San Francisco Public Radio station KQED featured a discussion of Alice Dreger‘s defense of controversial psychologist J. Michael Bailey, author of the 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen. “Transgender Theories” aired 22 August 2007 on Forum with host Michael Krasny.
“Transgender Theories” via KQED [archive]
- https://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R708221000
- MP3 of show [archive]
- kqed02.streamguys.us/anon.kqed/radio/forum/2007/08/2007-08-22b-forum.mp3
Participants
Michael Krasny
Host
J. Michael Bailey
Professor of Psychology, Northwestern University
Alice Dreger
Associate Professor of Clinical and Medical Humanities and Bioethics, Northwestern University
Joan Roughgarden
Professor of Biological Science, Stanford University
Mara Keisling
Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality
Transcript
Krasny: From KQED public radio in San Francisco, Iâm Michael Krasny. Coming up next on Forum, outrage and allegations have been hurled back and forth over the controversial work of a Northwestern psychologist explaining what he views as the motivations behind why some men become women. Itâs a very messy imbroglio which brings with it questions of research ethics, sexual and gender identity, and charges on both sides of immorality. Weâll attempt to sort it all out and hear from both sides, next after this.
(music break)
Krasny: From KQED public radio in San Francisco, Iâm Michael Krasny. Good morning and welcome to this morningâs Forum program. In 2003 Northwestern Psychology Professor J. Michael Bailey published a work on gender-bending and transsexualism called The Man Who Would Be Queen, a study of feminine roles. The work has outraged transsexuals because of its thesis that some of the men who become women are motivated by largely erotic attachments and sexuality, rather than the long-held view that men who become women largely do so because they feel like women trapped in the bodies of men. Or to put it more plainly, that male-to-female transsexuality can be rooted in sexual attraction rather than in possessing or coveting an inner female self or soul. This part of the work of Professor Bailey caused a firestorm, and there followed allegations against him, as well as allegations against those who strongly disagreed with his methods and conclusions about trans men. An investigation took place at Northwestern, and web postings appeared charging Professor Bailey with illegal and unethical conduct, and targeting both him and his loved ones. Many of the feelings on both sides remain raw and damaged, and in fact Benedict Carey reported on this in a discussion that went on controversially at the International Academy of Sex Research in Vancouver. This was reported in yesterdayâs New York Times, and he said it was âone of the most contentious and personal social science controversies in recent memory.â We want to try to sort all this out and what is at stake in the argument, and why it has created such a firestorm that really continues right up to the present. Let me tell you who is joining us for this hour. We have with us by phone Dr. J. Michael Bailey. Heâs Professor of Psychology at Northwestern and joins us from Evanston. Good morning to you.
Bailey: Good morning.
Krasny: I also have with us Dr. Alice Dreger, who is Associate Professor of Clinical and Medical Humanities and Bioethics at Northwestern, and she joins us from East Lansing this morning. Welcome to you.
Dreger: Thank you.
Krasny: And we are also joined this morning by Mara Keisling, who is Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. Sheâs with us from St. Augustine, Florida. Welcome, Mara Keisling.
Keisling: Thank you, Michael.
Krasny: Here in studio, we want to welcome Joan Roughgarden, Professor of Biological Science at Stanford University, author of Evolutionâs Rainbow, and welcome Joan Roughgarden.
Roughgarden: Thank you.
Krasny: And I want to do this sort of in seriatim, weâre going to hear from what I call the Bailey-Dreger side first, and then weâll hear from Joan Roughgarden and Mara Keisling, who take strong exception to the study and what it puts out there. Professor Bailey, let me begin with you, and letâs get you on the record here in terms of what you see is the minefield you stepped into here. It has to do, as I said, with the nature of transsexual sexuality, I suppose, more than anything else, doesnât it?
Bailey: Well, it does, but before I address that specifically, I want to point out some inaccuracies in the way you kind of began, one of which is the implication that my book offended all transsexual women. That is certainly not the case. It offended a subset of transsexual women. And the percentage of the transsexuals who it offended is impossible to tell, because the transsexuals who approve of the theories that I wrote about are so intimidated by the people like Lynn Conway, who have attempted to suppress this work. Itâs really impossible to know. So Iâll say a bit about the science behind this.
Krasny: Let me stop you there for a second, and thank you for making thatâI didnât want to give the impression that it was anything other than a subset, because I would agree with that characterization. But Ms. Conway did write to us, and I think one of the big arguments seems to be calling this science. You said it was a book in which you interviewed people for a book, as opposed to being taken seriously as perhaps science or research⊠or nothing other than a social or soft science, so letâs maybe distinguish that if we could.
Bailey: Well, sure thing. This would be a pretty simple matter to tell you what the book was if there hadnât been an intentional attempt to defame me and my book. I wrote what is commonly understood to be a popular science book, in which I reviewed serious academic work by myself and other scholars. And the serious scholar who did the traditional academic work, peer reviewed and published in respectable journals, who wrote about transsexuals, is a guy named Ray Blanchard from Toronto, who I think is the worldâs expert in transsexualism. And I, kind of coincidentally, because they came to me and wanted to talk to me and tell me about themselves, I came to know a group of transsexual women in Chicago. I was struck when I got to know them that there seemed to be these two completely, utterly distinct types of transsexuals, and I had not known about that. I subsequently became familiar with Ray Blanchardâs work, which was published in the 80s and early 90s, and it completely explained what I was seeing. It made me understand. And so I consulted gender experts, allegedly, such as Randi Ettner, and I read autobiographies of transsexuals, and I was struck by how they donât write about what I could plainly see with my eyes and was there in Ray Blanchardâs work. And so I decided to write my book in part because of this.
Krasny: What was there is what I described earlier as erotic attachment.
Bailey: Well, you simplified a bit. That was the key thing that was missing, which is an erotic motivation in some males to become women. And this is expressed most commonly and most early in these individuals as erotic crossdressing. So when they first go into puberty, they discover that it really turns them on to wear, say, panties, womenâs panties, and look at themselves in the mirror, and to masturbate and so on. And there are various manifestations of this trait, which is called autogynephilia: auto (self), gyne (woman) philia (love for). In a subset of autogynephilic individualsâwho remember, begin life as menâthis drive manifests as the desire to have female anatomy. And these are the males most likely that go on and get sex reassignment surgery and become women.
Krasny: And we should mention that this was actually nominated for a Lambda Literary Award, but thereâs been a lot of opposition aside from the subset of transsexuals. Dr. John Bancroft, for example, Director of the Kinsey Institute, said this is not science, itâs anecdotes. And youâve been singled out for a lot of criticism, particularly with some things gay menâlet me just get you on record on thisâgay men supposedly, you said, are suited⊠you said, some gay men are suited to be florists or beauticians, Latinos have genes that suit them for transsexualism, and they are more likely to be prostitutes, so youâve been charged withâ
Bailey: You sound like youâve been reading straight off of Lynn Conway’s website.
Krasny: I have. I want to give you every opportunity to answer her charges here.
Bailey: I didnât say any of those things that way. All I did was notice some things. Is this controversial that gay men are more likely than straight men to be florists? [66] Thatâs what I said. I didnât say they were suited, althoughâyou know, I donât know what that means. And I also said that in my observations, that Latina women are more likely than âor Iâm sorry, Latina transgender peopleâare more likely than white transgender people to be a certain type of transsexual, that is the other type that we havenât talked about yet. [183] I just talked about what I noticed with my eyes. I didnât talk about them having genes. [183] If youâre going to be summarizing things that are really negative about me from Lynn Conway’s website, we will be here all week, and we will make no progress.
Krasny: Lest we do that, let me go to Professor Dreger, who has written a very strong and passionate defense of your work and of you. And sheâs again Associate Professor of Clinical and Medical Humanities and Bioethics at Northwestern. And she has actually said in her paper, which is going to appear in the Archives of Sexual Behavior next year, that she sees this as a problem with science and free expression, and of accusations that are groundless. I want to find out Professor Dreger from you if it indeed is not the case, as I understand it, that you had your own concerns and skepticism about these theories when you started out⊠before you became a rather passionate defender of Professor Bailey.
Dreger: Yeah, I guess I should correct the misperception that Iâm a defender of Professor Bailey. What I did was to look very carefully at the history of what happened with regard to this book controversy. And what I did was do an in-depth one year long study, which essentially ended up in a book-length article that you can read online now. What I did was try to figure out what happened in terms of this controversy. So I was much less interested in the question of, and am much less interested in the question of the theory itself⊠than in fact what happened when he put forth this theory that turned out to be unpopular among this particular subset of transwomen. And so I wouldnât say that Iâm a strong and passionate defender of Bailey and his work. What I would say is that I am strong and passionate defender of the right to free speech, and also to scientific progress, and of people being able to study things that may be unpopular though scientific. A good example of that is John Bancroft of Indiana University, as being portrayed as having been somebody who denounced Bailey as not being a scientist. But I have talked to Bancroft myself, I interviewed him for this, and in fact what he was saying is actually what Dr, Bailey just said, which is that the book is not science in the traditional sense of the book was not original researchâwhat the book was is a scientific popularization. Bancroft told me and I think would tell you that it was based on scientific theories, in particular Blanchardâs work. And Blanchardâs work is science. So thatâs clinical studies and laboratory studies and things like that. So I think thereâs a real difference there, and I wouldnât say that Iâm somehow a defender of Blanchardâs theory or a defender of Baileyâs work. What I would say is that I looked at what happened to Bailey and was stunned and shocked to discover what three transwomen in particular did to try to basically ruin him because he was putting forth a theory they didnât like.
Krasny: Well, one of those women whoâs been mentioned already, Lynn Conway, said your history was one sided, was paid for by the sex research consortium at Northwestern.
Dreger: Yeah, Lynn Conway is actually making that up entirely. There is no sex research consortium at Northwestern. Northwestern could confirm that for you and would be happy to do so. I am paid out of an entirely different system than Bailey is. We are in different colleges. I am paid out of the medical school system. My research budget is mine to do with what I please, and this is exactly what I do in all sorts of different projects.
Krasny: We should mention you are an intersex researcher and activist and longtime veteran advocate of intersexâ
Dreger: Indeed, I helped lead the Intersex Society of North America for ten years, which is part of how I got into this. Because I had heard through the gender activist grapevine, which I was part of, that Bailey was this horrible person. And I simply believed it all. Conway was in fact a donor to the Intersex Society, so she and I knew each other that way. In fact, I had invited her over to my home one day, because we both live in Michigan, to help out a colleague of mine who was considering sex reassignment surgery. And she was very kind, and came over and spent a couple of hours with this friend of mine. And I left them alone so they could do one-on-one peer support. I had heard all of these terrible things about Bailey, so when a mutual friend finally introduced us last year in February of 2006, he stuck me as somebody who didnât seem at all like what I was hearing. And so I became interested. And then one of the three transwomen who went after him actually went after me for complicated reasons, so then I became even more interested and decided to do this study. I really expected when I started doing this history that I would end up with a âhe said she saidâ kind of story, that there would be a misunderstanding. And I was absolutely shaken to my core to discover what I did find, which was that they had absolutely charged him with things that were baselessâand that they must have known were in fact baselessâand made his life absolute hell and nearly got him basically thrown out of the scientific profession in some ways⊠because people became so afraid of associating with him because of all these charges that in fact had beenâas far as I could find from my intense investigationâwere not true. Now, Professor Conway says that she hasnât had a chance to respond to this, but in fact I tried every which way but Sunday to get her to talk to me, and she refused. And this claim that the New York Times piece was published without her consultation, I also think is false. Mr. Carey at my request gave her a copy of my article so she could respond to it three weeks ago. So I simply donât take herâyou know⊠âI havenât had a chance to respondâ kind of claim as being false, frankly. I think sheâs had plenty of chances to respond. In fact, most of what I do in the article is actually taken from Conwayâs own site. She has been so obsessed with Professor Baileyâand with ruining Professor Bailey and anybody associated with himâthat I was able to take largely things off of her site, and simply connect the dots in terms of what she did. All these things that she organized in terms of charges at Northwestern, she puts on her site. She calls them âconfidential,â but theyâre all right there.
Krasny: Thereâs stuff on the site even about his children as I understand it.
Dreger: Well, that stuff actually she didnât put up, although she links to it. Thatâs put up by a woman named Andrea James whoâs a trans woman out of Los Angeles, and Andrea James basically does whatever she can to harass people who cross her. Bailey crossed her in this way by talking about a theory she didnât like, so he [sic] went after his children by putting up photos of them when they were in grade school and middle school blocking out their eyes and putting basically obscene captions underneath. She says it was a satire, meant to be of his book, but his children didnât take it as a satire as you might imagine, they took it as a personal threat, basically. And Iâve talked to them about that, and itâs actually in my article.
Krasny: Alice Dreger again is with us from East Lansingâshe’s Associate Professor of Clinical and Medical Humanities and Bioethics at Northwesternâand will have a piece appear in the Archives of Sexual Behavior next year on the whole history of this. Joan Roughgarden is here with us in studio, sheâs Professor of Biological Science at Stanford University, author of Evolutionâs Rainbow, well-known transsexual and academic. Professor Roughgarden, I know this has you pretty exercised. Letâs find out why. Youâve used the word âfraudâ to me repeatedly.
Roughgarden: Yes I have, and thank you for inviting me. Itâs interesting listening to the dialogue weâve just heard. From my standpoint the situation is fairly clear, and itâs been clear for several years. The book by Bailey was initially advertised as science, and thereâs no doubt about this. For example, The National Academy of Sciences letterhead had an advertisement that read âGay, Straight, or Lying? Science has the answer,â and conclusions were promised that âmay not always be politically correct, but are scientifically accurate, thoroughly researched, and occasionally startling. And the bottom headline to the cover of Baileyâs book says âThe Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism.â But in point of fact, there is no science in the book, as theyâre apparently now agreeing. And on the whole, the book as a work of science is fraudulent. It presents only interviews of six subjects that Bailey himself admitsâstates in the bookâthat he met while âcruisingâ (page 141) [141] in “The Baton, Chicagoâs premier female impersonator club.” [186] And so based on a sample size of six, heâs tried to draw the conclusions that heâs just mentioned. And furthermore, he didnât correctly and rigorously transcribe the narratives from those people. He relied on his memories of what they told him. And he manipulated those narratives, because when they said things he disagreed with, he in turn argued with them. So the data are corrupted and tampered with throughout. And then there are these additional charges of the absence of consent by the women. Some of the women claim to have had sex with him as well. And thereâs a narrative in his book called âthe Danny narrativeâ which is apparently completely fabricated. So as an act of science, this is fraudulent.
Krasny: I read that Danny narrative. How do we know itâs completely fabricated? I found it a pretty fascinating narrative actually.
Roughgarden: Yeah, well it would be if it were true.
Krasny: How do we know itâs not?
Roughgarden: Well, we donât, but itâs been reported not to be true. And so this is what surrounds the supposed data in the book. And so issue number one with Bailey is the fact that the… the claim that the science is fraudulent, and number two, that there is manifest bigotry throughout the book. And let me read, if I might, three quotations there that illustrate the manifest bigotry. One of them refersâone example quotation involves this âJuanita,â in which he saysâ
Krasny: The one with which heâs alleged to have sex with, we should say for the record, yes.
Roughgarden: And he goes on to say, quote in the book, âHer ability to enjoy emotionally meaningless sex appears male typical. In this sense, homosexual transsexuals might be especially suited to prostitution.” [185] Homosexual transsexuals “lust after men.â [191] And then he goes on, he actually says this in the book on page 183: âAbout 60% of the homosexual transsexuals and drag queens we studied were Latina or Black.” [183] Latina people “might have more transsexual genes than other ethnic groups do.â [183] Very clearly racist. And then number three, the third one, is a particularly interesting one and gets at both women and gays at the same time: âThe brains of homosexual people may be mosaics of male and female parts.” [60] Gay menâs pattern of susceptibility to mental problems reflects their femininity: “The problems that gay men are most susceptible toâeating disorders, depression, and anxiety disordersâare the same problem that women also suffer from disproportionately.” [82] “Learning why gay men are more easily depressed than straight men may tell us why women are also.â [83] So basically, if Bailey hasnât insulted you, youâre no one.
Krasny: Joan Roughgarden, again with us here in studio, is Professor of Biological Science at Stanford and author of Evolutionâs Rainbow. I wanted also to get Mara Keisling in this. Mara is Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. Mara Keisling, thereâs something that has emerged out of this, those who are sympathetic with Professor Baileyâthe power of a subset of transsexuals to ruin a manâs lifeâand it does seem to be us versus them.
Keisling: Well, let me just echo Dr. Dreger for a second. Weâre talking about two different issues here. One is the alleged ruining of a manâs life. And the other was what was this, and I hate to use the word âstudyâ as itâs been used here, but going back to Professor Baileyâs book, what is that? This would have been just some obscure thing that just happened and dissipated and nobody ever heard of it again had it not been for four things: One: The way it was presented as a scientific study. And everybodyâs talked quite a bit about that. Had this been called Stuff I Suppose after Meeting Some People in a Gay Bar, that probably would have lessened the attention it got from trans people. Second: In the book, he thenâbased on these seven peopleâhe then says there are only two types of transsexuals, and I think Professor Roughgarden just did a good job of explaining that. But itâs equivalent to me saying, âWell, I talked to three professors on the phone today, and I can tell you that all professors live in California, Michigan, or Illinois.â Itâs kind of that stark. Third: There were the questions of impropriety and inappropriate following up of human subject rules. And then fourth: Just the way the book was sensationalized, even in its visuals. Itâs called The MAN Who Would Be Queen. And I think itâs unclear if âthe manâ refers to gay people or trans people, although itâs pretty clear that theyâre interchangeable in this context to a large extent. But then thereâs a picture, which is clearly meant to be a muscularized calf in high heels. And itâs trying to sensationalize it to⊠obviously to sell the book. But really to follow in the theme that Professor Bailey follows throughout the book, of trans people being well-suited for prostitution, and really being just men.
Krasny: Mara Keisling, Iâm going to have to come in here, because I think you can hear our theme is coming up. Weâre coming to our break, and I want to give out the phone number for those of you who would like to join us, you are cordially invited to do so. Our toll-free number for your calls is 866-733-6786. Again, toll-free from wherever youâre listening to us or howeverâradio, internet, Sirius satellite, join us: 866-733-6786. Or you can send an email forum@kqed.org. Iâm Michael Krasny.
(break)
Krasny: This is Forum. Iâm Michael Krasny. Weâre talking about a debate that began a number of years ago with the appearance of a book by Professor Michael Bailey of Northwestern called The Man Who Would Be Queen. And it continues to cause a good deal of stir as it was reported in the New York Times yesterday in a discussion of this controversy that took place at the International Academy of Sex Research in Vancouver. We have on the line with us Dr. Bailey, who is the author of the book and the subject of a great deal of this controversy, as well as Dr. Alice Dreger who is Associate Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics at Northwestern, who did a history of this affair, weâll call it. And we also have with us Mara Keisling on the line, Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. And with us in studio, Professor Joan Roughgarden, Professor of Biological Science at Stanford and author of Evolutionâs Rainbow. You are indeed welcome to join us. Our toll-free number again for your calls is 866-733-6786 or you can email us: forum@kqed.org. Before I go to your calls and emails, I wanted to go back to Professor Dailey [sic]. I know he wants to respond to many of the things heâs heard hereâI want to afford him the opportunity to do thatâbut what I am really interested in, because I said I read the section on “Danny” and I found it fascinating. A boy who was what Professor Bailey calls a feminine man and an outcast going back to really before kindergarten and cross-dressing at an early age, wanting all kinds of girly things and playing with dolls and so forth. And weâve heard Professor Roughgarden say that you made this out of whole cloth, so Iâd like to know what you have to say to that.
Bailey: I think her accusation reflects the degree of accuracy to which weâve become familiar with Dr. Roughgarden. I⊠Not only does “Danny” exist, but I am⊠I have several informants who keep me apprised of his development, and now heâs a happy, out gay man, as I predicted in the book. And I would say that both the critics in the studio there, either have not read my book, or they are lying about it. And that is, both of them, are saying that the only evidence I present for the theory of transsexualism that I espouse in the book is my interviews, or whatever⊠my associations with several transsexual women. That is utterly false as I said earlier in the show, and itâs clear to anybody who reads the book, there is a very systematic and large set of studies by Ray Blanchard, and thatâs where the science comes from. I donât know why itâs so hard for them to understand, so I assume that this is what they prefer your listeners to believe. And itâsâ
Krasny: Let meâ
Bailey: Itâs false.
Krasny: Let me ask Professor Roughgarden about that, because thereâs been a good deal of criticism about the⊠Mr. Blanchardâs research as well from you and others, this whatâs been called this âsubsetâ of transsexuals.
Roughgarden: Right, umâwe have to be clear that the issue here is not whether or not there exist some people who satisfy the narrative of⊠that theyâre motivated to become transsexuals because of a sexual motivation. The issue is whether or not you can take all transsexuals and subdivide them exclusively into two subsets, with characteristics associated with each subset. And everyone who knows transsexuals knows that there are a lot of individual narratives. And all the work prior to Blanchard was involved with an elaborate taxonomy with different kinds of gender- and sexuality-variant people. And there are of course different sexuality- and gender-variant expressions in other cultures around the world. So itâs ludicrous on its face to think that you can subdivide all of transsexuals into these two categories that Bailey and Blanchard before him were pushing. Now, the book wasnât advertised as being about Blanchardâs work, and Blanchardâs data are not actually presented in the book. The book is all about Baileyâs work. But if you go back to Blanchardâs work, you again do find that the existence of these two clean-cut categories is a figment of imagination⊠because Blanchard sent out a bunch of questionnaires, and he has three different studies in which the results of the questionnaires are tabulated, and you see a scattering of all sorts of answers to the questionnaires. And trying to find that they coalesce into two distinct clusters is really an exercise in pure imagination.
Krasny: Seems to be the heart of one of the arguments that has been so contentiousâand we have Joe, a caller from Idaho who says âWhatâs the argument?â I guess⊠Does that make it a little more clear, Joe, what you just heard?
Joe: Well, yes, yes, I appreciate your taking my call and I must say I am impressed by everyoneâs level of education. But from somebody whoâs just switching around the Sirius satellite radio, and I tune in, it sounds to me like an educated Jerry Springer Show, and real civilized. I hear the one doctor or professor say that you canât categorize these two people, or these people into two groups, or two subsets⊠well, they do it to all males, youâre either normal or gay, right? You just kind of divide them into two groups, so⊠this argument to me is… so, this guy wrote a book, it seems like itâs a halfway decent book. Iâve never read it, it sounds like the guyâs opinion, and people are up in arms about it. Again, itâs a civilized Jerry Springer Show. I just donât get it.
Krasny: Well, thatâs the first time weâve been called a civilized Jerry Springer Show (laughs). Thank you for the call.
Keisling: Can I jump in there, Michael, for a second?
Krasny: Yes, please do, it’s Mara Keisling.
Keisling: I was just about to say when we went to the break, when this book came out, my organization, the National Center for Transgender Equality, was relatively silent on the topic. And there was a good reason for that, and it really ties in with this Jerry Springer idea here. What happenedâsomehow this has now been framed as a bunch of crazy transsexuals got all crazy, and theyâre crazy⊠when in fact whatâs happened here is an academic wrote a book, and other academics, and some other people, but mostly other academics with really incredible academic credentials, just as Professor Bailey seems to have, they said, âWait a minute, hereâs how we react to that academically.â And then other people join in, and thatâs how academic things are supposed to happen. And so we steered clear of it initially, just because academics were reviewing it, responding to it, didnât like it, thought it was junk science, and stated that. You know, I was asked by an interviewer the other day, âWas it fair that they tried to get Dr. Bailey in trouble with Northwestern University?â And that was such an absurd question to me, because what from my view as a non-academicâalthough I taught college a long time ago, I donât nowâbut from my view as a non-academic, an academic wrote something and other academics responded to it, and thatâs how academia is supposed to work.
Dreger: (unintelligible)
Krasny: Alice Dreger, I know you want in here, yeahâŠ
Dreger: Yeah, sorry I lost you a little after the break. Yeah, you know I think Ms. Keisling does wonderful work, and itâs really important work politically. But I think thatâs a little bit of a misrepresentation of what happened. And as somebody who delved into the history, what I see is that it started with an academic discussion, but it very quickly morphed into something else entirely, which was a personal attack on Michael Bailey, and everything he stood for, and all of his friends, and all of his colleagues who chose to stand by him. The kinds of things you see on Lynn Conwayâs site, the kinds of things, of stuff you see on Andrea Jamesâ site is not academic. I would challenge anybody to Google âBailey Conway timelineâ and take a look at what Lynn Conway has done⊠and to see it as like anything what academics do, which is to meet each other on the point of concepts, and to look at the evidence, and to do careful reasoning, and to have discussions in that way. This looks nothing like that. What concerns me is that Professor Roughgarden is repeating charges, and is in fact even misrepresenting those charges. For example, before the break she said some of the women claim to have had sex with him. One woman claims to have had sex with Professor Bailey, and as I show in my article, the evidence for that is very poor, and even if he did, in fact, it wouldnât have represented any violation of ethics in any kind of reading of normal ethics reading. So I think itâs easy to say that, âWell, this is an academic dispute,â but itâs really not. What we see here is an academic who chose to write a popularization, said some stuff that was unpopular, and then was the subject of a most extraordinary system of attack. And really, I would call it a system of attack, and I think if you look at Conwayâs site, you would agree with me.
Krasny: And let me say also that we do run a very civil discourse type program here, but I think there are serious questionsâwe donât try to create heat for the sake of creating heat, or have people slugging each otherâbut there are questions of scientific research, there are questions of free expression, there are questions of how the internet is used. Accusations and denials and attacks, and all of that⊠and I want to go to more of your calls. Jen, join us, thanks for waiting, youâre on the air.
Jen: Hi, yes, thank you very much for taking my call. Iâm actually surprised I got through because Iâve tried to call before. This is airing in San Francisco, where Iâm sure lots of people are interested in this topic. Anyway, I guess Iâm calling because Iâm up in armsâand I apologize because I havenât read the bookâbut Iâm very interested in whatâs going on. I actually had a couple of comments. One comment, first of all, I have a lot of trans friends, although most of my trans friends are female to male, and actually one of my best friends is female to male. And I wondered, Iâm actually looking at Ray Blanchardâs site here online⊠I wondered if this reasoning also applied to female to male transsexuals in his work, and it sounds like it does.
Krasny: No, actually I think, Professor Bailey, you stated pretty clearly from the beginning, that this is a research project for someone else, right?
Bailey: That is correct, and I happen to know that Ray Blanchard thinks itâs very unlikely that any analogue of autogynephilia exists in genetic females.
Krasny: Jen, you had some more comments, please.
Jen: OK, well online it says a female to male attracted to women is driven by his attraction to women to become a man. Which is saying that basically a female to male wants to change their sex to become a man because theyâre attracted to women, which again, wouldâ
Bailey: What website, what URL are you looking at?
Jen: Genderpsychology.org
Bailey: (laughs) Thatâs not Ray Blanchardâs website. Alice Dreger, you want to take that?
Dreger: (laughs) Thatâs not at all Ray Blanchardâs website. This is one of the things that’s happened–
Jen: Well, whatâs his website?
Dreger: This is actually a website of an enemy of Blanchardâs who doesnât like his theory.
Jen: Well, whatâs his website?
Dreger: His website would be at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Canada, heâs got a very dull website, in fact, that just basically presents his research papers in a very scholarly fashion.
Jen: Well, Iâm a molecular biologist, I can understand this stuff.
Dreger: One of the things thatâs happened is that the folks who donât like this stuff have put up websites that represent themselves as being the websites of these people saying outrageous things. And then people say to us, âGosh, you say the most outrageous things,” but in fact thatâs not actually whatâs going on.
Krasny: There has been in fact on some websites charges that Mr. Blanchard hasâI should say Professor Blanchard as well as Professor Baileyâare actually saying that transsexuals are perverts, that theyâre against sex reassignment surgery, things of that sort, so lots of stuff has gone on here that rhetorically just doesnât have much basis for it. Let me thank the caller. However, what about the issues, and let me go to you on this, Mara Keisling, what about the issues that we keep hearing about with Professor Bailey failing to get institutional board permission on human rights subject research, lacking informed consent from research subjects, that these are in play as issues, and these are certainly what brought the Northwestern investigation into play.
Keisling: Well, yeah, and absolutely in the context in which I mentioned them was again, this would have been much less of a big deal had those issues not arisen. And those were reviewed and investigatedâor whatever the right terms areâat Northwestern where they should have, and they probably do on a regular basis with lots of different kinds of research. And had there not been those claims, and had there not been other conditions not being met, my comment is that this would not have been a big deal.
Krasny: I think, excuse, me, I think one of the things that made it a big deal was the imprint of the National Academy of Sciences, donât you think?
Keisling: Absolutely. And I think if you readâI think Professor Roughgarden read from their⊠I think thatâs where she was reading from, their initial announcement of the book⊠that caused a real problem. Again, framing this as science. Whatâsâthe thing thatâs really hard to do here is to separate these two issues. The one is the initial book, and the second is the story behind what happened after the book. So when I mentioned earlier about academics responding as academics do, I still stand by that. Were there non-academics responding? Sure. Were there academics responding in non-academic ways? Thatâs not my expertise. But I donât pass judgment on those charges, you know. They were investigated as they should have been investigated.
Krasny: Professor Bailey, can you let us know why you left the chairmanship? You were Chair of the Psychology Department, as I understand it, at Northwestern.
Bailey: You know, I donât see how this campaign of defamation requires me to open up my entire personal life to everybody, soâ
Krasny: Let me just ask youâ
Bailey: Everything that Iâ
Krasny: Let meâ
Bailey: Everything that Iâm willing to say about my personal life Iâve already said, and you should probably be asking Alice DregerâŠ
Krasny: All right, Iâm not asking you a personal question, Iâm asking you what I hope will be a professional question, and Alice Dreger maybe because itâsâbecause he has been defamed, and I want to give him every opportunity to clear his name here. If he resigned because of the investigation as has been alleged, then that probably ought to be made clear. If he resigned for other reasons, we donât have to know what they were.
Dreger: Yeah, thereâs no evidence in fact that he resigned because of the investigation. He says otherwise, Northwestern says otherwise⊠the dates donât make any sense. Why would he have resigned in October of 2004 if the investigation finished in December of 2004?
Krasny: Thatâs what I wanted on the record, thank you for that.
Bailey: I donât know why you were asking my critic about the issue of consent and so on. I donât think she has any expertise or knowledge about that. Alice Dreger just did a big investigation of that, and I think you should be asking her.
Krasny: Well, orâ
Keisling: Professor Bailey, that was the point I was making. Thatâs not for me to pass judgment on.
Krasny: Yeah, but Professor Roughgardenâ
Bailey: Thatâs why I donât know why he asked you.
Krasny: Um, I asked for an opinion, just like you have given forth opinions here. Weâll hear other opinions, in fact. Letâs go to another caller. Mike, youâre on the air, good morning. Mike, are you there?
Mike: Hello?
Krasny: Go ahead, youâre on the air.
Mike: Yes. Dr. Bailey, these are really hot issues that have political implications that are current right now, and thereâs a lot of heterosexism rampant in our culture, as the first caller indicated. Are you aware of any of your own personal biases around these matters? And what have you done to take care of those, and amp up your personal cultural competence around those issues? Iâll take your answer off the air.
Krasny: Thank you for your call.
Bailey: I believe my book, if you will read itâand most people who are talking about it and yelling about it havenâtâyou will find it to be an enormously sympathetic portrayal of both gay men and transgender males, and thatâs in part why it was nominated for a Lambda Award until Conway et al. managed to get it off the nomination list. So I assumeâI certainly have worked to eliminate any bias. I donât know if Iâve been successful, but I actually think that my book is very sympathetic. It really calls for tolerance for feminine males and for transsexuals, and I think that reasonable people would agree with me.
Krasny: And I know that Professor Dreger does, but I want to ask Professor Dreger about something else, which is thatâsome of those seeking grant money were actually told to dissociate themselves from Professor Bailey? Thatâs a charge from Professor Baileyâs bailiwick, so to speak.
Dreger: Thatâs actually something that Ben Carey at the New York Times was able to uncover. I was not able to get anybody on the record to say that sort of thing, because I didnât ask them specifically about that. Ben Carey at the Times interviewed a number of scientists who told him they had been told by various granting agencies that if they had any association with Bailey they should downplay it, because in fact it wasnât going to make them look good in the granting system.
Krasny: Have you compared this or have others compared this to the Helmuth Nyborg episode, the Danish researcher who was fired back in 2006 after he reported a slight IQ difference between the sexes?
Dreger: Others have done that. I havenât done that specifically, and thatâs another example though, of where researchers go into controversial areas and say things that are unpopular. And rather than responding basically to the work in terms of the evidence and the reasoning, they go after the individuals. And that is something that has been frankly problematic since the time of Galileo.
Krasny: Joan Roughgarden.
Roughgarden: Iâd like to add to this, though, that from my perspective, the implications of this scienceâthat I consider to be fraudulent and unfoundedâare that it gets incorporated into textbooks and used for instruction in medical schools. And we find for example in Simon LeVayâs large over $100 textbook, this science which is at best controversial, and as I say, in my view, completely fraudulent. And what this does is it means that a transgender patient of a doctor has to look at the doctor and wonder whether or not theyâveâwhether the doctorâs been indoctrinated in some science which is both pejorative and unfounded. And thatâs why itâs very important to make sure this isnât seen solely in terms of personalities. And as Mara says, as the events that took place after the publication of the book. Itâs the book itself and the research that it claims to present and popularize which is where the real problem lies in my view. And all this personality stuff thatâs coming up is quite a distraction from where the serious issues lie.
Krasny: We go to more of your calls and weâre joined by Ben. Morning, Ben.
Ben: Yes, hiâthis is Ben Barres, Iâm a professor at Stanford. So, I think an important point that really hasnât come out on the show yet is that transgender people as a group are amongst the most oppressed and disparaged groups in this country, perhaps in the world. Dr. Baileyâs book is using questionable science, I think both his and Blanchardâs, to further oppress these people. And so Iâd like to ask Dr. Baileyâhe feels heâs been defamed. The transgender people feel rather defamed as well, and I would be very grateful if he could directly address whether he still feels many transgender people are best suited for work in the sex trades.
Bailey: You want me toâso just let me address the general point first. Again, I reject the assertion that itâs all transgender people who are offended by my book. Many transgender people are actually very happy that people are finally talking about this phenomenon called autogynephilia, which they feel captures their motivation. Now of course when certain transgender people such as Anne Lawrence have publicly come out and said that, theyâve been the object of attack and defamation by Andrea James and Lynn Conway, who almost invariably erect a web page devoted to very negative publicity about them. So I think thatâs what I will say.
Krasny: Well, what about what the caller says about making the connection between this transgender and the sex trade?
Bailey: OK, the idea is that the other kind of transsexual, which Blanchard calls a homosexual male to female transsexual, meaning theyâre homosexual with respect to their birth sexâthat is, they like menâis a type of, if you will, very feminine gay man⊠who decides for various reasons that he would be more happy living his lifeââhis,â meaning before transitionâas a woman. I think that men in general, including heterosexual men, including homosexual men, even including very feminine homosexual men, have a greater propensity to enjoy casual sex than women do. If this is a news flash, you all need to get out more. And homosexual male to female transsexuals for whatever reason tend to be male typical in that respect.
Krasny: And you find that offensive, Ben?
Ben: I donât think heâs answered my question. Does he think that some transgender people are best suited for work as prostitutes in the sex trades? Yes or no?
Bailey: Thatâs typical of Professor Barresââ
Ben: Iâm quoting your book.
Bailey: I say âtheyâre best suitedâ? Is that a quote?
Ben: Your book is very clear on that.
Bailey: Does it say the words âbest suitedâ? Does it say the words âbest suitedâ? If not, I think that you areâ
Ben: Just answer my question, whatever your book says. Do you feel that transgender people, some of them, are best suited for work as prostitutes?
Bailey: I never said âbest suited.â And Iâ
Ben: Just answer the question, do you feel so or not?
Bailey: I donât say âbest suitedâ and I donât think they are best suited.
Krasny: I think you answered the question.
Bailey: Theyâre better suited than genetic women are.
Roughgarden: He says âespecially suited.â
Krasny: You say âespecially suited,â you have that there, the quote?
Roughgarden: I have the quote, yes. [reading from page [185]] â…transsexuals might be especially suited to prostitution.â
Krasny: Professor Bailey?
Bailey: Well, I think that reflects what I just said, especially compared with genetic women. Thatâs not like âbest suited,â like thatâs the best thing they could ever do.
Krasny: All right, let me go to some more of your calls. Weâre going to Richard next. Richard, youâre on.
Richard: Hello, yeah, I was just kind ofâI heard some of the stuff that Michael Krasny was saying about your study, and I have some objections to it. I mean, Iâm a black male, and Iâm not that well off, but you know, I have a bit of an organic problem. I have gynomastia, so does that mean I now have to⊠Iâve experienced a lot of this recently where Iâve got people sniffing around me, trying to determine, I guess, what it is that they think that I am. And Iâm just sort of minding my own business and now… I kind of think one thing you might be ignoring.. I think thereâs a lot of things you might be ignoring in your study. One is economic factors. I mean, if people, poor people, canât find jobs, then what else are they going to do? I mean, some of them probably are turning to the sex trade simply because they canât find jobs. And then you also have health factors. If youâve got people, possibly like me, that have got male breasts, where do we go to get help? Do we just get cataloged as possibly some sort of drag queen, while some of your men want to sniff around and determine our sex?
Krasny: Professor Bailey, I think thereâs a question in there. Do you want to respond?
Bailey: You know what, I think because of her background, Alice Dreger is a better person to address that question.
Dreger: Yeah, I actually would love to. First, the caller is talking about gynecomastia, which is whatâs considered female-typical breast growth in men, although it happens in so many men I think thereâs a problem with thinking of it as female-typical. But itâs got a bigger question in how that Bailey talked about this. And one of the things Iâve uncovered in the work that Iâve was doing was this videotape of this woman identified as âJuanitaâ in the book, And one of the things that happened was that âJuanitaâ participated very willingly in a sex textbook video. And in that, she talks very openly about being a sex worker with no shame, and frankly, I donât think she should have any shame. I donât think thereâs a problem with people who are able to choose sex work, truly choose it, doing it. But she talks very openly about doing it, making $100,000 a year, and about really, really enjoying sex with men. She said, âI did it because I enjoy sex with men. I like men and I enjoy doing it, and I make a lot of money out of it.â And so I think one of the things thatâs happening with this representation of Bailey as if heâs the only person whoâs ever said this stuff. But in fact âJuanitaâ herselfâwho ends up charging him with all sorts of things after she meets Conwayâin fact said in this 2002 video that she was a sex worker, she enjoyed making the money, and she really enjoyed casual sex with men.
Krasny: All right, weâre coming to the end of the program, and I want to give Joan Roughgarden a final word here. What do you object most to in this study? The science, or the lack of science, should we put it?
Roughgarden: Well, yeah, from my position, itâs the fraud and the bigotry. And the implication of the fraud is of course that it gets incorporated uncritically into textbooks, and which then feed an institutionalization of prejudice. And the problem with the bigotryâI mean, someone is entitled to be bigoted if they wantâbut this creates a culture of siege at Northwestern. And it interferes with the possibility of developing research questions in an uncoerced and free way. And I think that the culture of siege thatâs now grown up around Northwesternâand that Alice unfortunately has become involved withâis hurting that institution. And I think that the administrators there have to be more courageous about looking into this situation.
Krasny: It was hurt a lot more by a man named Arthur Butz, who Iâll just, for the sake of memory bring up here, but I want to thank Professor Bailey who is Professor of Psychology at Northwestern⊠for his book again, The Man Who Would Be Queen. And Professor Alice Dreger, Associate Professor at Northwestern Clinical and Medical Humanities and Bioethics. Thanks also to Mara Keisling, Executive Director of National Center for Transgender Equality, and to Joan Roughgarden, Professor of Biological Science at Stanford and author of Evolutionâs Rainbow. And thanks to you, our listeners. We are appreciative of you being with us. Our producers are Robin Gianattassio-Malle, Keven Guillory, and Dan Zold, and Iâm Michael Krasny.
Please contact me with any corrections.
References
All quotations below were read or discussed during the program and are from Bailey’s book The Man Who Would Be Queen. Numbers refer to the page containing the quotation. Notes are in italics and indented.
Page #:
[60] “Psychologist Sandra Witelson has hypothesized that the brains of homosexual people may be mosaics of male and female parts, and I think she is right. This mixture explains much of what is unique in gay menâs culture and lives.”
[66] “Here in Chicago just past the turn of the century, I think I observe a preponderance of gay men in the following occupations: florists, waiters, hair stylists, actors (or at least acting students), classical musicians (but not rock musicians), psychologists (or at least psychology students) and psychiatrists, antique sellers, fashion and interior designers, yoga and aerobics instructors, masseurs, librarians, flight attendants, nurses, clothing retail salesmen (e.g., at the Gap and Banana Republic), web designers (but not software or hardware designers), and Catholic priests.”
[82] “Another possibility is that gay menâs pattern of susceptibility to certain (but not all) mental problems reflects their femininity. The problems that gay men are most susceptible toâeating disorders, depression, and anxiety disordersâare the same problems that women also suffer from disproportionately.”
[83] “Learning why gay men are more easily depressed than straight men might tell us why women are also.”
[141] “I have had only limited success tonight recruiting research subjects for our study of drag queens and transsexuals and am cruising the huge club one more time before leaving.”
Note: Here, Bailey is talking about the gay night at Crobar, and not the Baton. Bailey does discuss the Baton starting at page 186 (see below).
[183] “About 60 percent of the homosexual transsexuals and drag queens we studied were Latina or black. The proportion of nonwhite subjects in our studies of ordinary gay men is typically only about 20 percent. Alma says she thinks that Hispanic people might have more transsexual genes than other ethnic groups do.”
Note: Bailey frequently attributes controversial statements to other people. By deferring to spokespeople like Dreger or his graduate students, he can later say, “I never said that.”
[185] “Although Juanita is so feminine in some respects, even some behavioral respects, her ability to enjoy emotionally meaningless sex appears male-typical. In this sense, homosexual transsexuals might be especially well suited to prostitution.”
[186] “The Baton is Chicagoâs premier female impersonator club, featuring several past Miss Continentals, including the gorgeous Mimi Marks.”
[191] “Furthermore, I do not believe that Cherâs attraction to men is as intense or as unambiguous as that of homosexual transsexuals. She is autogynephilic, and menâs place in her sexual world is complicated. So the loss of a potential sex partner is less of a loss, overall, to Cher than it is to the homosexual transsexuals, who simply lust after men.”