Ponticas is one of several people at Johns Hopkins involved in the repression of trans people through psychiatry.
Yula Ponticas graduated in 1979 from McDaniel College in Maryland and received a Ph.D. in Psychology from Florida State University in 1987. Her advisor was Jon Bailey (to my knowledge, no relation to our friend at Northwestern). Ponticas is a somewhat unusual surname that brings up several people, all from Chile.
She has written about in-vitro fertilization (with Fagan), care for the developmentally disabled, and paraphilia. Note that the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, where her first paper on crossdressing appeared, is where “autogynephilia” first appeared in print two years prior. Her only solo paper appeared in the same issue as the “five factors” paper co-authored with Wise et al.
The five-factor model goes like this:
Surgency (introvert/extrovert)
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Intellect/ Openness to Experience
My take on all these personality assessment tests is that they are about as useful and scientific as horoscopes. A lot of this is coming out of Northwestern ia Revelle and friends, though:
http://www.personality-project.org/
—–
Relevant papers by Ponticas include abstracts.
Wohl MK, Finney JW, Riordan MM, Iwata BA, Ponticas Y, Page TJ. (1981). Behavioral assessment and treatment of complete food refusal in a developmentally disabled child. Association for Behavior Analysis, Milwaukee.
Ponticas Y, Fagan PJ. Issues in the Psychological Evaluation and Care of In Vitro Fertilization Couples Appl Res Ment Retard. 1986;7(1):21-35.
Richman GS, Ponticas Y, Page TJ, Epps S. Simulation procedures for teaching independent menstrual care to mentally retarded persons.
Wise TN, Fagan PJ, Schmidt CW, Ponticas Y, Costa PT. Personality and sexual functioning of transvestitic fetishists and other paraphilics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1991 Nov;179(11):694-8.
Utilizing the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) and the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory (DSFI), 24 transvestitic fetishists (TVs) were compared with a similar clinic-evaluated group of 26 other paraphilics (OPs). The data replicated previous results and extended them by showing that TVs did not differ from OPs on most dimensions of the NEO-PI and the DSFI. Both groups were significantly higher on neuroticism and significantly lower on agreeableness than the NEO-PI male normative population. The other paraphilic group tended to score lower on conscientiousness than the TVs and the normative comparison group. For nine of the 10 DSFI variables, there were no significant differences between the TVs and the OPs. The TVs were significantly higher than the OPs on role identity, indicating a more feminine identification. Both the TVs and OPs reported elevated levels of fantasy. The implications of these findings suggest that, in general, TVs and OPs are more similar than they are different, with a common personality profile and a similar pattern of sexual functioning.
Fagan PJ, Wise TN, Schmidt CW Jr, Ponticas Y, Marshall RD, Costa PT Jr. A comparison of five-factor personality dimensions in males with sexual dysfunction and males with paraphilia. J Pers Assess. 1991 Dec;57(3):434-48.
We compared personality profiles of men with sexual dysfunction (n = 51) to those of age-matched men with a primary diagnosis of paraphilia (n = 51) employing the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI), a measure of the five-factor model. Preliminary analyses in a large sample of patients in a sexual behaviors consultation unit supported the reliability and factorial validity of the NEO-PI for this population. Analysis of variance showed significant differences between the dysfunctional and the paraphilic groups on two of the five NEO-PI domains, Neuroticism (N) and Agreeableness (A). The group personality profile of the sexually dysfunctional men was comparable to the normative sample of the NEO-PI, except for a slight elevation in N. By contrast, men with paraphilia had a personality profile marked by high N, low A, and low Conscientiousness (C). Treatment implications of the average personality profile of the sexual dysfunction group and the distinctive personality profile of paraphilic men are discussed.
Ponticas Y. Sexual aversion versus hypoactive sexual desire: a diagnostic challenge. Psychiatr Med. 1992;10(2):273-81.
Our work with women with sexual aversion documents the presence of marked sexual avoidance behaviors as specified in the DSM-III-R1 diagnostic criteria for this disorder. At the same time, we demonstrate the presence of normal sexual desire and capacity for orgasm in these women. These two findings offer support for a valid diagnostic differentiation between sexual aversion disorder and hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Inherent in the diagnosis and treatment of sexual aversion disorder is an appreciation by the clinician of the tremendous approach-avoidance conflict that exists in these patients. The behavioral and cognitive avoidance features, therefore, need to be elicited actively by the clinician during all phases of assessment and treatment. These features are not always offered readily by the patients for fear of having to relinquish these strategies and their related sense of control over the overwhelming anxiety that sexual intimacy can produce. Consequently, treatment is not always straightforward and successful.
Costa PT Jr, Fagan PJ, Piedmont RL, Ponticas Y, Wise TN. The five-factor model of personality and sexual functioning in outpatient men and women. Psychiatr Med. 1992;10(2):199-215.
454 adults seeking evaluation at a sexual behaviors consultation clinic were evaluated for the major dimensions of personality as measured by the NEO Personality Inventory and various aspects of sexual attitudes and experiences via the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory. The results showed that elevated Neuroticism was correlated with dysphoric symptoms, negative body image and lowered satisfaction. More extraverted individuals reported increased drive, more sexual experience, positive body image, and more positive affects. Agreeableness was unrelated to sexual drive and satisfaction but was negatively related to symptomatology. Openness was positively associated with amount of Information, range of sexual experiences, liberal attitudes toward sex, sexual drive and fantasy and appears to broadly impact upon sexual functioning. The more conscientious subjects had lowered sexual drive, but fewer dysphoric symptoms and a better body image. Women showed a similar pattern of personality correlates with the exception that personality was unrelated to females’ sexual experiences and sexual satisfaction. The present findings support and expand previous research and contribute to our understanding of how personality dispositions influence the experience and expression of sexual functioning in male and female clinical samples.
Walter Bockting is a Dutch psychologist who has studied transgender health.
Background
Bockting received his doctoral degree in psychology in 1988 from the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
From 1988 to 1990, he did a Post-Doctoral Clinical/Research Fellowship in the Program in Human Sexuality at University of Minnesota Medical Schoo’s Department of Family Medicine and Community Health. Hi completed his PhD in 1998.
Bockting was on faculty at the Program in Human Sexuality from 1988 – 2012. During his tenure at PHS, he served as a psychologist, professor, and coordinator of transgender health services. He was also on the graduate faculty of Feminist Studies and a co-founder of the Universityâs Center for CAH and Disorders of Sex Development.
2006: Fellow, Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
In 2012 he joined the faculty of Columbia University. His research interests include gender identity development, transgender health, sexuality and the Internet, and HIV prevention, and his work has been supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, and the Minnesota Department of Health.
Publications
Bockting is the author of many scientific articles and editor of five books:
Gender Dysphoria: Interdisciplinary Approaches in Clinical Management (Haworth Press, 1992)
Transgender and HIV: Risks, Prevention, and Care (Haworth Press, 2001)
Masturbation as a Means of Achieving Sexual Health (Haworth Press, 2002)
Transgender Health and HIV Prevention (Haworth Press, 2005)
Guidelines for Transgender Care (The Haworth Press, 2006)
He served as editor of the International Journal of Transgenderism, and serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Homosexuality. He is past president of the World Professional Organization for Transgender Health, past president and fellow of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, and vice-president of the North American Federation of Sexuality Organizations.
Bockting is a member of WPATH and works at the Gender Clinic at University of Minnesota. Much of his work is on disease and drug use in the transgender community. Bockting has written a review of Bailey’s book scheduled for publication in the near future. Biological reductionism meets gender diversity in human sexuality.
Media
Walter Bockting | 1 | #ColumbiaPride
References
How Far Has Transgender Health Come Since Stonewall?
Bockting, W. O. (2005). Biological reductionism meets gender diversity in human sexuality. [Review of the book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. J. M. Bailey]. Journal of Sex Research, 42(3), 267-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490509552281
Eli Coleman (born August 25, 1948) is an American sexologist who has been involved in issues related to transgender health.
Background
Coleman was born in Buffalo, New York and grew up in Montreal, Canada later moving to Chicago, Illinois.
He earned a bachelorâs degree in psychology and history at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and his masterâs in psychology at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh. He pursued further graduate work at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, and completed his Ph.D. in counseling psychology at the University of Minnesota in 1978. He became an instructor and then professor in the Universityâs Program in Human Sexuality in 1978.
He is the founding editor of International Journal of Transgenderism and International Journal of Sexual Health, and he has served in leadership roles for several professional societies, including as President of HBIGDA (now WPATH). Coleman became director of the Program in Human Sexuality in 1991.
Comments on Bailey (2003)
HBIGDA President blasts Bailey book
Urges assembled experts on transgenderism to âchallenge bad scienceâ
Release date: September 13, 2003
Ghent, Belgium — The outgoing President of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA) sharply criticized J. Michael Baileyâs recent book as an example of “bad science” about transgenderism.
Dr. Eli Coleman of the University of Minnesota made the remarks during his keynote speech at HBIGDAâs 18th Biennial Symposium in Ghent, Belgium today.
Addressing an audience of the worldâs foremost experts on gender identity, Coleman proposed a 10-point blueprint of current and future goals for the organization.
As he outlined the need to “promote sound and ethical research,” Dr. Coleman made a direct reference to The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University. The book has been widely denounced as scientifically unsound and deeply biased.
Dr. Coleman urged members to work with the transgender community to “end antipathy and distrust of researchers.” To illustrate what Dr. Coleman called “unfortunate setbacks” to ending this problem, he displayed the Bailey book cover. The bookâs provocative title and image of masculine legs and feet in feminine shoes are widely considered to be deliberately insulting. Referring to Baileyâs shoddy scholarship and deeply flawed research methods, Dr. Coleman emphatically declared: “We need to challenge bad science.”
HBIGDA President’s speech cites the 2003 book ‘The Man Who Would Be Queen’ among “unfortunate setbacks” for trans people.
Jamison Green, a writer and educator recently appointed to the groupâs Board of Directors, said of Coleman’s speech: “He was urging HBIGDA as an organization and the membership as a whole (as individuals) to become more assertive in addressing social and political issues that affect transpeople.”
Following the speech, HBIGDAâs incoming President Walter Meyer, M.D. vowed to pursue Dr. Colemanâs 10-point plan:
Promote sexual health including the elimination of barriers to sexual health
Learn from other cultures
Let old paradigms die and new paradigms emerge
Provide access to optimal care
Provide training to allied health professionals
Promote sound and ethical research
End stigma and discrimination
Change laws and social policies
Change religious views
Promote social tolerance for diversity
Dr. Coleman also cited important recent work done by HBIGDA, including expert testimony in a Florida custody case won by a trans father, and the need to fight renewed efforts by the religious groups which still stigmatize transpeople.
In May 2005, Dr. Coleman reiterated his opinion about the Bailey book at the IFGE conference, calling it a “setback.” For more, see Lynn Conway‘s report, linked below.
References
Conway, Lynn (April 30, 2005) Dr. Eli Coleman Rebukes J. Michael Bailey’s Book at IFGE 2005. [link]
Resources
University of Minnesota Medical School (med.umn.edu)
The CAMH Gender Identity Clinic is delighted to announce that our clinic received a Presidential Citation from Division 44 of the American Psychological Association (the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues) at a ceremony on August 9, 2003.
The text of the Citation reads as follows:
The Gender Identity Clinic has established itself as the premier research center on gender dysphoria research and clinical care since 1968, and is celebrating its 35th year.”
APA DIV 44 also allowed James Cantor to write a glowing review of The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey. Joseph Henry Press was later forced to attribute the review to Cantor by name, rather than their earlier attempts to imply that the review was the consensus of APA DIV 44.
Robert Carson is a psychologist at Duke University who wrote a book on Abnormal Psychology which was influenced by bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence thinking on gender variance.
American-Canadian sexologist Ray Blanchard is a key figure in anti-transgender extremism. This biographical page supplements the overview of the harm his biased and unscientific ideas have caused.
Background
While working at Torontoâs notorious Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Blanchard accused me of spreading âmisinformationâ (Blanchard 2009), so letâs get all of Blanchard’s biographical details out on the table in order to make my point more clearly.
As I mentioned in the earlier article (James 2009), Blanchard is widely reviled by trans people. Blanchard once declared that a trans woman who has transitioned is merely “a man without a penis,” and said of trans men, “They get a kind of lump that in the best, most expensive, $100,000 cases, kind of, maybe, look like a penis from across a room.” (Armstrong 2004). Blanchard’s comments on trans peopleâs genitalia reflect a fixation on “phallometrics,” the measurement of penile length, width, and tumescence when subjects are exposed to erotic stimuli. The field of phallometrics was developed by Blanchard’s mentor Kurt Freund at CAMH to determine if army recruits were lying about being gay to avoid military service where gay men were banned from serving. Blanchard, who obviously gay, is considered an expert in determining the size and tumescence of male genitalia.
Blanchard and since-fired sexologist Kenneth Zucker weaseled their way onto the committee rewriting the section on sex and gender minorities in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V). Zucker is the world’s foremost proponent of reparative therapy to âcureâ gender-variant youth. Blanchard seeks a broad expansion of the definition of “paraphilia” to expand this mental illness to include anyone attracted to someone who is not “phenotypically normal.”
Blanchard took umbrage at my publication of publicly available 2008 taxpayer-funded salary info and my comment that Blanchard and Zucker both left America for Canada during the Vietnam War.
Why is Blanchard so touchy about military matters, and what personally motivates Blanchard’s lifeâs work? What drives this key figure in the oppression of sex and gender minorities? Since Blanchard feels entitled to ascribe labels and motivations to others, letâs turn the tables. Why is Ray so reticent about revealing his own sexual interests and behavior, when his career involves âcatchingâ people not being open and honest about their sexual interests and behavior?
Early years
Blanchard’s full name is Ray Milton Blanchard III.
Blanchardâs parent Angelina Celi was born in 1917. Blanchardâs other parent was Aviation Metalsmith Second Class (AM2c) Ray Milton Blanchard Jr.
Ray III was conceived in early 1945, and Ray Jr. was lost at sea on 19 March of that year in the Japanese attack on the USS Franklin (USS Franklin 2008). Ray III was born 9 October 1945, according to a bio Ray III paid to place in Marquis Whoâs Who (Marquis 1984), a questionable vanity publication for narcissistic strivers (Carlson 1999).
Ray III identifies as Ray Jr.’s âfirst, only, and posthumous childâ (Blanchard 2009). Thatâs quite a burden to bear. Hereâs the scenario: young closeted kid with strong Catholic roots spends formative years alone with a widowed parent, who is understandably depressed about Ray Jr.’s being killed in action. Ray III’s namesake made the ultimate sacrifice, and Ray III gets Catholic indoctrination about carrying on the family name, hereditary line, and what-not. Ray III is taught by priests about sin and is expected to produce Ray Milton Blanchard IV after settling down with a nice Catholic girl. Only problem: Ray III thinks girls are icky.
Then the day comes when itâs no longer just Ray III and widowed parent. Enter a stepparent, a Navy veteran and a volunteer firefighter (Inquirer 1992). In a nice Catholic ceremony, Angelina (Celi) Blanchard marries Anthony F. Ruggero (1917-1992). They start their family in Hammonton, New Jersey, where Angelina and Anthony are residents. By the time Ray III in grade school, there are two stepbrothers, Jim and Bill, about a decade younger than Ray III. Quite a shift in family dynamics. Angelina Ruggero has a new surname, so Ray III is the only remaining Blanchard in the household, in memory of Ray Jr.
Academia and âfitnessâ for military service
Blanchard is a pretty brilliant person who puts great energy into living up to the high expectations for a sole surviving namesake. Knowing deep down that the Catholic ideal of marrying and procreating is never going to happen, Blanchard focuses on other forms of getting approval, like school. With the likely help of the Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance Program, Blanchard goes to a great school, then on to grad school in Illinois in 1967.
Vietnam sidebar: Meanwhile, further south in Illinois, Blanchardâs future CAMH collaborator Kenneth Zucker is one of the key campus leaders in the Vietnam protest movement at Southern Illinois University, staging mock trials and declaring people war criminals in absentia (Lagow 1977). Zucker headed to Canada eventually just to be safe. Their future collaborator Richard Green had the same idea: âI left Los Angeles in 1964 to avoid the Vietnam War by going to NIMH [National Institutes of Mental Health]â (Green 2004). One interesting phenomenon with anti-Vietnam people: they were right once as young people in the 1960s, so they often think they are always right, even decades later. Green handed over the editorial control of Archives of Sexual Behavior to Zucker, to continue pushing their ideology about sex and gender minorities.
Hearing your whole life that your namesake you never knew got killed in war is pretty good incentive for self-preservation. As Blanchard asserts, avoiding the draft was a moot point, since Blanchard was classified 4-A, as the sole surviving offspring of a servicemember killed in action. As long as war was not officially declared, Blanchard was safe. Further, the draft was implemented for those ages 18 to 26, and Blanchard was at University of Illinois until 1973, the year he turned 28. That would have allowed for a student deferment even if war had been declared. As I said earlier, Ray moved to Canada in the midst of the Vietnam War (1973) and has remained, even after all the drama about the U.S. draft was resolved.
What Blanchard fails to address is the real misrepresentation here, the elephant in the room, and my original point: not the 4-A classification, but the 4-F classification. 4-F was the designation used to declare gay servicemembers âunfitâ for military service (Dode 2004). In other words, 4-A was pretty much the best reason to be exempt; 4-F was pretty much the worst reason to be exempt. While Blanchard was never classified 4-F because of the superseding exemption, had Blanchard been drafted, there was a very real possibility of outright rejection at induction or dishonorable discharge for being gay, had he made it through the screening process. As of late 2009, the US military still has this as official policy. His fatherâs military service stands as the height of honor and the ultimate sacrifice, yet Ray might have been denied outright as âunfit,â or if he got in, he might have been discharged at the hands of military psychiatrists, the ultimate dishonor.
World War II sidebar: From when it was first implemented, the 4-F designation had become a badge of dishonor, using the eugenic terminology âunfitâ for service. It included a broad range of physical and mental reasons. Even after the war, people labeled 4-F were subject to discrimination and were seen by many as less valuable than those who served. It created a significant rift and a social hierarchy that suggested all men were not created equal, a sentiment at the heart of eugenic ideology (Wake 2007).
The best way to understand Ray Blanchard as a human is to consider the mindset of gay priests. Good Catholics who thought girls were icky often saw the priesthood as the Catholic version of 4-A instead of the Catholic version of 4-F. Priesthood is the most honorable reason not to have a family. Being a sodomite was the most âunfitâ reason.
Gay priests and gay psychologists serve the same purpose and hold the same position within an oppressive power dynamic. More on this in the following sections,
First published 2 November 2009. In this section:
Ray Blanchard motivations for oppressing sex and gender minorities https://web.archive.org/web/20130324133848/tsroadmap.com/info/ray-blanchard-motivations.html
Toronto: epicenter of pathologization of sex and gender minorities
Blanchard, Ray, Collins, Peter (1993). Men with sexual interest in transvestites, transsexuals, and she-males. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Volume 181 – Issue 9.
Blanchard, R., & Bogaert, A. F. (1996). Homosexuality in men and number of older brothers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 27â31.
Blanchard, Ray @ ASSTAR (2009). âDSM-IV Paraphilias Options: General Diagnostic Issues, Pedohebephilic Disorder, and Transvestic Disorder,â Annual Meeting of the Society for Sex Therapy and Research, Alexandria VA, April 2009, http://individual.utoronto.ca/ray_blanchard/index_files/SSTAR.html
Blanchard, Ray (22 October 2009) [via Maxine Petersen]. Response to â$325,000+ in salaries for Zucker & Blanchard to pathologize trans people.â http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/zucker-blanchard-salary.html
Thank you for calling my attention to the misleading information posted on the Internet by Andrea James.
My 2008 salary included a one-time buyout for unused vacation time (I had about six months’ worth of it) and does not reflect my annual base income.
At the time of the Vietnam war, I had an unusual exemption. According to my draft card (which I still have) it was a 4-A. This exempted me from the draft, in peacetime, as the sole surviving male heir of a serviceman killed in a foreign war. The US Congress never declared war on Vietnam, so it was technically peace time for the purposes of this draft law (or policy, whatever it was). My father, Ray Milton Blanchard Jr, a sailor in the US Navy, was lost at sea on 19 March 1945, in the bombing of the aircraft carrier, the USS Franklin. My mother was a few months pregnant with me at the time. I was the first, only, and posthumous child of Ray Jr.
In brief, I did not come to Canada to escape the draft. I had no incentive to do so.
Regards, Ray
[editorâs note: this base salary is only one of Blanchardâs revenue streams.]
Carlson, Tucker (8 March 1999), “The Hall of Lame”, Forbes Magazine. http://www.forbes.com/forbes-life-magazine/1999/0308/063.html
As most of those listed in the book know, entries in Who’s Who are mostly self-reported and largely unchecked, making it the ideal place to tidy up an uneven educational or work history⊠Indeed, the first clue that Who’s Who is a vanity publication is the “Thoughts on My Life” feature that appears beneath some entries.
Diamond, Milton and H. Keith Sigmundson (1997). Sex reassignment at birth: Long-term review and clinical implications. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151(3):298-304.
Dode, Lee (2004). A History of Homosexuality. Trafford Publishing, ISBN 9781412015387, p. 87
The psychiatrists had several choices of phraseology if they considered homosexuality a personality disorder or the expression of another kind of personality disorder. They could term a person a âpsychopath,â âschizophrenic,â ânormally imbalanced,â âweak psychological origins,â âarrested aggressive,â âpurposefully immoral,â âcontaining a neurosisâ or maybe âanother natural human traitâ which psychiatrists knew would not be acceptable to military standards. All categories were considered by the military to classify the person as â4 Fâ, undesirable for military service. Habitual criminals were also considered â4 Fâ.
In WWII, there were 2400 Army doctors and 700 Navy doctors who served as psychiatrists, many inadequately trained with poorly trained back-up personnel. Their policy was to discharge, court-martial, or reassign suspected homosexuals.
Military intelligence officers interrogated suspected military men for the names of other gay military and places the homosexuals met. Many innocents were arrested and imprisoned. Congress passed the May Act in 1941 giving the military the power to arrest and close businesses, and it was used against gays and their meeting places. Imprisonment gave way to military discharges for â4 Fâ, unfit for military service.
Freund, K., J. Diamant, and V. Pinkava. 1958. “On the validity and reliability of the phalloplethysmographic (Php) diagnosis of some sexual deviations.” Rev Czech Med 4:145-51.
Freund, Kurt (1963). “A Laboratory Method For Diagnosing Predominance Of Homo- Or Hetero-Erotic Interest In Male.” Behav Res Ther 21:85-93.
Green, Richard (2004). In Memoriam: Judd Marmor, MD. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 33, Number 4 / August, 2004, pp. 327-328.
âI left Los Angeles in 1964 to avoid the Vietnam War by going to NIMH.â
Hill D.B., Rozanski C., Carfagnini J., Willoughby B. (2006). Gender Identity Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence: A Critical Inquiry. pp. 7-34. In Karasic D, Drescher J (Eds.) Sexual And Gender Diagnoses of the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual (DSM): A Re-evaluation . Haworth Press ISBN 0789032147
Inquirer staff report (December 29, 1992). South Jersey Deaths: Anthony Ruggero. Philadelphia Inquirer
ANTHONY RUGGERO, 75, of Hammonton, died Sunday at home.
Mr. Ruggero was a former lieutenant with Hammonton Volunteer Fire Co. 1 and a lifelong resident of Hammonton. He was a World War II Navy veteran and a member of American Legion Post 186, Hammonton.
Survivors: his wife, Angelina; three sons, Ray Blanchard of Toronto, Jim of Haddonfield and Bill of Monmouth Junction; two grandchildren, and a sister, Marie Stretch of Ocean City.
Services: friends may call, 11 to 11:45 a.m. today, Marinella Funeral Home, 102 N. Third St., Hammonton; Mass, noon today, St. Martin de Porres Church, South Egg Harbor Road, Hammonton; entombment, Greenmount Cemetery, Hammonton.
Lagow, Larry Dwane (1977). A history of the Center for Vietnamese Studies at Southern Illinois University. Ph.D. dissertation; typescript in Hoover Institution Archives.
Ken Zucker, a member of the SIPC*, was reported in the student newspaper the Daily Egyptian as conducting mock trials. At least one person was found “guilty” of “all the war crimes he committed against the Vietnamese,” according to Zucker. Student body Vice President Rich Wallace later introduced Zucker at a Board meeting, where Zucker read a list of demands which called for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam first and foremost. On Wednesday, January 21, 1970, the Student Senate passed what was reported by the Dally Egyptian as a “hastily drawn” resolution supporting the SIPC.
*Southern Illinois Peace Committee, founded by Bill Moffett in 1967 as an anti-war splinter group of Students for a Democratic Society.
LalumiĂšre, M.L.; Blanchard, R.; Zucker, K.L. (2000): “Sexual orientation and handedness in Men and Women: a meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 126, 575-592.
Lawrence, Anne (1996). Taking Portlandiaâs hand.
http://www.annelawrence. com/twr/portlandia.html [deleted by Lawrence]
Lawrence, Anne (2008). Shame and Narcissistic Rage in autogynephilic transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 37, Number 3 / June, 2008.
When John Bancroft, the head of the Kinsey Institute, criticized Blanchard crony J. Michael Bailey for marketing a lurid book as âscience,â Lawrence leapt to Baileyâs defense online:
“Bancroft’s remark was followed by utter silence in the room, as though no one could believe that anyone would say something so tactless. It was as though Bancroft had stood up and loudly farted — people looked at each other in embarrassment for him. “
Lawrence, Anne (August 23, 2004). Bancroft’s “not science” comment.
According to another attention-craving eccentric who defends Blanchard, Lawrence is the source of false rumors that the author of this profile declared bankruptcy. Iâll have additional examples of Lawrenceâs rage in an upcoming profile.
Marquis Whoâs Who, Inc. (1984) Blanchard, Ray. Who’s Who in Frontier Science & Technology , p. 66. ISBN 083795701X
BLANCHARD, RAY MILTON, psychiatry institute research psychologist; b. Hammonton, N.J., Oct. 9, 1945; s. Ray Milton and Angelina (Celi) Ruggero. A.B., U. Pa., 1967; M.A., h4U. Ill.-Urbana, 1970; Ph.D., 1973. Cert. psychologist Ont. Bd. Examiners. Psychologist Ont. Correctional Inst., Brampton, Can., 1976-80; research psychologist Gender Identity Clinic, Clarke Inst. Psychiatry, Toronto, Ont., 1980â. Killam fellow Dalhousie U., Halifax, N.S., Can., 1973. Mem. Internat. Acad. Sex Research, A, Psychol. Assn., Can. Psychol. Assn. Subspecialty: Gender identity disorders. Current work: Taxonomy of gender identity disorders; psychosocial adjustment of transsexuals; phallometric assessment of sexual anomalies. Home: 32 Shaftesbury Ave Toronto ON Canada M4T 1A1 Office: Gender Identity Clinic Clarke Inst Psychiatry 250 College St Toronto ON Canada M5T 1R8
Newbery, Lillian (November 27, 1984). Trans-sexuals happier after operation, MD says. Toronto Star.
Sullivan, Nikki (2008). Dis-orienting Paraphilias? Disability, Desire, and the Question of (Bio)Ethics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Volume 5, Numbers 2-3 / June, 2008, 183-192. See also Moser, Charles (2008). A Different Perspective. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 37, Number 3 / June, 2008, 472-475.
Wake, Naoko (2007). The Military, Psychiatry, and “Unfit” Soldiers, 1939â1942 Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 2007 62(4):461-494; doi:10.1093/jhmas/jrm002
Harry Stack Sullivan’s failure to protect homosexual men from medical and social stigmatization by screening them out of the armed forces.
Wise TN, Lucas J. (1981). Pseudotranssexualism: iatrogenic gender dysphoria. J Homosex. 1981 Spring;6(3):61-6. See also Prince, Virginia (1978). Transsexuals and pseudotranssexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 7, Number 4 / July, 1978, 263-272.
USS Franklin (CV-13) (21 February 2008). Ship’s Company Killed In Action.
http://www.ussfranklin.org/kia/sc.html Ray M. BLANCHARD, Jr. AM2C 19 March 1945
Previous: Toronto: epicenter of pathologization of sex and gender minorities
All of Ray Blanchardâs work is about to be eclipsed by what will be Blanchardâs most enduring legacy: the broad expansion of âparaphiliaâ in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) to further oppress sex and gender minorities as mentally disordered. Blanchard plans to expand it to include attraction to anyone who is not âphenotypically normalâ (ASTAR 2009). Blanchard now wants to expand this disorder to include attraction to people who are too fat, too skinny, too old, too young, too tall, too short, too disabled, or any other characteristic that makes people not ânormal.â
His taxonomy of trans women has already reduced all our relationships to paraphilia. People who love trans women have a paraphilia he calls âgynandromorphophiliaâ (Blanchard 1993), and trans women who get in relationships are merely using their partner as a paraphilic prop in a narcissistic fantasy (Sullivan 2008). This echoes outdated assertions that gay people canât have a ânormalâ relationship.
Itâs amazing to me that someone whose sexuality was depathologized by psychiatry the very year he got his Ph.D. would be so hell-bent on imposing that very oppression on others. Yet here we are. The biggest step backwards in the history of sexology is about to happen, thanks to Ray Blanchard. He probably wonât live to see what a problematic figure he will become within his own field, becoming like John Money: someone where itâs hard to separate the good from the bad. The DSM-V will be Blanchardâs âJohn/Joanâ case (Diamond 1997): the cringe-inducing career misstep that will define his life and career to the lay public.
Whatâs most interesting is how these âexpertsâ feel entitled to define and label others, then get their panties in a bunch when labels and motivations are ascribed to their own actions. Itâs as if they use âscienceâ and self-mythologizing to assert a âtruthâ about themselves and their unassailable objectivity. Iâm sure Ray thinks that being openly gay would bring his own objectivity into question. Good science stands up to that scrutiny, though. With good science, someoneâs professional or personal information is irrelevant. The only place the identity of the scientist comes into play is with subjective stuff like plethysmography or proposed taxonomies and terminology. When a subjective claim about an object of study is made, it is scientifically imperative to examine the subjectivity of the person making the claim. Hence this analysis.
Perhaps Ray Blanchardâs peers will see what a remarkable psychological case study he is. Better yet, perhaps some day Ray Blanchard will be a little more open and honest about himself. All this might help explain why he believes other people canât be trusted to be open and honest about their sexualities.
Good scientists make full disclosures so peers are aware of potential bias and conflicts of interest in their work. Perhaps Ray Blanchard will finally start making full disclosures. It would be far better if he let everyone know that his entire career has been undertaken for the most personal reasons imaginable. But as weâve seen in his case, Ray Blanchard is more interested in applying labels to others than acknowledging labels that apply to him. It is his blind spot and his hubris; the flaw that sends him stumbling away from sound science and down the unlit paths of pathology and oppression.
Toronto: epicenter of pathologization of sex and gender minorities
Previous: Ray Blanchard motivations for oppressing sex and gender minorities
Ray Blanchardâs mentor Kurt Freund (1914-1996) was also an expert in psychiatric screening of military recruits based on sexual orientation (Freund 1963). Freund ended up significantly shaping public policy and public perception of sex and gender minorities in the second half of the 20th century. Freund is the developer of the penile plethysmograph (Freund 1958). He was commissioned by the government to use it in the psychiatric screening of military draftees in his home country (now called the Czech Republic). People there were attempting to avoid conscription by claiming to be gay. Freundâs device was developed to see if gay erotica turned them on, simplistically assuming that erection = gay, non-erection = nongay.
Blanchard is the only smart guy currently working on sex and gender at CAMH. The rest of them range from utterly mediocre to downright inept. Itâs got to upset Blanchard that someone less intelligent but more political like Ken Zucker makes a better base salary despite being younger. Zucker has been a politician since his days as a Vietnam War protestor, so Blanchard will always take the back seat in the leadership department. Blanchard does share two things with his less talented colleagues: rigidity and unmitigated arrogance. As with most pathological science, they have insulated and isolated themselves from mainstream science through academic logrolling and nepotism, creating little organizations and journals where they can make sure their worldview prevails unchallenged.Blanchardâs bid for immortality
Itâs the end of the genetic line for Ray, a bitter pill to swallow for a sociobiologist. They often have this quaint heterosexist notion that âevolutionary fitnessâ is based on oneâs number of offspring. So whatâs Rayâs bid for immortality? Barring sperm donation, itâs going to be discovering and coining things, an unfortunate obsession found in a certain kind of academic. This goes beyond the âsignificant contributionâ scholars are supposed to make as they move through the lock-step management chain of academia. Blanchardâs ideas are his children.
I imagine a number of questions turn over in Rayâs mind a lot:
Why am I gay?
Was my birth father gay?
How can I connect myself to a man I never met?
Why do attention-craving eccentrics rally around me and my work?
Why are cross-dressing psychologists so enamored of my work?
What do Maxine Petersen, Steven Pinker, J. Michael Bailey, Anne Lawrence, and Seth Roberts all have in common (besides psychology)?
Rayâs bid for immortality has led to an enduring legacy. His work on male birth order and sexuality will probably stand up to further scientific scrutiny (Blanchard 1996). His work on handedness and sexuality seems to have promise as well (LalumiĂšre 2000). This work makes even more sense when considered in context of his family dynamic.Blanchard and company will also be known for using CAMH to set up the worldâs largest publicly-funded forced feminization sex dungeon and transgender reparative therapy clinic (Hill 2006). Applicants (supplicants, really) are carefully screened to include only the most indigent, low-functioning members of society, unable or unwilling to obtain services elsewhere. The regressive requirements at CAMH attract people who get off on humiliation, creating a convenience sample of the bottom 10%: the most eccentric and least successful segment of the transgender community (Newbery 1984).
Cross-dressing sidebar: Transgenderists like Anne Lawrence and Maxine Petersen serve as mini-Blanchards, reproducing the same desire for respect and control by seeking power over a community rather than for it. They are two key promoters of Blanchard and his work. Petersen is a rather dim person who seems genuinely baffled as to what the problem is; Lawrence, by far the smarter of the two, knows exactly what the problem is. Lawrence claims to be a community pariah because of the proselytizing for Blanchard. Both are in fact heroes in their own tiny community of what used to be called âpseudotranssexualsâ (Wise 1981). They are, however, pariahs in the larger community. The conflict arises from their assertions that they are transsexual, citing Blanchardâs paraphilic model of gender variance as âproofâ of their identities. The transsexual community has rejected both of them as respected authorities. In an apparently unintentional case of self-projection, Lawrence chalks up negative reaction to Blanchardâs ideology as ânarcissistic rageâ (Lawrence 2008). Petersen and Lawrence will continue to be Blanchard stooges because itâs the only place they get the attention and validation they seek. Lawrence has even written about being a âpriestessâ (Lawrence 1996), as if restrictive gatekeeping of trans health services is some sort of religious ritual controlled by nuns and priests.
Is there more to the story of how Rayâs life experiences shaped his ideology? You betcha. Can I tell you what else? Not just now.
While these issues have all made news over the years, they are about to take a back seat to the issue that will define Blanchardâs career: his planned expansion of paraphilia as a disease, as discussed in the next section.
Next: Ray Blanchard’s problematic place in history
Ray Blanchard motivations for oppressing sex and gender minorities
âMale gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists:” How Ray Blanchard sees us
The quotation in the title above is from a 1993 paper by sexologist Ray Blanchard. [1] Blanchard is affiliated with Torontoâs Clarke Institute, long known as âJurassic Clarkeâ among transsexual women for its outdated and draconian rules imposed upon women in our community seeking health services. In Blanchard’s worldview, transsexual women are males whose condition is on a continuum with the other groups he studies.
Background: The Clarke Institute
The Clarke Institute is named after Charles Kirk Clarke (1857-1924). Clarke oversaw the two largest Canadian mental hospitals before accepting a government mental-health post. In addition to his desire âto keep this young country sane,â he sought to advance the psychiatric professionâs influence in making medical and political decisions.
Typical of âprofessionalsâ who are unable to see (or worse) unconcerned about larger systems which influence their realm of expertise or narrow interests, Clarke was an early proponent of eugenics, emphasizing the importance of restrictive laws that would limit the immigration and marriage of theâ defective.â [2] During his tenure, foreign-born patients made up more than 50 percent of the institutionalized population in Canada. [3]
As Katherine Wilson notes:
Psychiatric diagnosis on the basis of social, cultural or political affiliation evokes the darkest memories of medical abuse in American history. For example, women suffragettes who demanded the right to vote in the early 1900s were diagnosed and institutionalized with a label of “hysteria” (Mayor, 1974). Immigrants, Bolsheviks and labor organizers of the same era were labeled as socially deviant and mentally defective by prominent psychiatric eugenicists, such as Dr. Charles Kirk Clarke. [4]
Christened with his name, the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry opened for business in 1966. A young staff member recalls those early days:
My first impression of psychiatry in Toronto was that it was rather parochial in outlook and had a distinct British socio-biological emphasis and little interest and much scepticism about psychoanalysis. [âŠ] The Clarke, instead of being an ivory tower, seemed more like a cold cement fortress. [5]
Enter Ray Blanchard
Ray Blanchard came to “The Clarke” after studying sexual behavior in criminal men, pedophilia in particular. He began his work with Kurt Freund, who brought Blanchard into Clarke, and who himself is an expert in the area of “phallometric testing,” a “psychophysiological method for assessment of erotic preferences in males” — strap a “strain gauge” around a guy’s penis, show him pictures of whatever, and draw your own conclusions. Indeed, the Clarke Institute’s own literature states,
The Clarke Division Phallometric Laboratory was established by Kurt Freund, M.D., D.Sc., the first clinical sexologist to use penile plethysmography to assess erotic preferences in men. It is the oldest laboratory in North America for the phallometric assessment of sex offenders and paraphilics, and its instrumentation for the collection and processing of phallometric data is still the most sophisticated in North America, or indeed, in the world. [6]
The problem with penile plethysmographs (PPGs) is that they are like lie detectors (polygraphs): they measure a body response, but the data is open to interpretation. For this reason, they are often challenged as evidence in court, as with lie detectors. As the Skeptic’s Dictionary notes:
A man or woman may be aroused by the sight of animals copulating or be aroused by a film of a woman eating a banana and a man eating a fig in particularly provocative ways. Still, they may have no desire to engage in bestiality or have sex with a bowl of fruit. A heterosexual man or woman may be aroused by the sight of lesbians engaging in oral sex, but have no desire to have sex with lesbians or in the presence of lesbians.
Strong arousal need not imply strong desire for what causes the arousal; and weak arousal need not imply weak desire. Furthermore, no test can determine whether a person will act on his feelings and desires. [7]
This is the major controversy in Blanchard’s work: interpretation of data, and issues of his subjectivity, based on his assumption that transition is about erotic preference. While this may describe someone like Anne Lawrence, who considers her sex drive “that which moves us most,” many of us feel this is not an accurate or even correct description of our motivation for transition. Cause and effect may be difficult to distinguish.
Blanchard has headed both the department for sex offenders and the department for gender identity. In fact, patients have told me that in the past The Clarke was set up so sex offenders and transsexual women shared a hallway, offices, waiting room, and even staff, who would essentially just “change hats” whether they were seeing a transsexual woman or a sexual predator. Imagine the dynamic that created. It was under these conditions that Blanchard made many of his observations regarding people presenting with gender issues.
A reader writes:
Blanchard, like many researchers of his day (and sadly today as well) take their base assumptions from their formal training and experience. Homosexuality may be out of the DSM, but it was not that long ago that it was considered itself a psychopathology. The psychological community’s exposure to “things trans” was for many, many decades the paraphilia and festishism that spring from transvestism. Erotic preference is, I think, an important key to understanding all the “taxonomy” of Blanchard.
In his research approach (and many, many others’), their tacit assumption is the problem lies solely in the mind, be you a pedophile or paraphiliac or gender dysphoric (the “constructionist” approach versus “essentialist”). This naturally leads in the matter at hand to focusing on erotic preference as the “natural” dividing line.
Put yourself in Blanchard’s shoes (or Bailey’s for that matter). They genuinely and honestly do not believe the claims of people like ourselves that we are who we are. To them, we’re men, and it’s just that simple. They take that stance not even as a conscious effort — it’s just where they came from as psychologists. The fact they might use the pronouns we prefer is just a way of humoring the patient, but in no way implies or lends credulity in their minds to the legitimacy of their use.
Not only do they see us as men, but they also consider transsexual women to be liars, guilty of “systematic distortion.” Below is an abstract from a Blanchard paper (when Blanchard says “heterosexual” and uses male pronouns, he means transsexual women attracted to women):
The tendency for a heterosexual subject to describe himself in terms of moral excellence or admirable personal qualities was significantly correlated with scores in the ‘transsexual’ direction on all eight sexological measures; for the homosexual subjects, only one correlation was significant. [… It] is possible that the differences in the histories produced by transvestites and heterosexual transsexuals are exaggerated to an unknown degree by the motivation of the latter to obtain approval for this operation. The findings do not diminish the important distinction between these groups, but they do suggest caution in interpreting the self-report data that have been used in comparing them. [8]
We find ourselves in a no-win situation in changing their viewpoint. We are males to them, and when we try to explain why we feel this is not accurate, we are unreliable reporters who can’t be trusted.
Karen Gurney writes:
The problems I see, with the Blanchard position is that:
(a) it falls into the fundamental trap of trying to put overarching labels (either/or) on a group which is the epitome of diversity itself;
(b) it fails to recognise the physical intersexual nature of transsexualism – the incongruence between the phenotypical and neurological sexes;
(c) it seeks to attribute the psychological manifestations of neurological sex solely to “sexual desire” and does not reflect the John/Joan evidence which was so revealing of the shortcomings of psychological thought in regard to then accepted notions that gender is constructed;
(d) it is inherently disrespectful of the experiences of the majority of us who live with transsexualism, and especially those who pioneered the way by undergoing essentially primitive surgeries (as the transsexual men forgotten by Blanchard and Bailey still do) which did not produce wholly functional genitals, sacrificed all sexual sensation for the sake of harmonising “mind” and body, and were carried out in often ill-equipped clinics in faraway places (I have a friend who had her surgery in Casablanca in the early 1960’s);
(e) it is predicated on the notion that sex assignment at birth is immutable and hence is opposite the medical rationale applied to many thousands of intersex individuals each year that, where sex is atypical or ambiguous, a medical construction is a valid response, and the legal position that such a constructed sex is valid (I do not seek to justify the ethics of such assignments where they are carried out shortly after birth but point to the many XY females who are happy in their opposite gender role and are accepted as females for all purposes); and
(f) it fails to account for the experiences of a significant number of intersex individuals who do not fit into a theory which is based on the dichotomy of both sex and gender and whose gender, like their sex, is ambiguous.
In 1998, the Clarke merged with three other mental health and addiction facilities: the Queen Street Mental Health Centre, the Addiction Research Foundation, and the Donwood Institute. Collectively, they are now known as the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) [9]
Perhaps we should think of The Clarke the way they think of transsexual women. They can change their name and act like a mental health facility, but deep down they are still the same fossilized institution that pathologized homosexuality and continues to pathologize those who do not fit society’s standards for male and female.
From Blanchard to Bailey
From Blanchard’s work comes Bailey’ popularization of Blanchard’s observations and theories, where we become exotic or pathetic males driven by sexual urges to drastic ends. As Katherine Wilson notes:
Much psychiatric literature about transgender people is shockingly similar to that published about homosexuality before it was depathologized. It is based on a presumption that cross-gender identity/expression is by definition pathological, is focused on unsubstantiated theories of psychodynamic (mother-blame) cause and anecdotal case studies of institutionalized subjects, denies the existence of healthy productive TG people in society, and ignores anthropological evidence of accepted cross-cultural TG roles. These tired old myths were debunked for sexual orientation 25 years ago and have been recycled to target transgender individuals. [4] (emphasis mine)
As we continue to see more work into the field of biologic and genetic investigations of sex and sexuality, it is very important to do what we can to help those undertaking this work to understand the larger systems in place, outside their realms of expertise. To ignore the historical context and the important ethical and political issues involved in this type of research has shown to be disastrous throughout history.
These people may consider themselves above criticism, especially critical comments by those from whom they make their livings, but they do so at their own peril, and at the peril of society.
It’s impossible to separate ideological commitment from the highly specific historical contingencies bearing upon psychology and medicine in this time and place. This can certainly be demonstrated in Clarke’s work on eugenics, which diffused through society and later accreted around fascism and Nazism. Those of us outside psychiatry, and those of us directly affected by the profession, must raise these important issues and maintain a rigorous critical viewpoint. In that way, we can hope to avoid having what appear to be “facts” misinterpreted, by both researchers and the public.
Bailey’s interest in biological and genetic causes of sexuality and transsexualism does not occur in a vacuum, and he is not as “objective” as he’d like to think. As occasional Bailey co-author Richard Pillard notes:
No scientific knowledge is risk-free, and this must surely include genetic investigations of sexual orientation. One might take a sort of perverse comfort in knowing that homophobia, like racism (and all the xenophobias), exists regardless of whatever might be considered “the facts” of the moment. Research on human sexuality will, by its nature, evoke resistance and fear, to some extent legitimately. [10]
Draft version. Many thanks to those who contributed materials. Please contact me with comments.
References
1. Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists. Freund K, Blanchard R, Br J Psychiatry 1993 Apr;162:558-63
2. Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880-1940. Ian Robert Dowbiggin. Cornell University Press, 1997.
7. Social desirability response set and systematic distortion in the self-report of adult male gender patients. Blanchard R, Clemmensen LH, Steiner BW, Arch Sex Behav 1985 Dec;14(6):505-16
8. www.gicofcolo.org/gd/writings/faqpsy.html
9. http://www.camh.net/
10. “The Genetic Theory of Sexual Orientation” in the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review, Winter 1997, pp. 61-67.
My Experiences at the Clarke Institute
Editor’s note: Leslie has graciously honored my request for submissions from women who had dealings with the Clarke Institute in Toronto. Leslie’s story tells the sad tale of the Clarke’s faded glory. Now that they do not hold any purse strings, they have no power to speak of over local transgender populations. Leslie found them to be “a bunch of dirty old men, masquerading as clowns… stuck in the ‘ivory tower’ mentality of an old, fossilized institution which has grown arrogant and believes it is above questioning.”
“The Clarke” may have changed their name to Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), but they remain as out of touch as ever with the patients they purport to help.
Thanks to Leslie for sharing her important story with such thoughtfulness and detail!
My Experiences with the Clarke Instituteâs Gender Identity Clinic
First let me say that I did not have a bad time during my 4 visits to âthe Clarkeâ. On the first occasion they were helpful; the second, polite and mildly complimentary; the third depressing because it was the support group full of depressed people and the last, just plain irrelevant.
I have always been a woman, but was in denial until September 2000. Once I admitted that my condition was gender dysphoria I had to do something about it. Three friends had been to the Clarke Clinic and I knew of no other place where the condition was dealt with. After almost a year of trying out herbals, which did nothing, I had a check-up with my family doctor and broached the subject. He readily agreed to refer me to the Clarke. That was in August 2001 and the appointment came up in April 2002.
During the intervening months four things happened. A friend offered me a bottle of Premarin and I eagerly began taking it on October 9, 2001. From a Yahoo group I found out about a doctor in Toronto who would prescribe hormones. He in turn found me a caring psychiatrist. I was forced out of my home by my family. So when I went to the Clarke it had already passed the time when I needed them for anything.
The biggest crisis in my life came on Valentineâs Day 2002. I was forced out of my home by my adult son, with my spouseâs agreement. They were extremely unhappy that I was âcrossdressingâ â never in front of them and never to the extent of interfering with my familyâs welfare. They refused to consider any information I gave them and wouldnât talk about it. Being ejected without warning was a total shock to me, and I looked around for help and support. The Clarkeâs information package said they could help in a crisis, so I e-mailed and got an appointment with their only TS employee one week after my ouster.
First Contact
I had female clothes, but since the issue with my family seemed to be the clothing I wore, albeit always outside of the house, I stayed in self imposed male clothing for the first month of my separation from my family. I went to the appointment, February 21, 2002, dressed as a man, but still on hormones and still knowing I was a woman. I was received courteously by Ms Maxine Petersen and given ample time to tell my story. Her reaction, and that of everyone else, was that it was plainly wrong for this to have been done to me. I explained that the combination of my spouse and adult son against me made continuing to live there impossible. I was not about to get into a fist fight, something I had never been good at.
I remember asking if it was possible to be a transsexual and live as a man all or most of the time for the rest of my life. She said she didnât know⊠which was a wise answer. We discussed an appointment for my spouse, but she said it would be better for her to see the social workers. Maxine felt unable to deal with irate wives herself. She told me my spouse would be able to come to my April evaluation days as long as I signed a release. While I passed this information on, I found that she had no wish to be involved in either way.
I felt affirmed and relieved that my personal understanding of my enforced leaving home was a sound interpretation. Of course, nothing further could be done to help me get back home without at least minimal cooperation from my spouse. Sadly, that was not forthcoming.
Second Contact
By the time my official evaluation came up I had seen my psychiatrist a couple of times and found him professional, caring and very helpful. He had counseled about 65 Trans patients during his long career. By this time I had given up hope of ever being re-united with my family and had transitioned to full time living as a woman, on March 13, 2002.
April 15 and 16, 2002, were my days at the Clarke. I didnât know what to expect, and was prepared to walk away if I didnât like what I found. I was pleasantly surprised. They no longer put sensors on the genital organs and show dirty pictures to test for gender dysphoria. That would have been sufficient for me to walk outâŠ
First, I saw Maxine and was greeted warmly. I felt a lot more confident than at my last visit, as I was reconciled to probably losing my marriage, though not by my choice. I gave her my two photos as requested, âcrossdressedâ (actually neither was that as they both showed me as a woman), my questionnaire and my biography. We chatted for almost an hour and she rather apologetically asked me what turned out to be the key question at the gender clinic: âWhat do you think about when you are masturbating?â I told her. I was rather amused that they considered masturbation habits to be relevant to the diagnosis of gender identity.
My next interview was with Dr. Choy. He was also friendly and apart from saying with a smile that I had jumped 2 or 3 steps ahead of where I should be it was a pleasant experience. He also asked about my masturbation fantasies and I told him the same story.
Finally I was seen my Dr. Dickey, chief psychiatrist of the gender clinic. He was accompanied by his nurse, an older woman. He was very relaxed and gave me his opinion that gender dysphoria was a condition from birth. He also asked about my masturbation fantasies and I gave him the same answer. That was the most significant question I was ever asked, but clearly shows confusion between gender and sex. Or, perhaps an attempt to prove the validity of the autogynephilia theory of Dr. Ray Blanchard.
He asked me what I did about facial hair removal and I said I shaved. He advised me to start my electrolysis now. It wasnât bad advice, but I didnât have the money and they of course pay for nothing. It amused me that he felt he had to tell me that women donât have facial hair! I was offered a piece of paper that he proposed was a âpretend ticketâ for sexual re-assignment surgery and asked if I would take it. Of course the answer was yes â a no-risk, no-brainer decision since they didnât fund it any more anyway. I guess I passed the test.
He asked me for any comments on their service to me and I had to mention that it had taken 7 months to get an appointment. He pulled a sad face and I sympathized that they had budget and staff cutbacks. He seemed glad to have the understanding and support from me⊠say, who was the therapist here?
In response to his inquiry as to any final questions I might have I asked this: âI donât mean to be impolite, but can you tell me why I might ever want to come here again?â He took it well, thought a minute and came up with three possible reasons. First, if my psychiatrist didnât work out they could provide that for me. Second, if I needed a letter for surgery, after a full two years of full time experience of course, they could do that for me, or provide the supporting letter. Third, I could attend their support group.
I had not heard the last item mentioned yet that day, but now it had become the âJewell in the Crownâ. I knew about it, so I said, âBut, I canât go there yet.â He seemed taken aback and said, âOf course you can go. You can go as a man; you can go as a woman; you can go dressed as a bunny rabbit!â While I was amused, and I think it was just his wacky but well meaning way of telling me that there was no dress code, it did make me wonder about this man. I later characterized them all as a bunch of dirty old men, masquerading as clowns!
After the hour the nurse walked me out to the locked door â this is a high security facility. She asked me if it was my own hair (no, Iâm bald) and complimented me on my good taste in clothes (white blouse and tan knee-length skirt). She spoke rather distastefully of the âcrossdressersâ they sometime saw who dressed too flamboyantly.
The next day I was scheduled to see Dr. Betty Chan, Endocrinologist and Internist, at her office away from the Clarke. I say scheduled because even though the printed copy I had with me said 10, they had me down for 11 am. So I went and had a coffee first.
I had brought a photocopy of my latest blood test results, which she seemed glad to have. I was interviewed briefly about general health, and my HRT regimen. Then I was asked to strip down, in private, put on a paper dress and lie down for a physical examination. She was very discreet and gave me the same courtesy she gave all her female patients. She checked my blood pressure and said it was too high so I should ask my doctor to double my spironolactone and halve my Premarin. (The first my doctor agreed with and did, but he laughed and dismissed the second as typical of the Clarkeâs extreme conservatism.) When I was about to leave I asked for my blood test results back and she seemed a bit taken aback that I wanted them, but photocopied them and returned my copy. She told me I didnât need to come back, which was good as I had no need or intent to return anyway! To be fair to her, I should mention that she had a cold and was probably not feeling well.
The months went by and I was busy moving and re-establishing myself as a woman, in my new community. I knew the support group didnât meet in July and August, and I had nothing back from the evaluation days. I e-mailed Maxine on May 14, 2002, asking about both and received no answer until late July. She told me then that she had been very ill and off work, which I sympathized with in my return mail. The recommendations following from the evaluation had not been sent out during her time off to recuperate, but she said they were the standard ones: continue transition; be under medical supervision for HRT; wait full 2 years before surgery. She gave me the date of the first support group meeting, and I resolved to attend it.
Third Contact
Wednesday September 18th, 2002, at 6 pm I went up to the 4th floor of the CAMH building and found over a dozen people waiting to be let in behind the locked door for the first meeting of the season. All were male to female types. One of them I knew already and said hello to her. I wore womenâs cargo pants and a top and most were similarly dressed. A couple wore skirts and blouses, conservative and tasteful. Many made no attempt to look like women. Some looked scared.
We were taken to a crowded room which had about 18 chairs, for 16 of us. There was no coffee or other refreshments. We were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. Nothing that took place in that room was ever to be revealed outside or we would be banned! Was I joining a secret society? I could understand that since this group was open to every variety of crossdresser, transgender and transsexual, privacy was important for some. Maxine was in attendance, but said little. She introduced a student who was really to be in charge, a nice young woman who was pleasant, but detached. I had the feeling that the prevailing atmosphere was, âWe know you arenât really women, and you know it too, but we will all pretend so you can feel good about yourselves.â I didnât feel good. I knew I was a woman and found them condescending and oppressive.
We went around the circle introducing ourselves. There were 2 or 3 post-ops but most had not transitioned yet. Some were depressed, some hostile, some paranoid. I felt uncomfortable as I had none of these problems. My intro was brief and to the point: hormones begun October 9, 2001, transitioned March 13, 2002, surgery scheduled November 21, 2002. Most of the people told stories of doom and gloom. Problems in womenâs washrooms, hair removal that hadnât worked, rejection by families, severe depression not fully responding to treatmentâŠ
I told my little story about the two Pentecostal evangelist ladies who had visited me a few weeks before and didnât understand what I meant when I said I wouldnât be acceptable in their church because of my âgender dysphoriaâ. Iâd had to say something to enlighten them, so I made the explanation that âI used to think I was a man, but I havenât had any surgery yet.â They immediately told me that I should remain the way God made me and not do anything to alter my body. They took my hands and prayed for me very movingly, always using âherâ and âsheâ. I had initially marveled that these were so untypical of many Christians who criticize and ridicule transsexuals. It struck me several hours later that they were convinced I was a genetic female who had at one time been tempted to masculinize myself!
I made the point that while I have a very femme body and pass easily, I believed that the most important ingredient was confidence. It could have happened to any one of them if they just believed in themselves. A few people were impressed favourably. Most just sat there… they preferred to tell their sad takes of woe and receive sympathy. The leaders did very little to guide the discussion or give helpful advice to anyone. They looked bored. They told one woman that she transitioned backwards because she did it at work before she transitioned at home. I felt sad for her. It wasnât a confidence builder. I felt very much out of place. Iâd gone into every possible situation before and since my transition and felt completely at home, but I wanted to get out of this artificial and stultifying place. When it was announced that our time was up at 7:30 pm I was glad to get out of there, and never went back. They had nothing to offer me. If I went weekly I would have been depressed!
A long time Clarke girl told me later that the Clarkeâs method was to deliberately intimidate, so you would be able to stand up to the scorn and ridicule of the outside world. I found that strange as the outside world was a very comfortable place for me to live and be at ease in. Only the contrived Clarke atmosphere was hard to take. There is such a thing as anticipating trouble, so that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy⊠I think they do their clients no favours by this âprogrammeâ.
Fourth Contact
I was expecting a 6-month recall interview and sure enough, a week before I went to Thailand for my surgery the envelope arrived. It had been sent to my old address in Bowmanville. I checked, and I had advised the Clarke of my current address in August. More surprises ahead! Inside, the letter said, âDear Andrewâ, which was never a name I owned or used. Furthermore, the date of my appointment was to be November 20, the day before my surgery, when I would already be in Thailand. I had mentioned that at the support group, but obviously it hadnât made it into the system.
I phoned and left a message explaining why I wasnât going to make it on that date on their voice-mail, then e-mailed and ccâd to Maxine. Within 20 minutes I had a reply, apologizing profusely and thanking me for my âgenerous offerâ to keep in touch after my surgery. Since it was worded so winningly I decided that I would contact them on my return, once I felt up to it.
In early February I e-mailed Maxine and said that I was ready have the interview. She asked me to come in on February 28, 2003. I told her I was the biggest success story she would ever have sitting in her office. I showed her my psychiatristâs letter to my surgeon, and my surgery photos. I offered to e-mail them to her, and did so at her request. She was interested in my psychiatrist and said she would invite him to join their new advisory committee. I told her I knew about it, but I wasnât interested in applying to join the committee.
I discussed âwhat the Clarke could do for peopleâ and asked why they doubled the Harry Benjamin standards. She told me about a few F to M TSâs who had dropped out of the programme and come back years later to thank her for not giving them hormones and thereby causing permanent sterility within months. That was the basis of their âhigherâ standards. I mentioned that a few handouts would really help clients: steps in transitioning; friendly electrologists; legal name change etc. She agreed it was a good idea. But after over 25 years in the business of âhelpingâ Trans people they had nothing to give them.
Maxine was surprised to hear that the SRS surgeons in Thailand donât follow the Harry Benjamin Standards. I was surprised that she was so unaware of that fact, and that many hundreds of people from all around the world prefer to go half way around the world rather than submit to the humiliation of the treatment gender clinics like the Clarke mete out.
I told her I try to steer as many people as possible away from the Clarke and to my own doctors, who give excellent service. She just shrugged. In light of their meager resources and diminishing budget I asked if I could volunteer and help them in some way. She said no, the only possibility was the advisory committee. I suggested that since they were not my support group I thought they should at least pay for parking, since I was aiding in their research. I was frostily told that they never did that.
So we didnât part on the friendliest of terms, which was not my intention. She is a nice woman and as helpful as she can be within the restrictions the institution places on its staff. It seems the idea of being responsible to their clients is offensive to them. They are stuck in the âivory towerâ mentality of an old, fossilized institution which has grown arrogant and believes it is above questioning.
In ConclusionâŠ
When they were the gatekeepers for government funded SRS they had great power. Now they are irrelevant, but still keep on in the same authoritarian way. Perhaps it is a good thing to have them to care (?) for those with serious co-morbid conditions beside gender dysphoria. It seems that many in the âsupport groupâ have fallen through the cracks of the health care system and they at least have something there. I know several people personally who went away from the Clarke weeping, yet found help elsewhere. There is no way of knowing for sure, but I believe the number may be quite high. They are success stories in the Clarkeâs book, because they left the programme voluntarily and didnât make the âmistakeâ of transitioning and SRS. At least the Clarke interprets it this way as they have lost touch with them. Iâm told some former clients have committed suicide in despair of ever getting help, but I canât verify that.
Would I go back if invited? Probably, but they wonât like the questions I ask and I doubt if I will hear from them again. I am not going to be put onto their committee and thereby neutralized as a critic of their practices and policies. Itâs too bad they are so insular as they are the only âofficialâ gender clinic in the province of Ontario. This means that every doctor has them in his reference book, and will send patients with gender issues only to them, unless they have specifically asked for another doctor.
I got what I wanted and needed without any help from the Clarke. It felt pretty good that I had gone through the evaluation and was treated with courtesy and compliments. Itâs easy for me to âblend inâ with feminine features and only 5â8â tall, but I wonder, do the big, angular girls have such a good experience from the Clarke?
Maxine did admit grudgingly that âmaybeâ I was one of the ones who didnât need a full 2 year âreal life testâ. Iâm told she took more like 5 years to make up her own mind. I knew after a week that this was the only life for me. I resent the fact that these people deliberately hold back very promising candidates for hormones and surgery just because they wonât treat them as individuals. Itâs a âone size fits all approachâ but we are not all the same! They donât trust us to tell the truth about our transition dates. You have to change your name to an unmistakably female name (mine wouldnât do) and show education receipts or pay stubs to prove you have lived it. Apparently âBig Brotherâ knows best⊠in their book.
I was 3 months on hormones before I found my hormone doctor and only 5 months full time before my psychiatrist recommended me for surgery. That would be considered irresponsible by the Clarke, but for me it was appropriate and worked. I like the way my psychiatrist put it better: âAny nurse, or secretary, can go down a check list and tell you when you have qualified for hormones or surgery. I assess you on the basis of my 23 years of working with trans clients and you are a classical transsexual.â I would never have heard that kind of statement at the Clarke.
Iâm now 3 years post-op and living a happy and anonymous life in the community with my partner. I accompanied her just a year ago to the same SRS surgeon I used and her results have been equally good. Iâve had little contact with the CAMH Gender Clinic but sometimes talk to their clients.
One girl who went on their advisory board confided in me that they were still rigidly standing by their old principles and she doubted they would ever change. I had anticipated that. Another contacted me because she was due for an appointment and couldnât get a reply back from them. She eventually did, and I had lunch with her in the CAMH Cafeteria. Itâs a huge 12 story building with all sorts of addiction and mental health clinics. It might have been my imagination but I thought we got a lot more rude stares from passers by than I had in other restaurants.
My opinions of this venerable old institution have changed very little in the intervening years. I still think they do more harm than good, but in a time of penny pinching by the government perhaps that problem will solve itself. What we need is more private physicians and psychiatrists who will give proper care to those who wish to transition and the means of finding them easily. Too many doctors would rather not touch anything as controversial as feminizing transsexuals. Even the Clinics who do give care to transsexuals are notoriously conservative. One of them has a used needle disposal system in their patientsâ washroom, with a notice that they operate a needle exchange. However, they still insist on a minimum 3 month wait after first contact before prescribing hormones and have turned some down. One candidate who was turned down for health reasons came to me for information. She has been happily on âoffshoreâ hormones for 6 months with no ill effects and is planning on SRS next year. Why are hormones considered more dangerous than illegal injectable heroin?
Our provincial government is considering re-listing SRS as a surgery that is funded by our health care system, but moving painfully slowly in that direction. If they do I want 3 new standards built into the plan: 1) free choice of the preferred surgeon (with a reasonable maximum limit on the price of course), 2) approvals by nothing more restrictive than the Harry Benjamin Standards â http://www.hbigda.org/soc.htm , and 3) allocation of sufficient funds to clear the 7 year backlog and provide enough surgeries to meet the real needs, not the 10 a year that it averaged before. Not to be too much of a pessimist, but I have my doubts that they will ever actually pay for it again.
My experiences
by Sharon
In the mid 1970’s, when I was in my early twenties, I sought the assistance of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry’s gender identity program. The conflict between my gender identity and my sex arose at about age 9. By age 12, I had come to understand that I was in fact a girl, and that I needed to change my body to conform to the way I felt inside.
At about this time, the newspapers reported the first experimental organ transplants, and the enhancement of topless dancers’ breasts using silicone injections, which led me to speculate whether or not the same methods could be used to make my body female.
Unfortunately, I was very tall for my age – already over 6 feet, and still growing rapidly. I knew that this would be great obstacle to passing as a woman, and it was a tremendous source of anxiety.
I needed to start shaving at a younger age than most boys I knew. Had I been a boy, this might have been a source of pride and self-confidence, but I was a girl, so it was hell.
At about age 13, I read a newspaper article about transsexualism, and the existence of endocrinological and surgical treatment. It was a great relief to know that I was not alone, and that medical treatment existed. Through my adolescence, I never wavered in my desire to be female in all respects.
The Clarke made clear from the outset that research was the major focus of their program. I was supportive of their conducting research, but I soon realized that they offered precious little in the way of treatment, and then only to the small fraction of applicants they accepted into their program. They scheduled numerous appointments for all manner of tests and interviews. I was interviewed by at least two of their staff psychiatrists, including Dr. Freund, who tried to console me by pointing out that this problem was not my fault. I already knew that. The other psychiatrist focused a lot on my height, and pointed out that I would have a lot of problems, which of course, I already knew.
Several of my appointments were at nearby hospitals for various medical tests. I recall that one of them involved some sort of an imaging scan. I handed the test form to the technicians, one of whom giggled when she read on it “transsexual”, Fortunately, all other medical professionals I encountered at the hospitals treated me with respect.
My assessment by an endocrinologist led to the one bright spot in my Clarke experience. He was new to their program, and I recall that they talked him up as being a leader in his field, and something of a coup to have on their team.
I found him understanding, and willing to help. As part of his assessment, he asked to see me completely in the nude, so that he could get a sense of what hormones might do for me. While acknowledging that my height was an obstacle, he expressed the opinion that my body could be successfully feminized using hormones. This was music to my ears!
Even better, he offered to start me on estrogen right away, and I was thrilled to accept. At my first opportunity the next day, I presented my prescription to a local pharmacist, but there was a set-back. I was told that they could not provide the prescribed dose. At first they refused to explain the problem, but eventually told me that the unit of measure was out by a factor of 1000, e.g. micrograms vs milligrams. Fortunately, they were able to reach the endocrinologist by phone and quickly resolved the problem, but it was a nervous moment.
It felt wonderful to start on hormones. Soon, I had a follow-up meeting with the endocrinologist, at which he asked me a favour – would I be willing to meet some of his medical students, to provide them an opportunity to meet someone like me. He wanted to include that experience in their training, in the hope of promoting better understanding. Recalling the giggles from the imaging technician, I could see the potential benefit, so I readily agreed. We had the meeting, and it went very well. Needless to say, I was feeling much better about the Clarke’s program.
With the completion of the medical tests, my appointments reverted to the Clarke. As I recall, one of the staff asked how I liked their new endocrinologist. I responded very positively, and expressed my joy at finally having been prescribed estrogen. Upon hearing this, the staff member freaked, and next thing I knew, I was confronted by more senior staff, who told me that the endocrinologist had not been authorized to prescribe the hormones to me. They demanded that I turn over the unused portion of the drug, else they would drop me from their evaluation.
I felt I had no real choice in the matter, so I reluctantly complied. It was a huge let down, and from that point, the Clarke experience was just something to be endured.
One of their evaluations required that I present myself dressed as woman for an interview with one of their staff, which was to be videotaped. Since I had not transitioned, and would not have passed in public, they agreed that I could change into my feminine attire on the premises. They left me alone to change in the studio where the interview was to be taped, but soon I noticed the cameras slewing to aim at me. The bastards were taping me dressing! I complained, afterward, but they just sloughed it off. It was now becoming clear that I was much more of a test subject to them, than a human being. One of the final tests involved the plethysmograph. A contraption designed to measure penile response while the subject is shown various pictures. I was told not to speak, and to focus my attention on the pictures. I was surprised to find that some of them were from the session for which I had dressed as a woman. I remember little else about the test itself.
Afterward, I chatted briefly with the test conductor, as we walked down the hall. Trying to make the best of the awkward situation, I commented that I guessed it was valuable to have the opportunity to obtain scientific data on transsexuals. To which he responded that few true transsexuals were available for study, in contrast with homosexuals, who were available “by the wheelbarrow”. Clearly, I was just a data point to him.
Finally, I met with Dr. Steiner and several other of the staff, who told me, “You are not a transsexual, and you do not need a sex-change, at least not now.” Dr. Steiner warned against rushing to feminize myself on hormones, because in her opinion that accounted for most of the sex-change. I was told that I required years of intensive psychotherapy, and they offered to recommend some doctors. I told them, “thank you for nothing”, and walked out. I was little more than a research subject to them – research that spawned such nonsense as Dr. Blanchard’s theory of autogynephilia.
Within a year, I found a gynecologist who readily agreed to my request to begin hormone treatment. My body responded wonderfully to estrogen, and within two years, I had a pleasing bosom, and my hips had filled out – finally skirts fit properly! Having greater access to my female emotions was great, as was losing my male sex drive.
In the end, I found the prospect of transition too daunting. I was not at all confident that I could overcome the problems of my great height. I did not have the emotional strength to deal with the rejection of family, and the abuse of strangers. Living as a man is hell for a woman, but living as a woman seen by everyone as a man, likely would be even worse.
Nevertheless, I completed facial electrolysis, and I love the softness of my skin. My hair is shoulder length, femininely cut, and I love it! I have never for a moment regretted feminizing my body. After twenty five years, I could not imagine not having breasts. For me, some feminization has proven much better than none. It made my life bearable, though far from happy. Successful transition is the only way to have a chance at true happiness.
I am fortunate to have meaningful and intellectually stimulating hobbies, into which I can escape for brief periods. I am also fortunate to have a few good friends.
Sharon
—
Toronto Star, Tuesday, November 27, 1984 Trans-sexuals happier after operation, MD says By Lillian Newbery Toronto Star Page H2
The vast majority of men and women who had surgical sex changes in Toronto say they prefer their new gender. Most support themselves in society without welfare or unemployment insurance.
Dr. Mary Steiner, head of the Gender Disorder Clinic and the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, said recently the favorable results probably reflect the strict evaluation given those who seek such surgery. Only 1 in 10 men who request it are approved.
The Gender Identity Clinic assesses individuals who dress as the opposite sex, long to be the opposite sex or believe that inside they really are the opposite sex, research co-ordinator Leonard Clemmensen said during a recent research open house at the institute on College St.
In the most extreme cases, called trans-sexuals, the sense of belonging to the opposite sex is âlongstanding and unalterableâ and leaves them feeling constantly unhappy.
âIf the patient has been definitely diagnosed as trans-sexual, has no other major psychiatric disorder and has proven ability to function in society as a member of the opposite sex, then the clinic may recommend sex reassignment.â
The Gender Identity Clinic contacted 38 women who became men and 41 men who became women, representing 77.5 per cent of all sex reassignments coordinated through the provincial institute in the past 15 years.
The study included only people who had the surgery a year or more before and the average time between the date of surgery and follow-up was 47.4 months.
Only one of the group said she was âunsureâ if she still wanted to live as a female and none said they wish they hadnât had the sex change. All but five said they prefer their current gender and would undergo such surgery again. One homosexual male changed to a female, three heterosexual males changed to females and one female changed to a man said they would âprobablyâ choose the change if they had the decision to make over again.
One of the aims of the program has always been to end up with people who are self-supporting in society, Steiner said. Usually they hold jobs on a lower level than before the sex change, although some have returned to their old jobs.
Of 79 studied, 69 sustain themselves in society without welfare or unemployment insurance benefits.
All the 38 women who underwent the sex change had been attracted to females before the surgery. Of the 41 men: 32 known as homosexual trans-sexuals had been attracted to other males before surgery; nine known as heterosexual trans-sexuals has been attracted to females. Thirty-nine of the 79 live with a member of their own biological sex in a stable relationship.
If you had dealings with the Clarke Institute and the Gender Identity Program, particularly with Ray Blanchard, we hope you’ll contact me to share your story.
References
2. Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880-1940. Ian Robert Dowbiggin. Cornell University Press, 1997.
Blanchard, Ray, Collins, Peter (1993). Men with sexual interest in transvestites, transsexuals, and she-males. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Volume 181 – Issue 9.
Blanchard, R., & Bogaert, A. F. (1996). Homosexuality in men and number of older brothers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 27â31.
Thank you for calling my attention to the misleading information posted on the Internet by Andrea James.
My 2008 salary included a one-time buyout for unused vacation time (I had about six months’ worth of it) and does not reflect my annual base income.
At the time of the Vietnam war, I had an unusual exemption. According to my draft card (which I still have) it was a 4-A. This exempted me from the draft, in peacetime, as the sole surviving male heir of a serviceman killed in a foreign war. The US Congress never declared war on Vietnam, so it was technically peace time for the purposes of this draft law (or policy, whatever it was). My father, Ray Milton Blanchard Jr, a sailor in the US Navy, was lost at sea on 19 March 1945, in the bombing of the aircraft carrier, the USS Franklin. My mother was a few months pregnant with me at the time. I was the first, only, and posthumous child of Ray Jr.
In brief, I did not come to Canada to escape the draft. I had no incentive to do so.
Regards, Ray
[editorâs note: this base salary is only one of Blanchardâs revenue streams.]
Carlson, Tucker (8 March 1999), “The Hall of Lame“, Forbes Magazine. http://www.forbes.com/forbes-life-magazine/1999/0308/063.html
As most of those listed in the book know, entries in Who’s Who are mostly self-reported and largely unchecked, making it the ideal place to tidy up an uneven educational or work history⊠Indeed, the first clue that Who’s Who is a vanity publication is the “Thoughts on My Life” feature that appears beneath some entries.
Diamond, Milton and H. Keith Sigmundson (1997). Sex reassignment at birth: Long-term review and clinical implications. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151(3):298-304.
The psychiatrists had several choices of phraseology if they considered homosexuality a personality disorder or the expression of another kind of personality disorder. They could term a person a âpsychopath,â âschizophrenic,â ânormally imbalanced,â âweak psychological origins,â âarrested aggressive,â âpurposefully immoral,â âcontaining a neurosisâ or maybe âanother natural human traitâ which psychiatrists knew would not be acceptable to military standards. All categories were considered by the military to classify the person as â4 Fâ, undesirable for military service. Habitual criminals were also considered â4 Fâ.
In WWII, there were 2400 Army doctors and 700 Navy doctors who served as psychiatrists, many inadequately trained with poorly trained back-up personnel. Their policy was to discharge, court-martial, or reassign suspected homosexuals.
Military intelligence officers interrogated suspected military men for the names of other gay military and places the homosexuals met. Many innocents were arrested and imprisoned. Congress passed the May Act in 1941 giving the military the power to arrest and close businesses, and it was used against gays and their meeting places. Imprisonment gave way to military discharges for â4 Fâ, unfit for military service.
Freund, K., J. Diamant, and V. Pinkava. 1958. “On the validity and reliability of the phalloplethysmographic (Php) diagnosis of some sexual deviations.” Rev Czech Med 4:145-51.
Freund, Kurt (1963). “A Laboratory Method For Diagnosing Predominance Of Homo- Or Hetero-Erotic Interest In Male.” Behav Res Ther 21:85-93.
Green, Richard (2004). In Memoriam: Judd Marmor, MD. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 33, Number 4 / August, 2004, pp. 327-328.
âI left Los Angeles in 1964 to avoid the Vietnam War by going to NIMH.â
Inquirer staff report (December 29, 1992). South Jersey Deaths: Anthony Ruggero. Philadelphia Inquirer
ANTHONY RUGGERO, 75, of Hammonton, died Sunday at home.
Mr. Ruggero was a former lieutenant with Hammonton Volunteer Fire Co. 1 and a lifelong resident of Hammonton. He was a World War II Navy veteran and a member of American Legion Post 186, Hammonton.
Survivors: his wife, Angelina; three sons, Ray Blanchard of Toronto, Jim of Haddonfield and Bill of Monmouth Junction; two grandchildren, and a sister, Marie Stretch of Ocean City.
Services: friends may call, 11 to 11:45 a.m. today, Marinella Funeral Home, 102 N. Third St., Hammonton; Mass, noon today, St. Martin de Porres Church, South Egg Harbor Road, Hammonton; entombment, Greenmount Cemetery, Hammonton.
James, Andrea (2007). Plethysmograph: A disputed device. Transsexual Road Map.
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/plethysmograph.html
James, Andrea (2009). $325,000+ in salaries for Zucker & Blanchard to pathologize trans people. Transsexual Road Map
Lagow, Larry Dwane (1977). A history of the Center for Vietnamese Studies at Southern Illinois University. Ph.D. dissertation; typescript in Hoover Institution Archives.
Ken Zucker, a member of the SIPC*, was reported in the student newspaper the Daily Egyptian as conducting mock trials. At least one person was found “guilty” of “all the war crimes he committed against the Vietnamese,” according to Zucker. Student body Vice President Rich Wallace later introduced Zucker at a Board meeting, where Zucker read a list of demands which called for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam first and foremost. On Wednesday, January 21, 1970, the Student Senate passed what was reported by the Dally Egyptian as a “hastily drawn” resolution supporting the SIPC.
*Southern Illinois Peace Committee, founded by Bill Moffett in 1967 as an anti-war splinter group of Students for a Democratic Society.
LalumiĂšre, M.L.; Blanchard, R.; Zucker, K.L. (2000): “Sexual orientation and handedness in Men and Women: a meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 126, 575-592.
Lawrence, Anne (1996). Taking Portlandiaâs hand.
http://www.annelawrence. com/twr/portlandia.html [deleted by Lawrence]
Lawrence, Anne (2008). Shame and Narcissistic Rage in autogynephilic transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 37, Number 3 / June, 2008.
When John Bancroft, the head of the Kinsey Institute, criticized Blanchard crony J. Michael Bailey for marketing a lurid book as âscience,â Lawrence leapt to Baileyâs defense online:
“Bancroft’s remark was followed by utter silence in the room, as though no one could believe that anyone would say something so tactless. It was as though Bancroft had stood up and loudly farted — people looked at each other in embarrassment for him. “
Lawrence, Anne (August 23, 2004). Bancroft’s “not science” comment.
According to another attention-craving eccentric who defends Blanchard, Lawrence is the source of false rumors that the author of this profile declared bankruptcy. Iâll have additional examples of Lawrenceâs rage in an upcoming profile.
BLANCHARD, RAY MILTON, psychiatry institute research psychologist; b. Hammonton, N.J., Oct. 9, 1945; s. Ray Milton and Angelina (Celi) Ruggero. A.B., U. Pa., 1967; M.A., h4U. Ill.-Urbana, 1970; Ph.D., 1973. Cert. psychologist Ont. Bd. Examiners. Psychologist Ont. Correctional Inst., Brampton, Can., 1976-80; research psychologist Gender Identity Clinic, Clarke Inst. Psychiatry, Toronto, Ont., 1980â. Killam fellow Dalhousie U., Halifax, N.S., Can., 1973. Mem. Internat. Acad. Sex Research, A, Psychol. Assn., Can. Psychol. Assn. Subspecialty: Gender identity disorders. Current work: Taxonomy of gender identity disorders; psychosocial adjustment of transsexuals; phallometric assessment of sexual anomalies. Home: 32 Shaftesbury Ave Toronto ON Canada M4T 1A1 Office: Gender Identity Clinic Clarke Inst Psychiatry 250 College St Toronto ON Canada M5T 1R8
Newbery, Lillian (November 27, 1984). Trans-sexuals happier after operation, MD says. Toronto Star.
Sullivan, Nikki (2008). Dis-orienting Paraphilias? Disability, Desire, and the Question of (Bio)Ethics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Volume 5, Numbers 2-3 / June, 2008, 183-192. See also Moser, Charles (2008). A Different Perspective. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 37, Number 3 / June, 2008, 472-475.
Wake, Naoko (2007). The Military, Psychiatry, and “Unfit” Soldiers, 1939â1942 Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 2007 62(4):461-494; doi:10.1093/jhmas/jrm002
Harry Stack Sullivan’s failure to protect homosexual men from medical and social stigmatization by screening them out of the armed forces.
Wise TN, Lucas J. (1981). Pseudotranssexualism: iatrogenic gender dysphoria. J Homosex. 1981 Spring;6(3):61-6. See also Prince, Virginia (1978). Transsexuals and pseudotranssexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 7, Number 4 / July, 1978, 263-272.
These links are provided for those interested in this site’s historical coverage of Blanchard
Ray Blanchard on transsexualism
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/ray-blanchard.html
Ray Blanchard motivations for oppressing sex and gender minorities
ray-blanchard-motivations.html
Toronto: epicenter of pathologization of sex and gender minorities
ray-blanchard-hypotheses.html
Ray Blanchard’s place in history
ray-blanchard-history.html
Notes, updates, further reading
ray-blanchard-notes.html
Paul L. Vasey is a Canadian psychologist who promotes harmful ideas about sex and gender minorities, especially transgender and gender diverse people and those who love us:
Vasey is one of the last of the old-school Canadian evolutionary psychologists allied with fired sexologist Kenneth Zucker. Vasey’s coauthors and associates are part of an activist minority in sexology, most of whom are cisgender and born before 1970. Vasey holds some supportive views, but they are all colored by an embrace of unscientific and pseudoscientific terminology created by Vasey’s friends. Science and its operational definitions must be value-neutral in order to produce bias-free scientific results.
Vasey was hired as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Lethbridge in 2000. While preparing to teach a course on sex and gender, Vasey became interested in Samoan faâafafine culture. Vasey describes them as “feminine, same-sex attracted males that are recognized as a non-binary gender.” Vasey’s partner is Vaitulia Alatina Ioelu, a self-identified Samoan faâafafine.
Vasey co-authored a paper with two Concordia University psychologists on childhood gender diversity.
Bartlett NH, Vasey PL, Bukowski WM (2000) Is gender identity disorder in children a mental disorder? Sex Roles, 43 11/12, 753-785. Article ID: 299688
Empirical studies were evaluated to determine whether Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in children meets the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-4th Edition ( DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association, 1994) definitional criteria of mental disorder. Specifically, we examined whether GID in children is associated with (a) present distress; (b) present disability; (c) a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom; and if (d) GID represents dysfunction in the individual or is simply deviant behavior or a conflict between the individual and society. The evaluation indicates that children who experience a sense of inappropriateness in the culturally prescribed gender role of their sex but do not experience discomfort with their biological sex should not be considered to have GID. Because of flaws in the DSM-IV definition of mental disorder, and limitations of the current research base, there is insufficient evidence to make any conclusive statement regarding children who experience discomfort with their biological sex. The concluding recommendation is that, given current knowledge, the diagnostic category of GID in children in its current form should not appear in future editions of the DSM .
Below is a course description for Vasey’s Sex & Gender Diversity (Psychology 3850) Spring 2003
In this course, we will explore issues related to sex and gender diversity. To this end, we will critically examine the binary construction of sex and gender through such topics as intersexuality, gender identity disorder, and âthirdâ sexes and genders in non-Western societies. A central part of this theoretical examination involves discussing the real-world consequences individuals face for deliberately or inadvertently transgress dichotomous sex and gender boundaries.
Required Readings:
(1) Kessler, S. (1997). Lessons From the Intersexed. Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, New Jersey.
(2) Course-pack containing Chapter #1, âBehavior,â from: Burke, P. (1996). Gender Shock: Exploding the Myths of Male and Female.Anchor Books, Doubleday: New York.
(3) Additional short readings drawn mainly from popular magazine will be distributed in class.
Below is a course description for Vasey’s Science & Sexuality (Psychology 4000NA) Spring 2004
In this seminar, we will explore the controversy surrounding the publication of J. Michael Baileyâs book, â The Man Who Would be Queen .â Baileyâs book deals with the subject of male femininity through such topics as gender identity disorder in childhood, homosexuality, transvestitism, and male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism. Although reaction from the gay community has been largely unremarkable, the book has ignited a storm of protest in the MtF transexual community. In particular, some transsexual women dispute Baileyâs claim (based on the work by Toronto sexologist, Ray Blanchard) that there are two distinct sub-categories of MtF transsexuals: homosexual versus autogynephilic.
We will familiarize ourselves with the controversy by reading The Man Who Would be Queen and the contents of two websites managed by transsexual women, [] & Lynn Conway, who are spearheading the response to Bailey. We will then critically investigate the evidence for each point of view. We will begin by examining the claim that two specific types of MtF transsexuals exist primarily by reading scientific articles written by Ray Blanchard and Anne Lawrence. Anne Lawrence, a Seattle-based doctor who specializes in sexual medicine, is a self-identified autogynephilic transsexual woman and a supporter of Blanchardâs work. We will then read â True Selves: Understanding Transsexualism â by Mildred L. Brown & Chloe Ann Rounsley and â Mom, I Need to Be a Girl ,â by Just Evelyn, which [], Lynn Conway and several transsexual advocacy groups highly recommend as a more accurate depiction of the MtF transsexual experience and an alternative to the Bailey/Blanchard model. Through the semester we will weigh the evidence for, and against, Blanchardâs dichotomous conceptualization of transsexuality. In addition to the readings, documentary films on homosexuality, cross-dressing and transsexualism will be screened during the last hour of some seminar classes.
Required Readings :
(1) Bailey, J.M. (2003). The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science and Psychology of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism . NY: Joseph Henry Press.
(2) Additional required readings will be placed on reserve in the library.
Anne Lawrenceâs writings on autogynephila can be found at:
http://www.annelawrence. com/sexualityindex.html
see: (1) âMen Trapped in Menâs Bodies:â An Introduction to the Concept of Autogynephiliaâ (2) Sexuality and Transsexuality: A New Introduction to Autogynephilia (3) Autogynephilia: Frequently-Asked Questions (4) 28 Narratives About Autogynephila (5) 31 New Narratives About Autogynephilia
Michael Baileyâs responses to his critics can be found at:
The reading “Transgendering, Migrating and Love of Oneself as a Woman: A Contribution to a Sociology of Autogynephilia,” by Richard Ekins and Dave King can be found at:
www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtvo05no03_01.htm .
A reading by Carl Elliot on apotemnophilia can be found at:
Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht (2016). Sexual orientation, controversy, and science (vol 17, pg 45, 2016) Psychological Science in the Public Interesthttps://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616637616
LJ Petterson, BJ Dixson, AC Little, PL Vasey (2018) Viewing time and self-report measures of sexual attraction in Samoan cisgender and transgender androphilic males. Archives of Sexual Behavior 47 (8), 2427-2434 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1267-7
Margaret Ann McGhee (born 1942) is an American technology executive. Shewas a prolific contributor on the support group dedicated to âautogynephiliaâ in early 2004, before group founder Willow Arune inadvertently got the group banned from Yahoo in 2005 for trolling and defamation.
Background
Her 2009 autobiography states:
My adolescence, growing up in Texas in the fifties, was a nightmare of guilt, self-hate, confused emotions and sexuality – and, oh yeah, don’t forget the abusive step-mother. At fifteen I left home and headed to California where my grandparents graciously supported me while I completed high school. After graduating I moved out on my own and started working my way through college. Over the years and despite the confusion I gradually developed a male persona that gave me sufficient happiness. Perhaps to kill off that inner female once and for all, I married a smart and attractive wife who soon gave us a wonderful son. This marriage only lasted a few years however as my inner female was becoming restless. After our separation the “do your own thing” sexually permissive spirit of California in the sixties became my great escape. Those were heady times when I grew my hair long, resisted the war, smoked lots of dope and wore bell-bottoms and flowing shirts. My inner female was wishing for flowing skirts as well but I kept her repressed enough that my male existence was still the only face I presented to the world.
Over the next several years I started migrating northward. With stops in Santa Cruz and Eugene, the farther north I went the more I liked it. I eventually established a good life in Bellingham in the wet, cool and intensely green northwest corner of Washington state. I met and married a wonderful woman there. After a few years we moved to Idaho and together raised my son from my earlier marriage. Life was good. Except for the occasional stealth cross-dressing episode my inner female was safely tucked away from everyone. Then one day in 1997, after 22 years of marriage, my wife was killed by a drunk driver. In the weeks and months that followed, the woman inside me firmly reclaimed her place in my life. It was an overwhelming force that I could not resist. It just felt right. I became convinced that my destiny was to become as close to a biological female as possible through sexual reassignment surgery. I started down that path including the necessary psychological counseling and a year of HRT (hormone replacement therapy). However, as time went by I realized that I was not ready to completely abandon my male side which I had nurtured so carefully all those years and had become an important part of who I was. Also, I was reluctant to surgically alter my body unless I was absolutely sure that my happiness required it. I couldn’t confidently come to that conclusion and so I stepped off that train.
At the time I wasn’t sure how all this would work out but by following my feelings as honestly as I could and not analyzing things too much I seem to have found a happy middle ground for now, where I spend as much time as I wish in either persona. That’s not to say that my life is all happiness and bliss these days juggling dual external identities but it is far better than hiding my true feelings from those close to me. The few problems I face these days are practical ones, not ethical. I do try to stay focused on my many other interests in life and living each day to its fullest which is always a wise plan anyway. Aside from exploring human nature, some of these interests include playing the guitar and making music with friends, fly fishing, cooking and outdoor photography. A large part of my happiness these days is no doubt due to my marriage, going on three years now, to a wonderful and intelligent woman who appreciates both of us as much as we do her. And also, to the many new friends I have found since moving back to Washington.
This evening I was browsing tsroadmap and was surprised to find a page there dedicated to some information about me. This was regarding some posts that I made in the past to the now long defunct autogynephila forum.
I seem to be described as being a supporter of Blanchardâs theory of autogynephilia.
I did spend a lot of time at the ag forum as you say. I did try to be as friendly as possible with the other members of the ag forum. However, my presence there was to politely argue against the concept.
While there I presented counter-arguments. I confronted both Anne Lawrence and Michael Bailey with those arguments. Much of the substance of my counter-arguments were taken from information that I found following links from your website.
Willow Arune referred to me as one of the non-believers â who was allowed to stay (probably because I did not personally attack anyone there even though I was frequently attacked myself). I was accused more than once by other members of being in cahoots with you, Susan James and Lynn Conway â or perhaps being a spy for you  Finally, they got fed up with me and I was kicked off.Â
While there, I think I learned a bit and gained some understanding of the psychology of the transsexuals who supported the theory. Thatâs one reason I hung out there. I couldnât understand how anyone could go through life feeling that badly about themself â and I wanted to understand it better.
In any case, I am definitely not a supporter of Blanchardâs theory. Nor do I believe that transsexuality or gender variance is in any sense a pathology. In the interest of accuracy, and because I would not want anyone to get the wrong impression it would be helpful if you corrected your listing.
Feel free to check me out further or ask me any questions you like. I wouldnât expect you to change anything youâve written unless you were certain that it was correct.
I do have an interest in evolutionary psychology. That may be why you assumed I supported Bailey. Iâd say my understanding of the intersection of evolution and transsexuality is more along the lines of what Joan Roughgarden writes in Evolutionâs Rainbow.
Yes, I believe human transsexuality is the result of evolution, as is every single aspect of human nature. I believe it is a perfectly natural outcome â to be celebrated, not pathologized.
I have not been active in any ts online groups for some time now. My interests have lately been in more general aspects of identity. I am working on an hypothesis that relates worldview to group conflict, alliance and other social phenomema. One reason I find this interesting is the firsthand experience I gained about the autogynephilia conflict from having in-depth discussions with members of the ag forum.
Thanks in advance for your attention to this matter, Margaret McGhee
My response:
Hi Margaretâ
Thanks for writing. When all this was going down, I found the best thing to do was to document everyone who got involved and sort it out later. This led to a pretty quick vectoring of the institutions from which all this BBL stuff was emanating, and how Bailey operates (science by press conference). Ultimately, Lawrence and Bailey are both self-hating [trans] chasers with different strategies for getting closer to the objects of their desire. This brings profound bias to the knowledge they produce and their writings about that knowledge.
I knew Arune would eventually be seen as a crank, based on Aruneâs long trolling history on Usenet. Arune is simply replaying some old injury again and again in an attempt to control it. Lisanne Anderson aka Lori Anjou eventually was seen that way, too, as well as Deni aka Suki aka Alejandra aka Steffie and all the other old school web trolls inhabiting that group. As I note here below the chart:
âPlease note that several of the people listed above have expressed concern about the term, and do not necessarily agree it is a legitimate diagnosis.â
That was meant to include you.
I also note that you stopped posting after an initial burst of activity, another common pattern as people began to see that it was a troll site. By the time Aruneâs incompetence led to that groupâs demise, it was basically a carbon copy of Aruneâs Usenet âcontributionsâ before and since: cut-and-paste jobs from other publications, plus slander and baiting of people Arune doesnât like.
So, now we have a record of a bizarre attempt to create a community around an identity based on a sex-fueled mental illness. Several of the people involved had a similar learning trajectory as I did: my first impression was that âautogynephiliaâ was a love of self as a woman. I even sent Anne Lawrence a note around the time Lawrence published an introduction to the concept saying that it made sense. As with many others, I did not grasp that this was a paraphilic model which casts our motivations as a sex-fueled mental illness. One of my majors was classical Greek, so I assumed âphiliaâ (friendly love, affection, friendship) could be considered in apposition to âphobiaâ (panic fear/hatred) and suggested to Dr. Lawrence that my own motivation might be better described as âautoandrophobia,â a hatred of my self as male. It was only when the Bailey book came out that I understood how âphiliaâ was used by these guys.
If you donât mind, Iâd like to include your letter and this response on that page, as well as anything else youâd like to include. I knew a lot of the debate would be ephemeral, which is why I had a âdocument now, sort out laterâ philosophy. I wanted a historical record of the contemporaneous response. I still consider this event a turning point in trans history, the beginning of the end for the gatekeeping âauthoritiesâ who would medicalize and pathologize us the way they used to with gays and lesbians. Unfortunately, they have some key people in the Presidentâs Council on Bioethics and involved in the DSM-V revision committees, so we are not out of the woods, yet. This will prove to be a decisive turning point in our fight for rights. BBL have done more to mobilize an international coalition of trans activists that anything since the invention of the internet itself.
Thanks again for contacting me! I look forward to hearing back from you.
In February 2006, I got the following note:
Hi Andrea, I mentioned several weeks ago that I would attempt to write an essay describing my experience as a dissenting member of the Yahoo AG-support group and what I thought about it all now. Itâs been a major project but I seem to be running out of reasons to revise it further. So, if you want to post a link you are welcome to do that. Itâs at:
J. Michael Bailey is Chair of the Department of Psychology and Professor at Chicago’s prestigious Northwestern University. A Ph.D. graduate of Louisiana’s Baylor University [sic â Bailey’s PhD was at University of Texas at Austin], he is trained in clinical psychology and known as a sexologist. The bulk of his research has concerned the behavioral and vocal mannerisms of gay men.
This year, Bailey made a play for the big timeâif one considers the talk show and lecture circuit the big timeâvia a book published under the imprint of the prestigious National Academies of Science. The title is The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism.
This choice of title is unfortunate in any number of ways. First, despite Bailey’s claims otherwise, it is deliberately sensationalistic, misleading, and demeaning to the purported subject population. It seems designed to sell books rather than describe what Bailey’s book is about. There is, in fact, no man “who would be queen.” Second, most of the book is devoted to male homosexuality rather than transsexualism; why does the subtitle not reflect this? Third, and far worse, both the author and publisher have touted the book as being based on science and research. It is not science. Fortunately, most reviewers have recognized this. Finally, both the subtitle and NAS imprint imply that Bailey has widespread knowledge of transsexualism. This is not true; Bailey met his (few) transsexual subjects in Chicago’s gay and trans bar scene at two in the morning.
Moreover, according to at least five transsexual women who have filed complaints at Northwestern in regard to Bailey’s behavior, he misled them by not telling them that they were research subjects. Bailey is now under investigation by Northwestern’a most serious matter.
Bailey’s book is important because it has brought to the forefront two issues; gay femininity and autogynephilia. Gay men have been slow to react to the exaggerated and stereotypic pictures Bailey paints of them in his books and at his lectures, but transsexuals, outraged by Bailey’s blanket statements that he “knows” their intimate psychologies and his intimations that if transsexuals disagree with his assessments of them, they’re lying, have been quick on the uptake. Reactions have been critical and in some cases personal.
The real importance of Bailey’s book is not that it paints a sloppy and inaccurate picture of transsexuals (it does), but that it hoists the petard of autogynephilia, a theory that depicts transsexuals as sexual fetishists and denies the existence of gender dysphoriaâand that he has done so with the tacit approval of the National Academies of Science.
Here are the highlights of the controversy to date.
MarchTMWWBQ is released, with claims by the author and publisher that it is based on science. A cover blurb by Dr. Anne Lawrence calls the book “… a wonderful book on an important subject.”
April University of Michigan Professor Emerita Lynn Conway fires the opening salvo to a group of trans friends via e-mail, expressing her “extreme concern about the publication of Bailey’s book by the National Academy Pressâand her fears that the Academy imprimatur would mislead people into thinking the book was sound science, when in fact it was very one-sided and very defamatory of transsexual women.” Conway continues to document happenings on her website, updating it frequently.
25 April On Conway’s website, Stanford Professor of Biological Science Joan Roughgarden reviews a presentation by Bailey on 23 April at Stanford University; she describes Bailey as mocking and stereotyping gay men and transsexuals.
4 May Saralyn Chesnut, Ph.D., Director of the Office of GLBT Life at Emory University, describes a lecture by Bailey at Emory on 8 April. Chestnut writes, “I found him to be arrogant, unprofessional (he smelled of alcohol at 4:00 in the afternoon) and absolutely boastful about how ‘scandalous’ and ‘outrageous’ his book is, as if that were more important than academic rigor. I’ve never heard an academic proudly use words like that to describe his/her work.” (from Conway’s website).
5 May The National Academies of Science begin to get letters of complaint about TMWWBQ. The Academies eventually receives letters from, among others, Christine Burns of Press for Change, Joan Roughgarden, Karen Guerney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, Dallas Denny, editor of Transgender Tapestry, Monica Casper, Executive Director of the Intersex Society of North America, and faculty members of leading universities.
9 MayAnjelica Kieltyka, “Cher” in Bailey’s book, sends e-mail pleas to Andrea James and Lynn Conway, explaining what had happened to her and seeking their help.
20 June “Dr. Sex,” an article on the TMWWBQ controversy, appears in The Chronicle of Higher Education; this is the first mention of the controversy in the mainstream press. “Mr. Bailey’s work on transsexuals, unlike his scientific research on gay men, is anecdotal and his book doesn’t cite any figures to back up his claims. In his defense, he says he ‘went every place I could think of that I’d find a decent chance of finding transsexuals’ to talk to and observe. That often meant gay bars near his home…”
23 June Conway sends an open letter to the administration of Northwestern University, alerting them to the NTAC press release.
23 June Andrea James, who has been tracking the Bailey brouhaha on her website, posts a blistering critique of Anne Lawrence, in which she describes Lawrence’s 1997 resignation from her position as an anesthesiologist after conducting an unauthorized and clearly unethical genital examination of an unconscious patient. This resulted in an investigation by the State of Washington Department of Health. James’ website includes images of the Adverse Action Report generated by the investigation.
23 June James also alleges that Lawrence made unwanted sexual overtures to her while photographing James’ genitalia.
3 July Kieltyka files a formal complaint with Northwestern University. Kieltyka had previously revealed that she was the subject called “Cher” in TMWWBQ. She states that she was misled by Bailey, who she had contacted years ago after seeing him on television, and who she says did not reveal to her or other transsexuals that he was doing research. By mid-July, four more subject-complainants have come forward.
17 July Articles in The Daily Northwestern and The Chronicle of Higher Education report that the university has begun investigatory proceedings in response to complaints about unauthorized use of human subjects.
17 July An article on Conway’s website, posted on 29 July, reports that Kieltyka, who attended the annual meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research at Indiana State University to call attention to Bailey’s behavior, reports that she was prevented from handing out information there and was asked to leave by the police.
19 July According to an account from an attendee of the conference, posted on 28 July on Conway’s website, Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft rises from the audience at the Q&A session after a presentation by Bailey at the national meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research and tells Bailey, “Michael, I would caution you against calling this book ‘science’ because I have read it … and I can tell you it is NOT science.”
19 July Bailey “vacates his position” as IASR Secretary-Treasurer.
29 July Lynn Conway and Dierdre McCloskey file a formal complaint with Northwestern about Bailey’s research behavior.
31 July Bailey tells The Daily Northwestern that he told IASR in February about his decision to resign. The article also reports that Bancroft would not confirm that he made the statement reported on Conway’s website. The Daily Northwestern article reports that two more transwomen have filed complaints against Bailey, bringing the total to five.
20 Oct. HBIGDA President Walter J. Meyer III, M.D. and HBIGDA Executive Director Bean Robinson, Ph.D. respond on behalf of the HBIGDA Board of Directors to a letter sent on 14 June by Drs. Lynn Conway, Dierdre McCloskey, Ben Barres, Barbara Nash, and Joan Roughgarden, expressing their concerns about Bailey. HBIGDA declines to investigate Bailey on the grounds that he is not a member of the association, and calls for all parties in the controversy to exercise professionalism. Meyer and Robinson write that HBIGDA has plans to express its concerns about Bailey directly to Northwestern University.
4 Nov. The Clarke’s Ray Blanchard, who coined the term autogynephilia based on his empirical work in the late 1980s and early 1990s, writes Meyer & Robinson, resigning from HBIGDA on the grounds of HBIGDA’s “appalling decision… to intervene in Northwestern University’s investigation into the allegations… against Prof. J. Michael Bailey.”
Originally published by Donna Rose, who writes:
The following is the transcript of an interview with J. Michael Bailey, author of the controversial book, âThe Man Who Would Be Queenâ. It aired on KOOP-FM, Austin, TX in May 2003. I provide no personal opinion or slant, instead choosing to print the words exactly as they were spoken in the hopes that the reader will make their own decisions regarding what is said. Whether you agree with him or not, I think you will find his thoughts very interesting.
http://www.donnarose.com/JMBInterview.html
I’ve marked some noteworthy comments in bold.
Transcript
Interviewer: In your book you state that most gay men are feminine, or at least theyâre feminine in certain ways. I was wondering, what does âfeminineâ mean to you?
JMB: Well, umm, I think that in general, âfeminineâ is a murky term. But to say that itâs murky doesnât mean that itâs meaningless. I think “feminine,” in general, means âfemale-likeâ but there are different ways that one can be female-like. There are ways in which gay men, on average, are somewhat female-like and there are ways in which, on average, gay men are not at all female-like. And the ways in which they are include superficial aspects of behavior such as movement and voice, and then interests, occupational and recreational interests, you know⊠often in their childhoods many gay men have⊠will recall, umm, having feminine behaviors such as a preference for female activities and games and female playmates and a dislike of stereotypic male activities such as rough play and competitive sports. So those are the ways in which, on average, and⊠Iâm going to stop saying that âon averageâ because itâs annoying to have to keep saying it. Itâs probably annoying for you to hear it over and over. While I do, let me just say that all of these things that Iâm saying donât apply to all gay men and there are some gay men who are as masculine in any way as the typical straight man and there are some straight men who are feminine, ahh but on average, there are these significant differences between the two groups, so when I say gay men and straight men differ, thatâs that way in which I mean it.
I: Do you think that the post-modern disapproval of stereotyping has actually impeded the scientific process?
JMB: Yeah, I do. I… well⊠I think that there are a number of, or at least a couple of main issues that have impeded scientific progress in this area. One of them is the disapproval of stereotyping but, you know, the other is discomfort with this particular stereotype by, uh, not only letâs say the âpolitically correctâ but also by gay men themselves. Many gay men, uhh, have extreme discomfort with the idea that they might be feminine. And, ahh, I think that stems from two different sources. First of all, um, I think that gay men who were feminine boys had a hard time being feminine boys. Our society is not kind to feminine boys and I think that some gay men internalize the shame that they were made to feel, um, and actually have come to feel, even if they wouldnât explicitly acknowledge this, that there is something wrong with male femininity.
I: You have this phrase, âfemophobia.” Is that a phrase that you coined or is thatâ
JMB: Femophobia is a phrase that I coined, although, uhh, independently another writer named Tim Bergling wrote a book called Sissyphobia about the same phenomenon. And the other thing relates to a finding that we got in a scientific study, and thatâs the finding that, uh, gay men, in seeking romantic partners, tend to be really prejudiced against feminine guys. And so to say that a gay man might be feminine, in a way is to say that he might be unattractive.
I: Do you think that all men display feminine characteristics?
JMB: You know, I donât think that every action any man does his whole life is classifiable as masculine. But, you know, all of these things are relative traits. Itâs not that you either are masculine or feminine. Itâs how are you compared with other people.
I: You know, your book actually winds up discussing mostly feminine men and then, um, transgender⊠what I would call transgender people.
JMB: Uh-huh.
I: And so, I was wondering, to you, whatâs the difference between transsexual and transgender? Since the modern movement is really pushing towards the word âtransgender,â why bring âsexualâ back into the lexicon?
JMB: I think that⊠I donât really care what word we use as long as weâre speaking in way that leads to correct understanding and, uh, I believe that a subgroup of the transgendered have a very different understanding of motivations than I do and I frankly think that my understanding is more accurate.
I: Your book actually introduces the concept of the homosexual and then the autogynephilic transsexual. Do you care to elaborate a little bit for our audience?
JMB: Sure. By the way, this terminology is not mine. That particular part of the book, the third section on transsexualism, is based upon the work of a psychologist named Ray Blanchard, and Blanchard proved, I think, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there are two very distinct types which he calls âhomosexual transsexualismâ and the other kind he called ânon-homosexual transsexualism.â A homosexual male-to-female transsexual is a transsexual who is unambiguously attracted to males. Um, and I believe that this type of transsexual is essentially a type of gay man who is very feminine and very gender dysphoric. That is, they really donât like, for example, having a penis. One thing that I write about in the book, uh, is that one element of some of their motivation, of this type anyway, is because some of them are far more attractive as women than they are as men â particularly because they tend to be extremely feminine men â and as I say, most gay men donât want to be romantically involved with very feminine men. So, thatâs the first type.
Uh, the other, the second type â the one that invented the word âtransgenderismâ is more likely to be in identity politics and so on. These include primarily transsexuals that Blanchard classified as non-homosexual and basically that means that any natal male that is naturally born male who wants to become a woman or who has become a woman, and theyâre not unambiguously attracted only to men. What Blanchardâs, um, discovery, and this is the most brilliant aspect of it, is that they are motivated by something called âautogynephilia.â Autogynephilia is, um, the sexual arousal and attraction to the idea of oneself as a woman. That is, these individuals⊠and their primary sexual object is not some person on the outside, but itâs some person on the inside. And that is, the idea or the image of themselves as a woman.
I: What do you think about the, um, common saying that, you know, âI am just a woman trapped in a manâs bodyâ or âIâm a lesbian woman trapped in a manâs body.â
JMB: Well, you know, it depends upon what one means by being a woman trapped in a manâs body. You might mean two things. If all you mean is that itâs a person who was born a man who really wants to become a woman then sure, I agree. But I donât think thatâs what they mostly mean. I think that they mean that they are âlikeâ a woman, in the sense of having the same psychology and feelings that a woman has. And I donât think that autogynephilic transsexuals do. I think that autogynephilic transsexuals are much more like heterosexual men than they are like women. Ah, in contrast I think homosexual transsexuals, uh, do have a strong flavor of being a woman trapped in a manâs body although even they have some atypical traits for a female.
I: One of the things that was mentioned in the book about the autogynephillic transsexual was the fact that theyâre interested in themselves as sexual objects as a woman, and proof for this was things like wearing womenâs undergarments and masturbating.
JMB: Right.
I: And that made me wonder if, perhaps, they were not just attracted to women and the idea of a woman was sexually arousing in the same way that a gay man might wear a jockstrap and masturbate.
JMB: Well, I donât think so. Um, and itâs not just wearing female undergarments, uh, you know, I have somebody I write about in my book, Cher, uh, is an autogynephilic transsexual who is also a friend of mine. She used to wear, um, fake breasts and fake vaginas when she was a man, and film herself, uh, simulating intercourse with a⊠with a basically a robot, and that was extremely erotic to her. Uh⊠You know, I just donât think straight men really find the idea of wearing frilly undergarments to be sexy, uh, and this has actually been studied. Autogynephilic males will become sexually aroused in the lab if they listen to a narrative about cross-dressing whereas men without any history of erotic cross-dressing do not become aroused. Regardless, some of them insist that, you know, that itâs not about autogynephilia, itâs just they feel like women so they dress like women and any male who wore frilly lacy panties would become sexually aroused. I donât think so.
I: Do you think that there is any consensus at all, amongst the psychological community, that the homosexual transsexual is, I donât know, somehow acceptable versus the autogynephillic somehow being a disorder?
JMB: There is not, uh, widespread discussion of this distinction. Uh, I think that my book, uh, breaks ground that way. I mean, these ideas have been around for a decade, but the fact that non-homosexual transsexuals are motivated by autogynephilia is not known and I think that that relates to your question. I think that those types of transsexuals tend to dislike discussion of autogynephilia; many of them deny that it applies to them. However, Blanchard showed the ones who deny it also show evidence for it. So, for example, males who denied ever cross-dressing fetishistically, if you bring them to the lab and you measure their erections while they listen to a narrative saying, âWell, youâre getting ready⊠youâre putting on your panties⊠youâre putting on your stockingsâŠâ they get erections! Now, why would they deny it? Well, I think itâs because, in part, people in our society are very judgmental about sexual motivation. Some people are able to accept the âwoman trapped in the manâs bodyâ justification for getting a sex change but they have much more of a problem accepting the idea that somebody has some sort of sexual âattachmentâ to this image of themselves as a woman. Personally, I donât think either is a superior justification. To me, theyâre both good excuses. All I want to know is, is somebody going to be happier if they get a sex change than they were before? If so, good for them.
I: One of the researchers that you mentioned was Ken Zucker, who is the head of the child and adult gender identity clinic in Toronto. He was representing the view that Transsexualism was wrong and that he would suggest treating the gender identity disorder in childhood while he was kind of, uh, value-neutral concerning homosexuality. How can one make a distinction between a feminine gay man and someone whoâs going to become a transsexual?
JMB: You actually raised two issues, and let me address both of them. First off, is kind of a value issue of, you know, does he say that transsexualism is âbadâ and I think many people who are sympathetic to transsexuals still think that transsexualism would be good to avoid if one could. Because this involves major surgery, it involves, often, an adjustment in oneâs social life that requires a level of acceptance in society that we just donât have yet. I know transsexuals who say that they think that it should be considered a disorder because it would have been good if they had been cured of it.
Another question is, how do you distinguish feminine gay men from homosexual transsexuals? Do you mean in childhood, how do you know who is going to become what?
I: You seem to suggest that you needed to treat this condition during childhoodâŠ
JMB: Right.
I: What if you make a mistake? How can you tell the difference between someone whoâs just feminine and someone who wants to become a woman later in life?
JMB: Let me start by telling the listeners an important fact. There are boys who, ah, I think itâs reasonable to think of them as transsexual children. These are boys like, in the file âMa Vie en Roseâ who want to be girls, and they are pervasively and persistently feminine in a number of ways, and they would be happy to be girls. Now, those boys who have been followed-up â boys who start out that way â usually become⊠not transsexuals but gay men. A few of them are transsexuals but not nearly as many as are gay men. There is a number of questions, like âHow does that happen?â âHow do you know which ones are going to be gay men and which ones are going to be transsexuals?â and so on. Now, nobody really knows, you know, because we canât do controlled scientific studies on kids like that. Zucker thinks that these kids who become gay men, he thinks that thatâs the more desirable outcome than being transsexual because transsexualism is a hard life.
I: It sounds like people have been saying that about, uh, just being a gay person, in general.
JMB: Yeah. Well, thatâs⊠but I⊠Zucker also thinks that what distinguishes those who become gay men versus those who remain transsexual is, in part, how theyâre reared, and if they do not have systematic pressure to masculinize, he believes, then they may not. So, a parent who never puts their foot down and takes away the Barbie dolls and so on, Zucker believes, ahh, risks having a transsexual child more than those who do make a persistent effort to masculinize the child. Iâm very torn. I know mothers in this situation..
I: Well, should we encourage of should we be discouraging that behavior?
JMB: I donât⊠I donât⊠I donât know. I donât know. I see both sides. Because we really donât know⊠I mean, letâs assume that Zucker is right, and he might be, then should we enable these kids to become women as soon as they can? Maybe we should! Maybe we should keep our minds open and… and say that these boys will have a better life if theyâre allowed to become girls as adolescents. Thatâll keep them from masculinizing, and theyâll be prettier, and so on⊠ahh, if we can⊠ahh facilitate their sex change earlier. I mean, what are the chances that people are going to do that?
I: It seems such a murky situation cause, I mean, on the one hand I definitely did display some feminine characteristics as a child and was told I was âwrong,â but then I have a straight friend who was allowed to play with Barbie dolls. And then you have the autogynephilic transsexuals who are, by all means, masculine during their childhood andâŠ
JMB: Okay. Letâs not get the situation overly murky. There is a clear, strong correlation between these very strong feminine traits and a homosexual outcome. Now, I personally donât see a homosexual outcome as any kind of problem. A transsexual outcome is a harder case for me because, you know, I have transsexual friends. I quite like them, but I think that theyâve had a very hard time and theyâve had to undergo some very risky medical procedures, too. I think weâve got to be honest about the potential tradeoffs here, and that is if weâre gonna struggle for a more gender âkindâ world that there might be more transsexualism and if so, is that okay with us? Are we willing to accept that? And maybe we are⊠maybe we should be.
I: Speaking of feminine characteristics, in your book you were talking about the high number of gay men who have dancing careersâŠ
JMB: Uh-huh.
I: âŠand you seem to indicate that there is some latent cause. You have your son saying, you know, why do you think that gay men are more likely to be dancers and he says, âbecause dancing is feminine and gay men tend to be feminine.â
JMB: Right.
I: Is it possible that there are social factors, rather than biological factors at play? Cause you seem to be building a case that there are feminine career tracks that gay men are interested in. It seems possible that masculine men are just discouraged from being dancers.
JMB: Well, I think itâs both ways. As masculine men are discouraged byâŠI mean⊠ALL men are discouraged from being dancers in a certain way, you know? In our dance study we, uh, asked how people got interested in dance and we found that, actually, straight men â on average â got into it a couple of years earlier than they gay men. You know how they got into it? They got into it because their parents made them. The gay men got into it on their own. Something happened⊠they saw something on tv⊠they went to a dance performance⊠they said, âOh, I love that! I want to do that!â And, you know, what is it about dancing⊠I mean, I do think that dancing, uh, is a feminine activity, but what is it about dancing thatâs feminine? I donât really know, but I think that that is the cause of the relation between male sexual orientation and interest in dancing careers.
I: There is some data that was in the book that, I have to admit, I got upset about. I guess itâs that most of it was pre-AIDS dataâŠ
JMB: Uh-huh
I: âŠand one was saying that a typical gay male has 500 sex partnersâŠ
JMB: Well, I didnât say âhas.â I… I think I said that was a study in San Francisco before the AIDS epidemic. And it also⊠it gets a little more complicated with gay men, because what does one mean by sex partner? We should be clear that gay men are not just counting anal sex when they are listing their sex partners. They are counting oral sex, theyâre probably counting manual sex⊠So, I think if heterosexual people counted those they would have more than they think of when they think of their âsexâ partners. Nevertheless, Iâve done several studies and gay men always have substantially more partners than straight men.
I: Well, you also talk about monogamous relationships between homosexual men usually become open relationships within five years. You know, speaking as a gay man whose adolescence happened after AIDS, I think the entire atmosphere for dating, and for monogamy, and casual sex, has really changed. And Iâm surprised that this book is still quoting those older datas.
JMB: The study I⊠that we have been talking about is one by David McWhirter which is well over a decade old. However, I have lots of gay friends and they all conform to that generalization. That is, the ones who have been together for five years are not monogamous.
I: When youâre comparing, um, gay people to straight people are you looking at gay club-going men and straight club-going men?
JMB: Well, I think that, for many of our studies weâve advertised in urban publications. Gay Chicago is a bar magazine, and TheChicago Reader is a very alternative publication. Ah, and so⊠yeah⊠I think actually, they tend to be comparable in their lifestyle and I would say that actually, thatâs a bias against my hypothesis. I think it minimizes differences in partner numbers between gay and straight guys. Because the fact is, gay men who read Gay Chicago and respond to our ads are probably more typical gay men than the straight people who read The Chicago Reader.
I: How do you think that gay and straight men are alike?
JMB: Uh, well, I think that the whole thing with sex partners is⊠and the fact that gay men have more⊠is a function of the ways in which gay and straight men are exactly alike. And that is the fact that they both find casual sex to be gratifying and, uh, exciting. Much more so than women do, on average. The difference is that gay men can get it because their partners are also into casual sex. So, um, I donât think that gay men are psychologically promiscuous. I think theyâre just like straight men. They just are able to realize their desires more easily than straight men.
Another way is that gay men are like straight men in being shallow and focused on physical looks as partner. Itâs not that woman are necessarily deep. Theyâre more concerned with, like, resources and dishinâ and that kind of thing whereas men are focused on how the face and the body looks.
Ah, another way in which theyâre alike⊠their interest in looking at naked people, erotica â that is a male sort of thing. Men pay money to watch videos of people having sex with each other. Well, the big markets for that are straight men and gay men.
I: You mention findings that, uh, being gay has biological background and one of them was the INAH 3. Could you elaborate?
JMB: In 1991 Simon LeVay published a study in The journal Science that made the front pages across the nation and got him on Oprah. This was the study showing that, in a region of the brain called the hypothalamus, which has long been known to be important for sexual behavior, there was a small group of cells called the nucleus, that was larger in straight men than in gay men. And gay menâs INAH3 looked like that of women. This was a very exciting finding because it was in the right region of the brain and it was the way, you know, people thought it might turn out that since women and gay men are both interested in men, that they should have similar sexual orientation centers. Now, this was an autopsy study and it depended upon people of known sexual orientation having died and it was made possible by the tragic AIDS epidemic. This study hasnât been followed up until recently when a guy named Bill Byne repeated the study, didnât have quite as many subjects as LeVay had, and my sense of his replication is it looks similar to what LeVay found. That he was, in fact, on to something. So, I think that there is likely something there, and I think that type of research is potentially quite valuable.
I: Do you think the finding that there is a gay gene will lead to gays being treated as handicapped?
JMB: Well, let me give a little context to this. Uh… Greenberg and I have collaborated on papers and neither he nor I thinks that there is anything wrong with being gay. The issue, though, is I have had people say, âYou know, youâve got to stop doing your research because weâre gonna find something that allows people to manipulate sexual orientation or test for it, and then theyâre going to do terrible things like, abort fetuses with the gay gene, and so on. First of all, I would say that those scenarios are scientifically very impossible. But secondly, I think that theyâre hysterical because the people making these claims are not thinking through the ethics of it. And these are the same people who think that abortion on demand for any reason is no business except for the woman who wants to have the abortion, and then theyâre at the same time raising the spectre of murdering gay babies when they would never countenance the word âmurderâ in any other discussion of abortion. So anyway, I think that, uh, Greenbergâs analysis which I talk about in the book is, uh, actually very cogent. And it is that changing the sexual orientation of a baby from gay to straight, or for that matter, from straight to gay, really doesnât have any ethical import, first of all, and to get to your question if we find a gene or if we find a brain region or any kind of biological factor influencing sexual orientation will it lead to gay people being thought of as handicapped, I donât see how that would happen. For any people who differ in their behavior there must be, at some level, biological differences between them because at some level of explanation everything is biological. And, that doesnât mean that people who behave differently than the norm are handicapped.
I: Recently there has been some discussion about the evolutionary advantages to being gay. Um, specifically, the idea of the pack mentality. The idea that if youâre in a family of three, letâs say, and all of your brothers and sisters have children and you donât then you can use your resources to help those children rather than spread it out amongst more children. Then also the issue of zero population growth. How do you feel about some of these evolutionary arguments?
JMB: Well, the evolutionary hypotheses about homosexuality, and I have reviewed these very carefully… Iâm writing a paper on them… they have all been, in my opinion, quite lame, um, and this is another place where sensitivity has impeded careful thought. I mean, one thing to realize is that evolutionarily, homosexuality is a big mistake. And, I donât mean anything bad by saying that because lots of good things, that we would like to have more of, would be evolutionary mistakes. People being extremely kind to strangers and giving poor strangers lots of their money, that would be a great thing. But evolutionarily, it would be a terrible mistake. And when I say something would be a big mistake I just mean I donât see how it would ever evolve. And I donât see how homosexuality has ever evolved and remained in our population at relatively high rates: 1, 2, 3, 4 percent?! Thatâs very high for something that has vastly reduced fertility related to it. And I shouldâŠuhh⊠the flip side of when I say itâs an evolutionary mistake certain things that are evolutionarily clearly adaptive include jealousy, selfishness, the uh willingness to commit infidelity, all those things. Those are very evolutionarily adaptive. But, theyâre not good, right? So by saying something is an evolutionary mistake or evolutionarily adaptive thatâs not a value judgement. Thatâs just counting number of descendents one leaves. So the hypotheses that people have raised to explain homosexuality have included all kinds of things like population control. Thatâs a non-starter because nothing can ever be explained at such a group level because you could always have selfish people who would thwart population control and they would, um, they would win the evolutionary race.
The other hypothesis which weâve actually investigated empirically, uh, is what I call the âkind gay uncleâ hypothesis. That instead of, uh, investing in his own offspring, uh, a gay man invests a lot in his, uh, nieces and nephews. Well, first of all, empirically we donât find much evidence that gay men do that. But secondly, the amount by which they would have to do that in order to make up for not having children or having, you know, half the number of children⊠actually we⊠the best estimates are that gay men have about one fifth the number of children than straight men⊠the amount of investment that they would have to do would be tremendous. They would have to devote their lives to helping their nieces and nephews and of course they donât do that.
I: I was wondering, can we expect a book about masculine women and transsexuals in that community?
JMB: We certainly should have one. Uh⊠and⊠there are such books, you know, about the individual topics⊠there are books about tomboys, there are books about female to male transsexuals, and there are certainly books about lesbians, including butch lesbians. But it would be good to have them all in one book, I think. And if youâre asking me am I going to write a bookâŠsuch a book? I donât know. No time soon. Iâm still involved in the controversies and discussions about my current book and I have a lot of work to do in that domain. SoâŠ
I: Well, I really want to thank you for your time and this interview. I think itâs been really informative.
JMB: Well, I think you have asked very thoughtful questions, and I hope I said some things you can use.
