertainties reflect widespread puzzlement about the basic science. What is transsexualism’s connection to homosexuality? Does it signify mental illness? The American Psychiatric Association long ago (1973) eliminated homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, but its fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) still lists “gender identity disorder,” also mystifying to many people. Why does it cause thousands of Americans to powerfully desire membership in the opposite sex, leading some subset of this population to undergo transformative genital surgery?
A good recently published guide to all these questions is The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, by J. Michael Bailey, 46, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University who teaches an undergraduate course in human sexuality. The book is mostly about effeminate boys and men and how they got that way, but its concluding chapters zero in on the world of transsexuals–not all of whom were effeminate. The book has ignited a firestorm of protest from some transsexuals.
This despite the fact that Bailey, himself a standard-model male heterosexual, is warmly sympathetic to gays and transsexuals and argues persuasively that for the great majority of individuals taking the male-to-female route, the decision is rational.
The size of the transsexual population is itself a matter of controversy, and their propagandists endlessly seek to inflate the numbers. DSM-IV estimates that 1 in 30,000 males (and 1 in 100,000 females) opts for the surgery. Bailey’s estimate is 1 in 12,000 males, implying 8,000 gender-crossers now living in the country.
Transsexual Lynn Conway–who has been a computer scientist at IBM and is a professor emeritus at the University of Michigan–is now an activist for the cause. She says the figure is 30,000 to 40,000.
But the transsexuals’ attack on the Bailey book is not based on his population estimates. The main point of the protests is Bailey’s explanation of the roots of gender-crossing. Relying heavily on the work of Ray Blanchard, who heads the clinical sexology program at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, Bailey tells us that there are two different, quite distinct types of male-to-female transsexuals.
First is the “classic” homosexual type: the effeminate boy who, from early childhood, is profoundly convinced that he was meant to be a woman. A likely but still unproven interpretation of this feeling is that it traces back to an inadequate dose of male hormones six or seven weeks after conception. The result could be a young man sexually attracted to other men and gravitating toward a transsexual solution.
The second type bears the label “autogynephilia,” a clunky term invented by Blanchard, who coined it to describe that sizable fraction (perhaps half) of male-to-female transsexuals that he found to have a different version of gender identity disorder. They are erotically stimulated not by other men, and not primarily by women, but by the image of themselves as women. Except for their cross-dressing propensities, these transsexuals tend to lead rather ordinary heterosexual lives.
I spoke recently with an eminent transsexual who Bailey believes to be autogynephilic. Deirdre McCloskey, 61, is distinguished professor of the liberal arts and sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is a quantitatively oriented Chicago-school economist, a huge fan of Milton Friedman, and a dazzling writer, who is also a professor in the university’s English and history departments. Until she underwent the sex change in the mid-1990s, her name was Donald McCloskey, and she was a cross-dresser with a wife and two grown kids.
It is Bailey’s impression that the first type–the homosexual gender-crossers–are relatively indifferent to his book and that the protest emanates mainly from the autogynephiles. It is possible to understand their rage. The Blanchard diagnosis is hard to live with: Cross-dressing strikes most Americans as ridiculous, and its specified erotic role only makes matters worse. McCloskey, for one, is furious about the book and told the Northwestern newspaper: “He’s saying âLook, they’re driven by sex, sex, sex. They’re men, men, men.'”
The Bailey book sheds some much-needed light on the topic of transsexualism. But it is not destined to end the debate, or the lawsuits. Expect this difficult topic to keep judges and equal-opportunity commissions busy for a long while to come.
References
Seligman, Dan (October 13, 2003). Transsexuals And the Law. Forbes http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/068.html
