The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637/http://www.feministing.com/archives/007609.html
Feministing Kudos
"I love feministing.com and always learn from it." Katha Pollitt, The Nation
"Many people need a morning "fix." For some, it's coffee. For others, it's "SportsCenter." For me, it's Feministing.com." Katie Stone, The Denver Post
"Feminism is fun again! Every bit as edifying as your women's studies books from college, but with a biting sense of humor that keeps things punchy, not preachy." Marie Claire, December 2006
Julia Serano is an Oakland, California-based writer, spoken word performer, trans activist, and biologist.
This Tuesday, The New York Times ran an article about the continuing controversy surrounding psychologist J. Michael Bailey’s 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. The premise of the book is that *all* transsexual women transition for purely sexual reasons - either to attract straight men or because they are sexually aroused by the idea of being or becoming female. This sexualizing of trans women’s motives is of course nothing new. In the media, trans women are regularly depicted as either sex workers, sexual deceivers who prey on unsuspecting straight men, or as fetishists who get off on the idea of wearing women’s clothing. The media’s (as well as Bailey’s) assumption that MTF (but not FTM) transsexuals transition in order to fulfill some kind of sexual fantasy not only dismisses trans women’s deeply experienced female gender identities, but also insinuates that women as a whole have no worth beyond their ability to be sexualized. (For those interested, I discuss this more in depth in my own book Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity).
Much of the transgender community’s initial outrage over Bailey’s book centered on the fact that it was presented to the public as a work of science. It was published by Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of National Academies Press, whose goal is “publishing well-crafted, authoritative books on science, technology, and health for the science-interested general public.” But if one looks beyond the back cover copy, one finds little science at all. Bailey simply rehashes a scientifically flawed theory that was put forward by fellow sexologist Ray Blanchard nearly a decade ago. Rather than providing data to support Blanchard’s theory, Bailey instead attempts to make his points through the use of lurid (and often demeaning) anecdotes, sexist and racist commentary, gross generalizations and unsubstantiated speculations (for specific details, see Joan Roughgarden’s review of the book). In addition, Bailey conveniently claims that trans women and gay men whose personal accounts differ from his thesis are merely lying (he’s used this tactic before: see a 2005 NY Times article called "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited," in which Bailey insinuates that men who say they are attracted to both sexes are lying).
Of course, this week’s NY Times article doesn’t discuss the hypersexualization of trans women in our culture, and it barely mentions the fact that Bailey falsely presented stereotypes and sexual innuendo as “science” without any hard data to back his claims up. Rather, the article focuses almost entirely on accusations made by Alice Dreger in her forthcoming article in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, in which she claims that several prominent trans activists stooped to conducting personal attacks on Bailey during their campaign against the book. As Dreger comments in the NY Times article:
“If we’re going to have research at all, then we’re going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we’ve got problems not only for science but free expression itself.”
Now, I’m not going to comment about the accusations Dreger makes, as the trans activists involved have denied her charges and have made counter-accusations of their own. And while Dreger presents her essay as a work of scholarly history, it’s clear that she is not an impartial, objective observer - she is currently an associate of Bailey’s and has become embroiled in the controversy that surrounds the book herself.
What does strike me though are the parallels between the way Bailey misrepresented anecdotes and opinions as “science” in his book and the way Dreger’s take on this controversy is now being misrepresented as a work of scholarly/scientific history. Indeed, the fact that a scientific journal such as Archives of Sexual Behavior would dedicate a whopping 62 pages (several times more than it allocates to standard research articles) to Dreger’s highly personalized account of this matter is unusual to say the least. While it is not uncommon for scientific journals to publish viewpoints from individual scientists on noteworthy issues, they tend to be clearly designated as editorials or opinions pieces, rather than as actual research papers (as Dreger’s article is being presented).
As an academic scientist myself, what bothers me most about the NY Times’ retelling of this controversy is that they portrayed Bailey as a “scientist under siege” fighting for academic freedom, without any mention of *academic responsibility*. In our society, people tend to view opinions as being inherently valid when they are spoken in the name of science and when the person voicing them has an advanced degree in a germane field. Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than in public discourses on transsexuality, where the opinions of non-trans “experts” (whether they be psychiatrists, sexologists, sociologists or gender theorists) regularly trump, or completely stand in for, the perspectives of actual transsexuals.
The fact is that when a self-appointed “expert” like Bailey claims that transsexual women transition for purely sexual reasons, and that they are lying if they state otherwise, people will believe him because of his academic/scientist status. The NY Times may try to frame the controversy surrounding Bailey’s book as an example of political correctness run amok, but the truth of the matter is that Bailey himself did exponentially more damage to the field of academic research when he misrepresented anecdotes and innuendos as though they were science.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://feministing.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/5863.
Comments
Isn't the Archives of Sexual Behavior now house publication of the Bailey/Zucker/Lawrence crowd (Zucker is, after all, the editor of the journal and a long time associate of Bailey, as well as a source of bad science himself)? My question and concern is why does the NYT keep falling in line with these people? The have as much respect for the scientific method as the supporters of 'creation science' and I hope the Times isn't about to champion their cause.
[Julia Serano's "Whipping Girl" is a terrific book. I recommend it to everyone interested in the debates regarding transsexual and transgender people.]
Bailey is much beloved by every right wing woman hating, transphobic Taliban religionist capable of having a blog.
He is regularly quoted by NARTH and is listed on the southern Poverty Law Center's Hate watch list.
Since the mid 1970s the same religious reich nutcases who have been attacking feminism and women have been attacking transsexuals most notably women of a transsexual history.
Bailey's research questionnaire was composed of questions that permitted answers that forced those questioned into one of his predetermined catagories or the other. There was no place to say neither of these options apply nor was there a place to say well yes but I also feel this or think that.
"And while Dreger presents her essay as a work of scholarly history, it’s clear that she is not an impartial, objective observer - she is currently an associate of Bailey’s and has become embroiled in the controversy that surrounds the book herself."
I really don't know enough about the science here to comment adequately.
But in response to the attack on Alice Dreger, when she started working on a book about this and other controversies last year, she (claimed she) was prone to believing the personal accusations about Bailey (e.g., ethics violations) but decided over the course of the research that they were baseless.
Hi Julia,
Very interesting post. I don't know a lot about Bailey, but as a bisexual I've been pretty skeptical of him ever since his study on bisexual men. I'm actually doing a study on bisexuality myself at the moment and there is an interesting tension between myself and my advisor over this study.
Anyway, it's great to see you on feministing. I read your interview in Bitch and really enjoyed what you have to say. I'm looking forward to reading your book, both as an ally to my trans friends, but also as a female-born woman-identified feminist who is interested in reclaiming her femininity.
When I read the article, I had thought the discussion was more about what exactly we should do with people who insist on being assholes, and trade on their professional identity to push their unprofessional and really unkind opinions. But maybe it's not as clear to other readers what a total jerk Bailey is. But I thought the way this guy was treated had a lot of interesting parallels to what we've seen with harassment of feminist bloggers lately, just with a 180 on the person's ideology.
Finally, a commentator and a book that gives voice to my own outrage over the Blanchard/Bailey fake "science" about transsexuals. I just bought a bunch of copies of Whipping Girl on Amazon to share with my friends.
Non-transsexuals should know that a true transsexual is not a man invading women's gender space, but a woman reuniting with her full womanhood that was never completely formed at birth due to a developmental hormonal malfunction while in utero. We are just as "intersexed" at birth as the more obviously intersexed newborn who has visually-detectable genital ambiguity. Just because our ambiguity is not visually apparent at birth does not make it any less real, nor any less genuine, nor any less in need of repair.
Thanks for this useful corrective. Reading between the lines of the Times piece, you realize it says almost nothing about the scientific (or not) content of Bailey's work - it merely presents a sympathetic portrait of him as a victim of personal attacks. It should be acknowledged that there was extraneous and personal harassment - posting pictures of his children captioned "prostitute" and "cock-starved exhibitionist or paraphiliac" seems far beyond the pale. But the issue at controversy is the scientific quality of his claims, which the Times glosses over at best. Questions and criticisms on that score are perfectly legitimate, but they provide no basis for judgment; your post above is helpful.
Could you say more about how Dreger is "associated" with Bailey, other than being from the same campus? I don't know all the details. The NYT piece implied she had acted in the role of an outside consultant on research ethics, but if they are personally connected in some way, she should not have been the one given that assignment.
And I second the endorsment of Whipping Girl. Great piece of work! I thought it was invaluable.
Years ago my old band played with Bitesize in the City and I promptly bought both your CDs and still listen to them. (We also would secretly listen at your band's door in Francisco Studios, where we both practiced at the time.) This was years ago. I think you'd just changed your name.
Later, I used your switchhitter website to help some young-uns come to grips with the fact that their clan leader (gamer thing) was MTF. Though you didn't know it, you helped a lot of 12 and 13 year-old boys learn tolerance, acceptance, and (yes) love for someone they'd normally mock and dismiss. Seeing those kids defend their clan leader from online slurs was really incredible. I think I wrote you about it back then, but can't remember, so I'm telling you now.
Just wanted you to know how amazing I think you are and how proud I am that you're in my community. Right on. BTW, what the hell is "I kissed an old guy" about, anyway?
I agree with Kevin. The Times article (and the Dreger MS) don't address Bailey's science. They point out that some trans women may have behaved very unprofessionally in their criticism of Bailey.
However, based on tone alone, I almost get the sense that Bailey and Dreger believe that poor behavior on the part of some critics is grounds for dismissing all evidence that contradicts Bailey's work.
Bailey still hasn't addressed the very legitimate criticism that not *all* transsexual women transition primarily for sexual reasons. He either needs to modify his theory to account for this evidence, or issue a retraction-- neither of which appears likely.
"Bailey still hasn't addressed the very legitimate criticism that not *all* transsexual women transition primarily for sexual reasons. He either needs to modify his theory to account for this evidence, or issue a retraction-- neither of which appears likely."
Lynn Conway, a member of the National Academy of Sciences who is also a trans woman, has done an excellent job documenting the manifold ethical and scientific failings of Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen. Her investigation of Bailey's book and how it came to be published by an imprint of the NAS can be found at:
In short, Bailey used a small and convenient sample in an attempt to provide scientific validity to Ray Blanchard's discredited attempts to categorise trans women as either sexual fetishists (autogynaephilia) or homosexuals seeking to attract heterosexual men ("primary" or "homosexual" transsexuals).
Bailey obtained his sample by posing as a clinical psychologist (despite not being licensed as such) offering to provide the letters trans women needed in order to obtain sex reassignment surgery (SRS) and by trolling gay and hooker bars. These women were not made aware that he was using them as research subjects, and at least one was presented in an identifiable fashion in his book. There are at least two documented cases of his rejection of trans women whose histories did not confirm his/Blanchard's thesis. Conway has also documented his tendency to respond to methodological and ethical criticisms with invective and evasion.
While Bailey's work is particularly egregious, it is only one example of an overall tendency to disregard trans people's experiences (especially their lifelong knowledge of inconsistency between their assigned sex and their gender identity/subconscious sex). Bailey is not alone in his obsession (which he does not hide in his book) with trans women's sexual attractiveness and heterosexuality as being somehow relevant to the diagnosis of transsexuality (see the writings of Paul McHugh, who was instrumental in shutting down the Johns-Hopkins gender identity clinic, for another flagrant example). I will refrain from speculating about what it means that these (mostly) men are so concerned with trans women's attractiveness and willingness to sleep with heterosexual men.
Thanks for all the comments, I’ll try to answer some of them here:
Isn't the Archives of Sexual Behavior now house publication of the Bailey/Zucker/Lawrence crowd (Zucker is, after all, the editor of the journal and a long time associate of Bailey, as well as a source of bad science himself)? My question and concern is why does the NYT keep falling in line with these people?
Bailey is a member of the Editorial Board of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. In general, what that usually means is that he is called upon to peer review articles for the journal. I didn’t mention that tidbit in the piece because it doesn’t necessarily imply that there is a direct conflict of interest (although it is surprising that the NY Times piece didn’t mention it at all).
Also, the same writer (Benedict Carey) wrote both NY Times pieces about Bailey (this one & the article about bisexual men).
Several comments were along this line:
It should be acknowledged that there was extraneous and personal harassment - posting pictures of his children captioned "prostitute" and "cock-starved exhibitionist or paraphiliac" seems far beyond the pale.
But in response to the attack on Alice Dreger, when she started working on a book about this and other controversies last year, she (claimed she) was prone to believing the personal accusations about Bailey (e.g., ethics violations) but decided over the course of the research that they were baseless.
So maybe I should have been more clear about my stance on these issues in my original post. First off, I am against personal attacks, particularly ones that involve someone’s children. Also, I believe it’s wrong to falsely accuse someone of fraud (although it is not clear in this case that that has happened).
I chose not to comment about these charges or other similar charges made against Bailey because they are discussed at length in the NY Times and Alice Dreger articles that I linked to. Also, in doing internet searches, I found that Andrea James (one of the trans activists who Dreger focuses most heavily on) disputes many of Dreger’s claims about her – if you are interested in hearing her side of events, you can read her response: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/alice-dreger/hermaphrodite-monger.html
It is clear that both Dreger & James have been having it out online for a while now (see for example this post from Dreger’s blog last year - http://www.alicedreger.com/in_fear.html ). I don’t know either of them personally and I am not in a position to provide insight into who might be telling the truth and who isn’t. But what I do feel is certain is that Dreger is hardly an objective voice in this matter. And one could reasonably say that she is resorting to some of the same tactics (i.e., personal attacks and unproven allegations) against James, Conway and McCloskey that she accuses them of.
It is possible that some might misinterpret from my article that I am necessarily pro-James, Conway and McCloskey or that I’m anti-Dreger, but that’s not the case. For one thing, I think all have done amazing activist work in the past. Regrettably, I feel that this whole she-said/she-said debate between them has become unnecessarily personal on both sides of the aisle. While I respect all parties’ rights to express their sides of the story online or in the press, I think that the Archives of Sexual Behavior’s decision to publish a Dreger’s article on the controversy steps over the line, because 1) of it’s extraordinary length, 2) of how personal and unobjective it comes off as, and 3) because they are presenting it as a research paper rather than an opinion piece.
The main reason why I wrote my post was not to take sides in this issue, but rather to point out how problematic Bailey’s book was in the first place – a point that seemed completely lost in the NY Times article. While I don’t think Bailey or his children should be personally harassed, I do believe that he should be held accountable for promoting his book as “science.” And I also feel that it is impossible to talk about academic freedom without also talking about academic responsibility (something which was overlooked in the piece as well)...
Could you say more about how Dreger is "associated" with Bailey, other than being from the same campus? I don't know all the details. The NYT piece implied she had acted in the role of an outside consultant on research ethics, but if they are personally connected in some way, she should not have been the one given that assignment.
Well, they are colleagues at Northwestern and Dreger has been defending Bailey for quite a while before the article came out. In addition, intersex groups that are angered by the DSD terminology that Dreger helped develop have claimed that Bailey participated with Dreger in that process (http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/dsd-consortium-homophobia-and.html). I’m haven’t been able to verify that, which is why I left it out of my initial post.
I have to agree with Ms. Serano transsexual women are seen as sex objects in many inappropriate circumstances. It is as if people are so facinated/horrified/curious about our sex lives that they can see nothing else. It effects all of us, from UIC professors to Mexican models. All most of society cares about is passing, looks, voice, OP STATUS, etc. We are more than looks and sex organs. We are more than bodies what is most important about us is our minds, brains...the body is just a meat bag to carry around a brain in as far as I am concerned. I really mean that..
However: About Dr. Bailey
"scientifically flawed", etc. etc. etc. Enough already. The bottom line is that the only people who buy these recycled arguements are those who already do not like him or Blanchard. I mean your preaching to the chior here. To make real progress you need to gather scientific and incontrovertible evidence that BBL theory is wrong.
There are those of us who are not offended by BBL theory. I mean, so what, we are sexual beings and should not pretend that sexuality has nothing to do with our lives. I think that the sexual part of my transsexuality is explained quite suscintly by Dr. Blanchards theory. I admit it, I like men but not gay men, I pass easily as a woman and when I just go with that things are easier for me. I would be a liar if I did not admit that played a role. Like if my chaging sex would make it impossible for me to attract anybody ever again I would not stay this way.
I feel obligated to mention this to head off some of the replies I always get when I speak on this. (such as read X,Y,Z so that you will know what horrible things Bailey did/wrote etc.). I am from Chicago and met Dr. Bailey back around 2000. I saw him work. We discussed a few things. Though he was not ever my care giver I could tell from our interactions he was and probably is the most competent psychologist in Chicagoland for dealing with transsexuals.
Needless to say what I present you with is a challenge. Convince me and those like me that BBL theory is wrong. I can be convinced. At the start, even before TMWWBQ like most I thought BBL theory was total BS. Then I looked at all the evidence and changed my mind, it has some merit. My mind can be changed again if I see some real evidence. Do a real careful study of a few hundred randomly selected transsexuals. Use the technique from (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/20/7356) to objectively determine who is androphilic and who is not, then look at their biographies. If there are no differences in occupations, sexual activities, etc as BBL theory would predict then that would falsify BBL theory. If there are differences as predicted by BBL theory then the theory would be supported. That's the trade off, it could PROVE BBL wrong or provide strength to their case.
There needs to be a real resolution to this problem not more invective.
One last word on Dr. Conway and her investigation. It was not as thorough as many of you think it was. From my own vantage point it really looks like she only looked for what she wanted to see. Nothing personal against her.
Bailey obtained his sample by posing as a clinical psychologist (despite not being licensed as such)
WRONG.
To air it all out.
He never did that. He did say he was a psychologist be he also at least told me that he did not "do sessions". When at one point I said I wanted him to work with me to give me the first letter. He refused to do so on that basis. Though he did say he could give me the second letter if I could get the first on my own.
I admit he could have chnaged his way of doing things between 98 and 00.
offering to provide the letters trans women needed in order to obtain sex reassignment surgery (SRS) and by trolling gay and hooker bars.
Do you see the Irony in degrading the very people that Dr. Bailey is supposed to have wronged? You are just as guilty of Whipping the girl as anyone that Ms. Serano wrote about.
Again you are recycling the same caustic words used by Dr. McClosky in 2003. Think of something original.
The controversy isn't about telling an unfortunate truth or unpopular ideas. There's a multitude of reasons why at a public meeting of sex researchers shortly after the publication of "The Man Who Would be Queen," Dr. John Bancroft, then director of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction, said to Dr. Bailey, “Michael, I have read your book, and I do not think it is science" and in its review, Publishers' Weekly said that among other shortcomings of the book, "Bailey tends towards overreaching, unsupported generalizations." Even Alice Dreger herself has said: "I should correct the misperception that I’m a defender of Professor Bailey." (panel discussion on KQED's "Forum" show, Aug. 22, 2007)
First, there's the major problems with Bailey's theoretical basis. There is a huge difference between a classification system and causality (what makes something happen). Bailey relies on the work of Raymond Blanchard, which at best (and this is/has been disputed) shows that the population of male-to-female transsexuals includes the following two groups: those who like to have sex with men, and those who are seen to be aroused by cross-dressing. Blanchard makes a huge leap in asserting that wanting to have sex with men or some sort of autoeroticism is the cause of transsexualism in these two groups. In the 20 some years since Blanchard started with this classification system, no one has replicated his work, a key part of the scientific process. In fact, Prof. Joan Roughgarden, Professor of Biological Science at Stanford University, author of "Evolution’s Rainbow," concluded: "if you go back to Blanchard’s 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." (panel discussion on KQED's "Forum" show, Aug. 22, 2007) Perhaps this is part of the reason why prior to Bailey's book, Blanchard was only of interest to a few people at all and even specialists in transsexuality rarely cited his work.
Bailey asserts these are the two -- and only two -- causes of MTF transsexualism -- and that if you say that your life experience doesn't match these models, you're lying. Which needless to say, makes Bailey's theory un-disproveable -- taking it out of the realm of the "scientific," despite Bailey's repeated assertions in TMWWBQ and elsewhere about the scientific nature of his inquiry. For example, the book's subtitle is "The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism" and it's inside jacket promises "Based on his original research, Bailey's book is firmly in the scientific method."
Then there's the shoddy nature of Bailey's "field research" for the book, which in its entirety consisted of talking to a handful of transsexuals at a local bar, and the startling conclusions Bailey reached based on that. To make an analogy, imagine a researcher who:
- drew conclusions about the entire population of black women based on a half-dozen women he met while "cruising" a local bar (Pg. 141 of "The Man Who Would Be Queen") (because he didn't know how to locate other black women, despite the presence of several organization for black women) and based on that sampling
- argued that white women "aspire (with some success) to be presentable, while [black women] aspire (with equivalent success) to be objects of desire" (Pg. 180)
- argued black women "tend to have a short time horizon with certain pleasure in the present being worth great risks for the future" (Pg. 184)
- argued that black women "might be especially well suited to prostitution" (Pg. 185)
- argued the black women are "especially motivated" to shoplifting (Pg. 185)
- argued those who were black women "are much better looking than most" of those who aren't, and that he can tell the difference between light-skinned black women and dark-skinned white women based on whether he found them attractive (Pgs 141-142, 180-182)
I doubt we'd be debating whether those findings were politically incorrect and recognize the junk science for what it was.
The general public doesn't see the slight of hand that converts a questionable taxonomy into an non-scientific opinion about a reason why. Nor the slight of hand that takes what is at most, anecdotes from a highly non-random sample, and turns them into assertions about an entire population.
Frankly, some transsexual advocates have hurt the case for the many justifiable criticisms of Bailey's work by their over-zealous behavior. I think some of the personal attacks on Bailey were far out of line and I'm not going to defend them. But I hope one might see how assertions such as the ones above, might be enraging to a population that already is marginalized and discriminated against. People whose lives are affected by a book that says that the story they've been telling about themselves is a lie, and that asserts that they are especially suited to criminal activity, have clear reason to be concerned. They're right in thinking "with friends like Bailey, who needs enemies?" Especially when Bailey continues to make statements such as transsexuals are "better suited than genetic women are" for prostitution (panel discussion on KQED's "Forum" show, Aug. 22, 2007) and gives the general public "scientific" tools like the following:
[quote]
I have devised a set of rules that should work even for the novice (though admittedly, I have not tested them). Start at zero. Ask each question, and if the answer is "Yes," add the number (+1 or -1) next to the question. If the sum gets to +3, stop; the transsexual you're talking to is autogynephiliac. If the sum gets to -3, she is homosexual.
+1 Have you ever been married to a woman?
+1 As a child, did people think you were about as masculine as other boys?
+1 Are you nearly attracted to women as to men? Or more attracted to women? Or equally uninterested in both? (Add 1 if "Yes to any of these.)
+1 Were you over the age of 40 when you began to live full time as a woman?
+1 Have you worn women's clothing in private, and, during at least three of those times, become so sexually aroused that you masturbated?
+1 Have you ever been in the military or worked as a policeman or truck driver, or been a computer programmers, businessman, lawyer, scientist, engineer or physcian?
-1 Is you ideal partner a straight man?
-1 As a child, did people think you were an unusually feminine boy?
-1 Does this describe you: "I find the idea of having sex with men very sexually exciting, but the idea of having sex with women is not at all appealing?"
-1 Were you under the age of 25 when you began to live full time as a women?
-1 Do you like to look at pictures of really muscular men with their shirts off?
-1 Have you worked as a hairstylist, beautician, female impersonator, lingerie model, or prostitute?
Finally, if the person has been on hormones for at least six months, ask yourself this question:
If you didn't already know that this person was a transsexual, would you still have suspected that she was not a natural-born women?
+1 if you answer is "Yes" (if you would have suspected)
-1 if your answer is "No"
Keep in mind that people don't always tell the truth. This interview could be invalid if the transsexual is really autogynephiliac, but is either (a) worried that you will think badly of her or deny her a sex change if you know the truth, or (b) obsessed with being a "real" woman. (Pgs 192-194)
[/quote]
But in response to the attack on Alice Dreger, when she started working on a book about this and other controversies last year, she (claimed she) was prone to believing the personal accusations about Bailey (e.g., ethics violations) but decided over the course of the research that they were baseless.
Dreger has encountered a lot of criticism in the intersexed community for doing some of the same things the trans community is criticising Bailey for:
And while you and Dreger may believe the charges to be baseless, even Dreger had to acknowledge that Northwestern found at least some of them to have merit and took some sort of action, but refused to say what it was.
But I thought the way this guy was treated had a lot of interesting parallels to what we've seen with harassment of feminist bloggers lately, just with a 180 on the person's ideology.
I haven't seen any feminist blogger insist that whole populations are made up of either prostitutes or lying perverts. Dreger also conspicuously fails to note that the "obscene" captions Andrea James put under pictures of his children were taken from his book. She was wrong to bring his kids into it, and she's apologized, but the fact that Bailey would insist that his language was "sympathetic" to use to describe transwomen and then turn around and say it was "obscene" to apply to nontranssexuals speaks volumes about his utter contempt for transwomen.
"scientifically flawed", etc. etc. etc. Enough already. The bottom line is that the only people who buy these recycled arguements are those who already do not like him or Blanchard. I mean your preaching to the chior here. To make real progress you need to gather scientific and incontrovertible evidence that BBL theory is wrong.
The "choir" would happen to include WPATH, Walter Bockting, Milton Diamond, etc. etc. i.e. the majority of actual experts who work with transwomen. If Blanchard's theory isn't supported by the data, then we shouldn't accept it. Blanchard's theory does not deserve special status as the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is "we don't know."
There are those of us who are not offended by BBL theory. I mean, so what, we are sexual beings and should not pretend that sexuality has nothing to do with our lives. I think that the sexual part of my transsexuality is explained quite suscintly by Dr. Blanchards theory. I admit it, I like men but not gay men, I pass easily as a woman and when I just go with that things are easier for me. I would be a liar if I did not admit that played a role. Like if my chaging sex would make it impossible for me to attract anybody ever again I would not stay this way.
The issue is not that some people may fit Blanchard's model to some degree (although I've yet to come across anyone who completely fits either type, including you with what Bailey calls your "hallmarks of autogynephilia" I noted earlier). You're also setting up a false dichotomy with the idea that claiming Blanchard's model does not describe one is somehow equivalent to denying having a sex drive. I got SRS because, to put it bluntly, the sexual options for chicks with dicks are limited and unattractive. That doesn't make me an uber-homosexual or a narcissistic fetishist.
I think that the sexual part of my transsexuality is explained quite suscintly by Dr. Blanchards theory.
But the rest of us don't think it explains our transsexuality. Bailey calls you "honest and open" for agreeing with him while the rest of us are lying or deluded for not agreeing with him. Whatever MRI scans you might like to perform in the future, the fact remains that at the present time he has no justification for his constant accusations of lying. If you found something that's meaningful for you, great, but as long as the Blanchards and Baileys of the world insist on trying to drag the rest of us along as well, there's going to be a problem.
Needless to say what I present you with is a challenge. Convince me and those like me that BBL theory is wrong. I can be convinced.
How about we start with your attempt to address the methodological flaws I pointed out in Blanchard's TS typology studies earlier?
My mind can be changed again if I see some real evidence.
Blanchard's model is that all of us are either one or the other of two strictly defined categories, with no exceptions and nothing in between. Calpernia Addams was in the military (AG) then worked as a showgirl (homosexual) so which is she? Lynn Conway attempted transition in her late teens, self medicating her hormones and dating men (homosexual) but after being threatened with institutionalization (the 50s) tried very hard for years to fit in as a man, even going so far as to marry and have kids (AG) before transitioning. Which type is she?
There needs to be a real resolution to this problem not more invective.
The real resolution is that the trend in trans healthcare is very much away from the control-based approach advocated by Blanchard and pals, and that will only continue. The majority already rejects his typology and that will only continue. This isn't about who's going to "win," it's about how many people will get hurt before these people are finally left behind for good.
Oh, and fun fact about Archives of Sexual Behavior: Blanchard and Bailey both sit on the editorial board, along with several of Blanchard's other colleagues from his clinic. The editor of a supposedly scientific journal solicited yellow journalism to defend one of the journal's own editorial board members. Nothing wrong with that, I'm sure. No doubt the peer review process was quite rigorous.
Bailey has not yet responded to my existance. More to the point, Julia and many authors have offered glimpse of themselves in print. There are a lot of us who don't neatly fit into one of Blanchard's two groups.
Bailey never appropriately addresses this. The best he's done is to imply that we're liars. I'm a younger transitioner. I'm not lying about my lesbianism-- trust me on this one. My very existance, in and of itself creates a problem for Blanchard's typology, and in the overall scheme of things I'm not particularly unique. And again, some people (Julia, for instance) have pointed this out in easy-to-find books.
Of course, I suppose I could allow Bailey to hook electrodes up to genitals while he shows me pornographic vidoes (one of his research techniques), but:
1) These methods are about as scientifically reliable as phrenology (they're not).
-and-
2) I'm a lesbian. I didn't transition just to get a vagina, and I certainly didn't transition so I could have sex with men.
Do you see the Irony in degrading the very people that Dr. Bailey is supposed to have wronged? You are just as guilty of Whipping the girl as anyone that Ms. Serano wrote about.
That was not my intent. My intent was to point out that you are likely to come to the conclusion that young trans women are "homosexuals" who primarily work as sex workers if you select your sample from places frequented primarily by gay men and/or sex workers.
He never did that. He did say he was a psychologist be he also at least told me that he did not "do sessions". When at one point I said I wanted him to work with me to give me the first letter. He refused to do so on that basis. Though he did say he could give me the second letter if I could get the first on my own.
There are certainly documented cases in which he did do that, whether or not he did it in your case.
There's another gaping hole in Blanchard's unfalsifiable "theory": it assumes that the timing of transition is based on some inherent characteristic in the trans woman, as if there were not plenty of other factors (lack of financial resources, hostile environment, fear, no appropriate health care provider nearby) that could cause someone to transition sooner rather than later.
Thus, a trans woman who is dying to transition at age 20 (therefore a "homosexual" trans woman, who is attracted to men by definition), but quickly decides to wait, after realising that the small fundamentalist community in which she lives would ride her out on a rail if she tried to transition, and ends up finding the strength and opportunity to transition only 15-20 years later in her life will, by Blanchardian alchemy, suddenly morph into an "autogynaephilic" trans woman simply because she is now older and her body has become more masculinised with time (thus meeting Bailey's "less attractive" criterion).
Since this "theory" brooks no contradiction if you don't conform to these categories in some way, you're "lying" the fact that this hypothetical woman was attracted to men all her life will not prevent the transformation.
In the 20 some years since Blanchard started with this classification system, no one has replicated his work, a key part of the scientific process.
And particularly damning, given the power dynamic inherent in much of the research done by people acting or posing as gatekeepers. The attitude that still exists amongst many is that a trans person must conform to the gatekeeper's preferred stereotypes (sometimes going to ridiculous lengths) or risk being denied treatment thatperson desperately needs. Given that lopsided dynamic, it seems reasonable to assume that the only way Blanchard could feel confirmed in his beliefs was that his research subjects knew that the only way to get what they needed was to humour him.
In the 20 some years since Blanchard started with this classification system, no one has replicated his work, a key part of the scientific process. That is false read this.
Abstract
The present study was designed to investigate whether transsexuals can be validly subdivided into subtypes on the basis of sexual orientation, and whether differences between subtypes of transsexuals are similar for male-to-female (MF) and female-to-male transsexuals (FMs). Within a large transsexual sample (n = 187), homosexual and nonhomosexual subjects were compared on a number of characteristics before the start of treatment. Differences within MF and FM groups were also investigated. Homosexual transsexuals were found to be younger when applying for sex reassignment, reported a stronger cross-gender identity in childhood, had a more convincing cross-gender appearance, and functioned psychologically better than nonhomosexual transsexuals. Moreover, a lower percentage of the homosexual transsexuals reported being (or having been) married and sexually aroused while cross-dressing. The pattern of findings was different for MFs and FMs. No differences between homosexuals and nonhomosexuals were found in height, weight, or body mass index. A distinction between subtypes of transsexuals on the basis of sexual orientation seems theoretically and clinically meaningful. The results support the notion that in the two groups different factors influence the decision to apply for sex reassignment. The more vulnerable nonhomosexual transsexuals may particularly benefit from additional professional guidance before and/or during treatment. D 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Which supports some of what Blanchard said.
Blanchard's model is that all of us are either one or the other of two strictly defined categories, with no exceptions and nothing in between. Calpernia Addams was in the military (AG) then worked as a showgirl (homosexual) so which is she? Lynn Conway attempted transition in her late teens, self medicating her hormones and dating men (homosexual) but after being threatened with institutionalization (the 50s) tried very hard for years to fit in as a man, even going so far as to marry and have kids (AG) before transitioning. Which type is she?
:-? :-? I really do not like to classify people. It causes people to become offended. The question below has been posed in such a way that I must respond.
Here is the answer to that.
One source of confusion in this theory is that people took the list that Dr.Bailey put in his book and did not read the part about it being a cumulative sum over the persons history. They read it as an all or nothing thing. Like if you have one indicator of AGP is the usual mistake. Any one of those points alone means nothing. That's like judging a person only by one solitary act.
Sure Dr. Conway was married at one time. However, the balance of her life has been typical of the life of a homosexual transsexual. Ms. Adams was in the millitary but the balance of her life has been the life of a homosexual transsexual. Diedre McClosky's life, for contrast, from reading her biography everything about her points to her being autogynephilic. Not just one thing but detail after detail. By comparison
As for myself my biography is here ( http://www.geocities.com/hontasfx/why.html ). Looking at it and going by the test in TMWWBQ. In the order of the questions as written in a comment above No, no, no, no, no, yes I am a scientist (+1), yes straight men please (-1),yes see my bio (-1), yes in fact I may be who he is quoting there (-1), no I was exactly 25 when I finally transioned, yes (-1), yes I have worked as one of those things(-1) totals up to -4. So I would be a homosexual transsexual from that test.
So you see it's not confusing if you really take the time to understand it.
What can be disputed and tested is the existance of two types of transsexual and if the different types have different motivations. The problem with every test for two types done so far is that they have relied on peoples self reports of their sexual histories, and to some extent on the subjective ideas of researchers and others (i.e. in Smith's study one source of data was having various employees of the clinic she worked at rate the attractiveness of various reserach subjects).
The method I keep refering to whereby a persons orientation is determined from their brain activity (by comparing their reactions as sense by an MRI to homosexual men and women and heterosexual men and women) would eliminate that problem and do so without the flaws inherent in Pleythmoography. As many things can effect bloodflow to the genitals... certain parts of the brain react to sexual stimulus in characteristic ways. (see earlier cited study of homosexual men vs het women and straight men) It could also be used to test for the usually proclaimed "change of sexual orientation". This would be done by randomly testing supposedly non-homosexual applicants for reassignment before they take hormones and seeing if the way their brains respond changes due to hormones....and a number of other test.
I can't say it enough. An objective, independant, and experimental (not just empirical) test is what will settle this. Not more parroting of Dr. Conway's three year old points (most of which were addressed by the study due to Smith etal). Or insults hurled at anyone who dares to differ from the flock. OR of saying things that are just false. This is a scientific problem and it will only be settled by scientific means.
Ah, another person like Julie Bindel in the UK who likes to spout theories that can only be substantiated by considerable attention to pre-selecting their date.
As a transwoman, I deeply resent people mis-representing my life when it is quite obvious, to me at least, that they haven't got a flipping clue what they're talking about.
Pre slecting? I wrote "This would be done by randomly testing supposedly non-homosexual applicants for reassignment before they take hormones and seeing if the way their brains respond changes due to hormones....and a number of other test."
Basically I am proposing to have the methods of psychology used to sort into HS or AG...tested using neurology. If the neurological results from the MRI's contradicts the predictions made using BBL theory that would be a disproval of BBL theory.
YOU CANT JUST SAY THEY HAVE NO IDEA YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PROVE THEM WRONG. PRIVILLAGED ENGLISHMAN, THE WORLD DOES NOT HOP TO YOUR BEAT BECAUSE YOU THINK IT SHOULD.
Just to make an observation to the cissexual people still following this thread:
In my estimation, there's a lot of projection in the trans community. It's like any other group of people, only perhaps more so, given the fact that being transsexual is ultimately something that has to be primarily self-diagnosed.
So.... I tend to see a lot of people trying to claim that all other trans people are just like them. I've seen countless trans women (of all varieties) argue that:
- My personality traits are X, Y, and Z
- My sexuality is A
- My motivations are B
- I've had the following medical treatments/surgeries: C, D, and E
- Therefore, I'm a "true" transsexual. Everyone other "real" transsexual woman has the same characteristics, or is lying (and not "doing" transition appropriately).
It gets really, really tired. There are as many types of transsexuals as there are cissexuals. Seriously.
In the case of Bailey, there are transsexual women who fit his theories. Absolutely. Nobody's arguing with that point. However, I think that many Bailey's defenders within the trans community are guilty of this sort of project-- "Wow, Bailey explains everything about me! It's liberating to know that I'm really transsexual, and know how I fit into the world. Everyone who's arguing with me clearly has had the exact same experiences as me, and is missing the point."
It allows one to be blind to a lot of really remarkable stuff.
Sorry to be blunt, but seriously.
Oh, and I'm still young and lesbian. Nobody's explained that yet.
So... I don't much yet about the actual evidence. Certainly from clinical videotaped interviews I've seen, some transexual individuals fit his categorization.
Ultimately, though, I'm assuming the binary distinction has to be wrong. When is psychology so simple that a person can be classified as A or B? That seems pretty rare.
So my question is more: How right or wrong is he? For example, do you think 10%, 50%, 90% of transexual individuals fit that classification?
If you think many don't fit the classification, what classification system do you think would be more useful to clinicians?
I really don't know much about it, but am interested in your opinions.
Quote: PRIVILLAGED ENGLISHMAN, THE WORLD DOES NOT HOP TO YOUR BEAT BECAUSE YOU THINK IT SHOULD
By denying me a status of female in calling me (english)man, you are inadvertantly revealing a transphobic motivation to your comments on this thread.
Then, by attempting to use my nationality against me, indeed suggesting that I assume a privilege from it, you are being, if not racist, then at least, abusively nationalistic. Quite what being english has to do with the transgender experience is beyond me. However I'm prepared to defer to your obvious expertise.
I thought I was commenting on the subject at the top of the thread. You respond as if I care about what you have written and am trashing it. I'm not, others have got there long before me and I prefer not to intrude on private grief.
As I inferred, I know why I transitioned but neither Bailey nor bindel seem to have a category for me in their absolutist views. That is proof enough for me to understand that,
by making grandiose claims for completist theories, they are mis-representing my life.
UCLA:
I don't have much time to respond, but I'd say that most of the transsexual women I know don't fit Bailey and Blanchard's typology (95%, maybe more...). Of course, most of the trans women I know are of from a limited set (almost all are middle-to-upper class, white, professionals, ranging in age from teens to 70s).
In terms of "replacing" the classification, three quick comments:
1) I don't think you can come up with a useful classification system (any more than you could for non-transsexual women).
2) I don't think it's necessary that clinicians have a classification scheme.
3) Scientists may well be interested in coming up with theories on why transsexualism arises. However, I think any such theory should take into account both biological and social factors-- there probably isn't a single explanation as to why people are trans, nor a simple one.
Sure Dr. Conway was married at one time. However, the balance of her life has been typical of the life of a homosexual transsexual.
According to an another version of Bailey's Cosmo quiz- sorry, scientific scale, being married automatically makes Conway autogynephilic. Bailey claims that homosexual transsexuals transition because they start out as extremely effeminate little boys and never defeminize. The whole idea of trying to hide one's transsexuality behind the veneer of a hetero life is presented as characteristic of autogynephilia, and Bailey claims his critics are all autogynephiles having a "narcissistic blow" at the thought that they aren't "women trapped in men's bodies." Ask Dr. Bailey, without mentioning any names, if he saw someone who had been married with two kids before transitioning, and claimed to have always had the gender identity of a woman, and was uncertain whether she would make a good looking woman going into transition, but still denied being autogynephilic, what would he think? If Conway had appeared at the Clarke Institute for her second transition attempt, they would mark her as AG and assume she was lying about everything that didn't fit the profile.
Ms. Adams was in the millitary but the balance of her life has been the life of a homosexual transsexual.
According to the same scale, being in the military automatically makes her AG. Her autobiography also does not paint her as extremely effeminate in childhood. It may look nice and neat in a classroom to talk about a strict "type A" and a strict "type B" and nothing in between, but reality just never looks like that.
So I would be a homosexual transsexual from that test.
While virtually all lesbian and bisexual transwomen who transitioned in their teens or twenties would score between 0 and -2.
What can be disputed and tested is the existance of two types of transsexual and if the different types have different motivations. The problem with every test for two types done so far is that they have relied on peoples self reports of their sexual histories, and to some extent on the subjective ideas of researchers and others (i.e. in Smith's study one source of data was having various employees of the clinic she worked at rate the attractiveness of various reserach subjects).
If you're going to discount people's self reports as acceptable data, then Blanchard's theory is unsupported because it has no data and there is currently no reason to accept it. If you're going to count people's self reports as acceptable data, then Blanchard's theory is still unsupported because the data is against it and there is still currently no reason to accept it. What Blanchard and Bailey want to do is count people's self reports as acceptable data if and only if they conform to Blanchard's model. This is what is known, in technical, scientific terms, as "cheating."
YOU CANT JUST SAY THEY HAVE NO IDEA YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PROVE THEM WRONG.
Again, Blanchard's model does not deserve special status as the null hypothesis. As Blanchard and Bailey are claiming their model is correct, it is their responsibility to show that it is. By the standards you have outlined, they have not done so.
So my question is more: How right or wrong is he? For example, do you think 10%, 50%, 90% of transexual individuals fit that classification?
Blanchard's theory of transsexual typology is that all mtf transsexuals who are not attracted to men are attracted to the thought or image of themselves as women. Not some, not even most. All. If there is a single transwoman who does not fit that binary, then they are ipso facto wrong. Many transwomen partially fit either category to differing degrees, but I've yet to come across any transwoman who has claimed either category as an identity who sooner or later will not make statements about herself that contradict the category they chose. #1 Bailey cheerleader and self-proclaimed autogynephile Anne Lawrence claims to have been effeminate in high school despite Bailey's adamance that transwomen of her "type" are always unremarkably masculine until they transition. (To be fair, he also says they lie about their pasts.) A group of self identified homosexual transsexuals have a website called transkids wherein they deny being especially promiscuous or suited to prostitution. (They also have a website, claim to be homosexual, deny being autogynephilic, and claim extreme femininity in childhood without presenting supporting evidence. According to Bailey, those are all "hallmarks of autogynephilia.") What I says is if it speaks to you, great, just don't try to put it on the rest of us, is what I says.
If you think many don't fit the classification, what classification system do you think would be more useful to clinicians?
Part of the reason that this classification system which functions by completely disregarding both the experiences of trans woman and the existence of trans men has been generally rejected is that it doesn't work particularly well with anyone. It conflates gender identity with sexual orientation (and sexual orientation with paraphilia), and takes pre-transition fetishism as the motivator for transition rather than a symbolic expression of the need to transform. And it does all this while creating a rigid system of categories, both of which are demeaning, and dismissing anyone who doesn't fit the categories (which would appear to be most) as a liar. Meanwhile, the sexuality and gender expression of trans women who have completed transition (rather than those just starting, who are disproportionately the focus of research) actually seems to correspond pretty well to the rest of the female population (one wonders if the goal of researchers who start from a position of dismissing the experience of the trans people they supposedly want to study is to prevent any perception of trans people as "just like you and me").
The general rejection of this "theory" is a credit to the field.
The question with any categorisation system, to my mind, is "what purpose does it serve?" Unless there is some significant good done by the use of a categorisation, it's probably better not to have one at all.
Here, the categorisation is one more way in which non-trans people seek to establish interpretive sovereignty over the lives of trans people. This is but one facet with what is wrong with the role of mental health professionals in the transition process: rather than acting to help trans people (e.g., by providing emotional support to ensure a smooth transition in whatever manner the trans person feels is most meaningful), they often position themselves as regulators of transition, who concern themselves primarily with channeling the transition and gender expression of their trans patients into the directions the clinicians most prefer.
In this setting, I think it would take a fundamental overhaul of the role of the clinician in the transition process for there to be any really useful work done at all (though this shift has begun taking place, in research at least). As long as people think that they can reasonably do research on someone who is required to please them in order to get necessary treatment, there will be a lot of chaff to sort through. Indeed, much of the research on trans people seems to suffer from the same fundamental flaws as the early psychoanalytical "research" into women: denying a voice to the person being studied, underlying stereotypical assumptions, and coming from a position of power.
Perhaps, once the culture has shifted away from the tendencies sketched above, there will emerge some categorisation scheme that is scientifically valid and beneficial to trans people. It seems to me a rather small matter compared to the problems that need to be addressed in the clinician population.
My personal feeling is that there's not much point in developing such a taxonomy, and that there won't be such a need to create one once clinicians and researchers reach the point of being able to hear what their trans subjects and patients are telling them rather than imposing their preferred narrative.
The term "Englishman" is like the term "mankind" it includes women.
@UCLAbodyimage
The discrepancy between what I am about to say and what most people here will say boils down to one thing. I recognize that the lack of a perfect fit does not mean that the theory does not fit at all. In my point of view a imperfect fit is as good as a per
Comments
Isn't the Archives of Sexual Behavior now house publication of the Bailey/Zucker/Lawrence crowd (Zucker is, after all, the editor of the journal and a long time associate of Bailey, as well as a source of bad science himself)? My question and concern is why does the NYT keep falling in line with these people? The have as much respect for the scientific method as the supporters of 'creation science' and I hope the Times isn't about to champion their cause.
Posted by: Caitlyn![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 10:25 AM
Hi Julia.
[Julia Serano's "Whipping Girl" is a terrific book. I recommend it to everyone interested in the debates regarding transsexual and transgender people.]
Bailey is much beloved by every right wing woman hating, transphobic Taliban religionist capable of having a blog.
He is regularly quoted by NARTH and is listed on the southern Poverty Law Center's Hate watch list.
Since the mid 1970s the same religious reich nutcases who have been attacking feminism and women have been attacking transsexuals most notably women of a transsexual history.
Bailey's research questionnaire was composed of questions that permitted answers that forced those questioned into one of his predetermined catagories or the other. There was no place to say neither of these options apply nor was there a place to say well yes but I also feel this or think that.
Posted by: DallasSuz![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 10:32 AM
"And while Dreger presents her essay as a work of scholarly history, it’s clear that she is not an impartial, objective observer - she is currently an associate of Bailey’s and has become embroiled in the controversy that surrounds the book herself."
I really don't know enough about the science here to comment adequately.
But in response to the attack on Alice Dreger, when she started working on a book about this and other controversies last year, she (claimed she) was prone to believing the personal accusations about Bailey (e.g., ethics violations) but decided over the course of the research that they were baseless.
Posted by: UCLAbodyimage![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 10:41 AM
Hi Julia,
Very interesting post. I don't know a lot about Bailey, but as a bisexual I've been pretty skeptical of him ever since his study on bisexual men. I'm actually doing a study on bisexuality myself at the moment and there is an interesting tension between myself and my advisor over this study.
Anyway, it's great to see you on feministing. I read your interview in Bitch and really enjoyed what you have to say. I'm looking forward to reading your book, both as an ally to my trans friends, but also as a female-born woman-identified feminist who is interested in reclaiming her femininity.
Posted by: EllenV![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 11:20 AM
When I read the article, I had thought the discussion was more about what exactly we should do with people who insist on being assholes, and trade on their professional identity to push their unprofessional and really unkind opinions. But maybe it's not as clear to other readers what a total jerk Bailey is. But I thought the way this guy was treated had a lot of interesting parallels to what we've seen with harassment of feminist bloggers lately, just with a 180 on the person's ideology.
Posted by: yellownumber5![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 11:27 AM
Finally, a commentator and a book that gives voice to my own outrage over the Blanchard/Bailey fake "science" about transsexuals. I just bought a bunch of copies of Whipping Girl on Amazon to share with my friends.
Non-transsexuals should know that a true transsexual is not a man invading women's gender space, but a woman reuniting with her full womanhood that was never completely formed at birth due to a developmental hormonal malfunction while in utero. We are just as "intersexed" at birth as the more obviously intersexed newborn who has visually-detectable genital ambiguity. Just because our ambiguity is not visually apparent at birth does not make it any less real, nor any less genuine, nor any less in need of repair.
Posted by: Stacy A![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 11:35 AM
Thanks for this useful corrective. Reading between the lines of the Times piece, you realize it says almost nothing about the scientific (or not) content of Bailey's work - it merely presents a sympathetic portrait of him as a victim of personal attacks. It should be acknowledged that there was extraneous and personal harassment - posting pictures of his children captioned "prostitute" and "cock-starved exhibitionist or paraphiliac" seems far beyond the pale. But the issue at controversy is the scientific quality of his claims, which the Times glosses over at best. Questions and criticisms on that score are perfectly legitimate, but they provide no basis for judgment; your post above is helpful.
Could you say more about how Dreger is "associated" with Bailey, other than being from the same campus? I don't know all the details. The NYT piece implied she had acted in the role of an outside consultant on research ethics, but if they are personally connected in some way, she should not have been the one given that assignment.
And I second the endorsment of Whipping Girl. Great piece of work! I thought it was invaluable.
Posted by: Kevin T. Keith![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 11:43 AM
Julia!
Years ago my old band played with Bitesize in the City and I promptly bought both your CDs and still listen to them. (We also would secretly listen at your band's door in Francisco Studios, where we both practiced at the time.) This was years ago. I think you'd just changed your name.
Later, I used your switchhitter website to help some young-uns come to grips with the fact that their clan leader (gamer thing) was MTF. Though you didn't know it, you helped a lot of 12 and 13 year-old boys learn tolerance, acceptance, and (yes) love for someone they'd normally mock and dismiss. Seeing those kids defend their clan leader from online slurs was really incredible. I think I wrote you about it back then, but can't remember, so I'm telling you now.
Just wanted you to know how amazing I think you are and how proud I am that you're in my community. Right on. BTW, what the hell is "I kissed an old guy" about, anyway?
Posted by: Furious|T|![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 12:33 PM
Here is a copy of the actual article that Alice Dreger published. I don't have time to read it and comment today, but just for inquiring minds:
http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/work/dreger/controversy_tmwwbq.pdf
Posted by: UCLAbodyimage![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 12:35 PM
Julia,
Thanks for the post/book/activism!
I agree with Kevin. The Times article (and the Dreger MS) don't address Bailey's science. They point out that some trans women may have behaved very unprofessionally in their criticism of Bailey.
However, based on tone alone, I almost get the sense that Bailey and Dreger believe that poor behavior on the part of some critics is grounds for dismissing all evidence that contradicts Bailey's work.
Bailey still hasn't addressed the very legitimate criticism that not *all* transsexual women transition primarily for sexual reasons. He either needs to modify his theory to account for this evidence, or issue a retraction-- neither of which appears likely.
Posted by: eastsidekate![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 01:04 PM
"Bailey still hasn't addressed the very legitimate criticism that not *all* transsexual women transition primarily for sexual reasons. He either needs to modify his theory to account for this evidence, or issue a retraction-- neither of which appears likely."
These are his responses:
http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversy.htm
Posted by: UCLAbodyimage![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 02:00 PM
Trans Group Blog: Julia Serano Guest Blogging on Feministing
Posted by: helen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 02:30 PM
Lynn Conway, a member of the National Academy of Sciences who is also a trans woman, has done an excellent job documenting the manifold ethical and scientific failings of Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen. Her investigation of Bailey's book and how it came to be published by an imprint of the NAS can be found at:
">http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Bailey's%20scientific%20claims.html
In short, Bailey used a small and convenient sample in an attempt to provide scientific validity to Ray Blanchard's discredited attempts to categorise trans women as either sexual fetishists (autogynaephilia) or homosexuals seeking to attract heterosexual men ("primary" or "homosexual" transsexuals).
Bailey obtained his sample by posing as a clinical psychologist (despite not being licensed as such) offering to provide the letters trans women needed in order to obtain sex reassignment surgery (SRS) and by trolling gay and hooker bars. These women were not made aware that he was using them as research subjects, and at least one was presented in an identifiable fashion in his book. There are at least two documented cases of his rejection of trans women whose histories did not confirm his/Blanchard's thesis. Conway has also documented his tendency to respond to methodological and ethical criticisms with invective and evasion.
While Bailey's work is particularly egregious, it is only one example of an overall tendency to disregard trans people's experiences (especially their lifelong knowledge of inconsistency between their assigned sex and their gender identity/subconscious sex). Bailey is not alone in his obsession (which he does not hide in his book) with trans women's sexual attractiveness and heterosexuality as being somehow relevant to the diagnosis of transsexuality (see the writings of Paul McHugh, who was instrumental in shutting down the Johns-Hopkins gender identity clinic, for another flagrant example). I will refrain from speculating about what it means that these (mostly) men are so concerned with trans women's attractiveness and willingness to sleep with heterosexual men.
Posted by: Elise![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 06:04 PM
Hi everyone,
Thanks for all the comments, I’ll try to answer some of them here:
Isn't the Archives of Sexual Behavior now house publication of the Bailey/Zucker/Lawrence crowd (Zucker is, after all, the editor of the journal and a long time associate of Bailey, as well as a source of bad science himself)? My question and concern is why does the NYT keep falling in line with these people?
Bailey is a member of the Editorial Board of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. In general, what that usually means is that he is called upon to peer review articles for the journal. I didn’t mention that tidbit in the piece because it doesn’t necessarily imply that there is a direct conflict of interest (although it is surprising that the NY Times piece didn’t mention it at all).
Also, the same writer (Benedict Carey) wrote both NY Times pieces about Bailey (this one & the article about bisexual men).
Several comments were along this line:
It should be acknowledged that there was extraneous and personal harassment - posting pictures of his children captioned "prostitute" and "cock-starved exhibitionist or paraphiliac" seems far beyond the pale.
But in response to the attack on Alice Dreger, when she started working on a book about this and other controversies last year, she (claimed she) was prone to believing the personal accusations about Bailey (e.g., ethics violations) but decided over the course of the research that they were baseless.
So maybe I should have been more clear about my stance on these issues in my original post. First off, I am against personal attacks, particularly ones that involve someone’s children. Also, I believe it’s wrong to falsely accuse someone of fraud (although it is not clear in this case that that has happened).
I chose not to comment about these charges or other similar charges made against Bailey because they are discussed at length in the NY Times and Alice Dreger articles that I linked to. Also, in doing internet searches, I found that Andrea James (one of the trans activists who Dreger focuses most heavily on) disputes many of Dreger’s claims about her – if you are interested in hearing her side of events, you can read her response: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/alice-dreger/hermaphrodite-monger.html
It is clear that both Dreger & James have been having it out online for a while now (see for example this post from Dreger’s blog last year - http://www.alicedreger.com/in_fear.html ). I don’t know either of them personally and I am not in a position to provide insight into who might be telling the truth and who isn’t. But what I do feel is certain is that Dreger is hardly an objective voice in this matter. And one could reasonably say that she is resorting to some of the same tactics (i.e., personal attacks and unproven allegations) against James, Conway and McCloskey that she accuses them of.
It is possible that some might misinterpret from my article that I am necessarily pro-James, Conway and McCloskey or that I’m anti-Dreger, but that’s not the case. For one thing, I think all have done amazing activist work in the past. Regrettably, I feel that this whole she-said/she-said debate between them has become unnecessarily personal on both sides of the aisle. While I respect all parties’ rights to express their sides of the story online or in the press, I think that the Archives of Sexual Behavior’s decision to publish a Dreger’s article on the controversy steps over the line, because 1) of it’s extraordinary length, 2) of how personal and unobjective it comes off as, and 3) because they are presenting it as a research paper rather than an opinion piece.
The main reason why I wrote my post was not to take sides in this issue, but rather to point out how problematic Bailey’s book was in the first place – a point that seemed completely lost in the NY Times article. While I don’t think Bailey or his children should be personally harassed, I do believe that he should be held accountable for promoting his book as “science.” And I also feel that it is impossible to talk about academic freedom without also talking about academic responsibility (something which was overlooked in the piece as well)...
Could you say more about how Dreger is "associated" with Bailey, other than being from the same campus? I don't know all the details. The NYT piece implied she had acted in the role of an outside consultant on research ethics, but if they are personally connected in some way, she should not have been the one given that assignment.
Well, they are colleagues at Northwestern and Dreger has been defending Bailey for quite a while before the article came out. In addition, intersex groups that are angered by the DSD terminology that Dreger helped develop have claimed that Bailey participated with Dreger in that process (http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/dsd-consortium-homophobia-and.html). I’m haven’t been able to verify that, which is why I left it out of my initial post.
hope that helps!
-julia
Posted by: -julia![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 07:03 PM
Same ol Same ol Almost...
I have to agree with Ms. Serano transsexual women are seen as sex objects in many inappropriate circumstances. It is as if people are so facinated/horrified/curious about our sex lives that they can see nothing else. It effects all of us, from UIC professors to Mexican models. All most of society cares about is passing, looks, voice, OP STATUS, etc. We are more than looks and sex organs. We are more than bodies what is most important about us is our minds, brains...the body is just a meat bag to carry around a brain in as far as I am concerned. I really mean that..
However: About Dr. Bailey
"scientifically flawed", etc. etc. etc. Enough already. The bottom line is that the only people who buy these recycled arguements are those who already do not like him or Blanchard. I mean your preaching to the chior here. To make real progress you need to gather scientific and incontrovertible evidence that BBL theory is wrong.
There are those of us who are not offended by BBL theory. I mean, so what, we are sexual beings and should not pretend that sexuality has nothing to do with our lives. I think that the sexual part of my transsexuality is explained quite suscintly by Dr. Blanchards theory. I admit it, I like men but not gay men, I pass easily as a woman and when I just go with that things are easier for me. I would be a liar if I did not admit that played a role. Like if my chaging sex would make it impossible for me to attract anybody ever again I would not stay this way.
I feel obligated to mention this to head off some of the replies I always get when I speak on this. (such as read X,Y,Z so that you will know what horrible things Bailey did/wrote etc.). I am from Chicago and met Dr. Bailey back around 2000. I saw him work. We discussed a few things. Though he was not ever my care giver I could tell from our interactions he was and probably is the most competent psychologist in Chicagoland for dealing with transsexuals.
Needless to say what I present you with is a challenge. Convince me and those like me that BBL theory is wrong. I can be convinced. At the start, even before TMWWBQ like most I thought BBL theory was total BS. Then I looked at all the evidence and changed my mind, it has some merit. My mind can be changed again if I see some real evidence. Do a real careful study of a few hundred randomly selected transsexuals. Use the technique from (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/20/7356) to objectively determine who is androphilic and who is not, then look at their biographies. If there are no differences in occupations, sexual activities, etc as BBL theory would predict then that would falsify BBL theory. If there are differences as predicted by BBL theory then the theory would be supported. That's the trade off, it could PROVE BBL wrong or provide strength to their case.
There needs to be a real resolution to this problem not more invective.
One last word on Dr. Conway and her investigation. It was not as thorough as many of you think it was. From my own vantage point it really looks like she only looked for what she wanted to see. Nothing personal against her.
Posted by: HFarmer![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 07:26 PM
Bailey obtained his sample by posing as a clinical psychologist (despite not being licensed as such)
WRONG.
To air it all out.
He never did that. He did say he was a psychologist be he also at least told me that he did not "do sessions". When at one point I said I wanted him to work with me to give me the first letter. He refused to do so on that basis. Though he did say he could give me the second letter if I could get the first on my own.
I admit he could have chnaged his way of doing things between 98 and 00.
offering to provide the letters trans women needed in order to obtain sex reassignment surgery (SRS) and by trolling gay and hooker bars.
Do you see the Irony in degrading the very people that Dr. Bailey is supposed to have wronged? You are just as guilty of Whipping the girl as anyone that Ms. Serano wrote about.
Again you are recycling the same caustic words used by Dr. McClosky in 2003. Think of something original.
Posted by: HFarmer![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 08:05 PM
The controversy isn't about telling an unfortunate truth or unpopular ideas. There's a multitude of reasons why at a public meeting of sex researchers shortly after the publication of "The Man Who Would be Queen," Dr. John Bancroft, then director of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction, said to Dr. Bailey, “Michael, I have read your book, and I do not think it is science" and in its review, Publishers' Weekly said that among other shortcomings of the book, "Bailey tends towards overreaching, unsupported generalizations." Even Alice Dreger herself has said: "I should correct the misperception that I’m a defender of Professor Bailey." (panel discussion on KQED's "Forum" show, Aug. 22, 2007)
First, there's the major problems with Bailey's theoretical basis. There is a huge difference between a classification system and causality (what makes something happen). Bailey relies on the work of Raymond Blanchard, which at best (and this is/has been disputed) shows that the population of male-to-female transsexuals includes the following two groups: those who like to have sex with men, and those who are seen to be aroused by cross-dressing. Blanchard makes a huge leap in asserting that wanting to have sex with men or some sort of autoeroticism is the cause of transsexualism in these two groups. In the 20 some years since Blanchard started with this classification system, no one has replicated his work, a key part of the scientific process. In fact, Prof. Joan Roughgarden, Professor of Biological Science at Stanford University, author of "Evolution’s Rainbow," concluded: "if you go back to Blanchard’s 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." (panel discussion on KQED's "Forum" show, Aug. 22, 2007) Perhaps this is part of the reason why prior to Bailey's book, Blanchard was only of interest to a few people at all and even specialists in transsexuality rarely cited his work.
Bailey asserts these are the two -- and only two -- causes of MTF transsexualism -- and that if you say that your life experience doesn't match these models, you're lying. Which needless to say, makes Bailey's theory un-disproveable -- taking it out of the realm of the "scientific," despite Bailey's repeated assertions in TMWWBQ and elsewhere about the scientific nature of his inquiry. For example, the book's subtitle is "The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism" and it's inside jacket promises "Based on his original research, Bailey's book is firmly in the scientific method."
Then there's the shoddy nature of Bailey's "field research" for the book, which in its entirety consisted of talking to a handful of transsexuals at a local bar, and the startling conclusions Bailey reached based on that. To make an analogy, imagine a researcher who:
- drew conclusions about the entire population of black women based on a half-dozen women he met while "cruising" a local bar (Pg. 141 of "The Man Who Would Be Queen") (because he didn't know how to locate other black women, despite the presence of several organization for black women) and based on that sampling
- argued that white women "aspire (with some success) to be presentable, while [black women] aspire (with equivalent success) to be objects of desire" (Pg. 180)
- argued black women "tend to have a short time horizon with certain pleasure in the present being worth great risks for the future" (Pg. 184)
- argued that black women "might be especially well suited to prostitution" (Pg. 185)
- argued the black women are "especially motivated" to shoplifting (Pg. 185)
- argued those who were black women "are much better looking than most" of those who aren't, and that he can tell the difference between light-skinned black women and dark-skinned white women based on whether he found them attractive (Pgs 141-142, 180-182)
I doubt we'd be debating whether those findings were politically incorrect and recognize the junk science for what it was.
The general public doesn't see the slight of hand that converts a questionable taxonomy into an non-scientific opinion about a reason why. Nor the slight of hand that takes what is at most, anecdotes from a highly non-random sample, and turns them into assertions about an entire population.
Frankly, some transsexual advocates have hurt the case for the many justifiable criticisms of Bailey's work by their over-zealous behavior. I think some of the personal attacks on Bailey were far out of line and I'm not going to defend them. But I hope one might see how assertions such as the ones above, might be enraging to a population that already is marginalized and discriminated against. People whose lives are affected by a book that says that the story they've been telling about themselves is a lie, and that asserts that they are especially suited to criminal activity, have clear reason to be concerned. They're right in thinking "with friends like Bailey, who needs enemies?" Especially when Bailey continues to make statements such as transsexuals are "better suited than genetic women are" for prostitution (panel discussion on KQED's "Forum" show, Aug. 22, 2007) and gives the general public "scientific" tools like the following:
[quote]
I have devised a set of rules that should work even for the novice (though admittedly, I have not tested them). Start at zero. Ask each question, and if the answer is "Yes," add the number (+1 or -1) next to the question. If the sum gets to +3, stop; the transsexual you're talking to is autogynephiliac. If the sum gets to -3, she is homosexual.
+1 Have you ever been married to a woman?
+1 As a child, did people think you were about as masculine as other boys?
+1 Are you nearly attracted to women as to men? Or more attracted to women? Or equally uninterested in both? (Add 1 if "Yes to any of these.)
+1 Were you over the age of 40 when you began to live full time as a woman?
+1 Have you worn women's clothing in private, and, during at least three of those times, become so sexually aroused that you masturbated?
+1 Have you ever been in the military or worked as a policeman or truck driver, or been a computer programmers, businessman, lawyer, scientist, engineer or physcian?
-1 Is you ideal partner a straight man?
-1 As a child, did people think you were an unusually feminine boy?
-1 Does this describe you: "I find the idea of having sex with men very sexually exciting, but the idea of having sex with women is not at all appealing?"
-1 Were you under the age of 25 when you began to live full time as a women?
-1 Do you like to look at pictures of really muscular men with their shirts off?
-1 Have you worked as a hairstylist, beautician, female impersonator, lingerie model, or prostitute?
Finally, if the person has been on hormones for at least six months, ask yourself this question:
If you didn't already know that this person was a transsexual, would you still have suspected that she was not a natural-born women?
+1 if you answer is "Yes" (if you would have suspected)
-1 if your answer is "No"
Keep in mind that people don't always tell the truth. This interview could be invalid if the transsexual is really autogynephiliac, but is either (a) worried that you will think badly of her or deny her a sex change if you know the truth, or (b) obsessed with being a "real" woman. (Pgs 192-194)
[/quote]
Posted by: Marlena Dahlstrom![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 08:10 PM
But in response to the attack on Alice Dreger, when she started working on a book about this and other controversies last year, she (claimed she) was prone to believing the personal accusations about Bailey (e.g., ethics violations) but decided over the course of the research that they were baseless.
Dreger has encountered a lot of criticism in the intersexed community for doing some of the same things the trans community is criticising Bailey for:
http://www.intersexualite.org/AliceDreger.html
And while you and Dreger may believe the charges to be baseless, even Dreger had to acknowledge that Northwestern found at least some of them to have merit and took some sort of action, but refused to say what it was.
But I thought the way this guy was treated had a lot of interesting parallels to what we've seen with harassment of feminist bloggers lately, just with a 180 on the person's ideology.
I haven't seen any feminist blogger insist that whole populations are made up of either prostitutes or lying perverts. Dreger also conspicuously fails to note that the "obscene" captions Andrea James put under pictures of his children were taken from his book. She was wrong to bring his kids into it, and she's apologized, but the fact that Bailey would insist that his language was "sympathetic" to use to describe transwomen and then turn around and say it was "obscene" to apply to nontranssexuals speaks volumes about his utter contempt for transwomen.
"scientifically flawed", etc. etc. etc. Enough already. The bottom line is that the only people who buy these recycled arguements are those who already do not like him or Blanchard. I mean your preaching to the chior here. To make real progress you need to gather scientific and incontrovertible evidence that BBL theory is wrong.
The "choir" would happen to include WPATH, Walter Bockting, Milton Diamond, etc. etc. i.e. the majority of actual experts who work with transwomen. If Blanchard's theory isn't supported by the data, then we shouldn't accept it. Blanchard's theory does not deserve special status as the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is "we don't know."
There are those of us who are not offended by BBL theory. I mean, so what, we are sexual beings and should not pretend that sexuality has nothing to do with our lives. I think that the sexual part of my transsexuality is explained quite suscintly by Dr. Blanchards theory. I admit it, I like men but not gay men, I pass easily as a woman and when I just go with that things are easier for me. I would be a liar if I did not admit that played a role. Like if my chaging sex would make it impossible for me to attract anybody ever again I would not stay this way.
The issue is not that some people may fit Blanchard's model to some degree (although I've yet to come across anyone who completely fits either type, including you with what Bailey calls your "hallmarks of autogynephilia" I noted earlier). You're also setting up a false dichotomy with the idea that claiming Blanchard's model does not describe one is somehow equivalent to denying having a sex drive. I got SRS because, to put it bluntly, the sexual options for chicks with dicks are limited and unattractive. That doesn't make me an uber-homosexual or a narcissistic fetishist.
I think that the sexual part of my transsexuality is explained quite suscintly by Dr. Blanchards theory.
But the rest of us don't think it explains our transsexuality. Bailey calls you "honest and open" for agreeing with him while the rest of us are lying or deluded for not agreeing with him. Whatever MRI scans you might like to perform in the future, the fact remains that at the present time he has no justification for his constant accusations of lying. If you found something that's meaningful for you, great, but as long as the Blanchards and Baileys of the world insist on trying to drag the rest of us along as well, there's going to be a problem.
Needless to say what I present you with is a challenge. Convince me and those like me that BBL theory is wrong. I can be convinced.
How about we start with your attempt to address the methodological flaws I pointed out in Blanchard's TS typology studies earlier?
My mind can be changed again if I see some real evidence.
Blanchard's model is that all of us are either one or the other of two strictly defined categories, with no exceptions and nothing in between. Calpernia Addams was in the military (AG) then worked as a showgirl (homosexual) so which is she? Lynn Conway attempted transition in her late teens, self medicating her hormones and dating men (homosexual) but after being threatened with institutionalization (the 50s) tried very hard for years to fit in as a man, even going so far as to marry and have kids (AG) before transitioning. Which type is she?
There needs to be a real resolution to this problem not more invective.
The real resolution is that the trend in trans healthcare is very much away from the control-based approach advocated by Blanchard and pals, and that will only continue. The majority already rejects his typology and that will only continue. This isn't about who's going to "win," it's about how many people will get hurt before these people are finally left behind for good.
Oh, and fun fact about Archives of Sexual Behavior: Blanchard and Bailey both sit on the editorial board, along with several of Blanchard's other colleagues from his clinic. The editor of a supposedly scientific journal solicited yellow journalism to defend one of the journal's own editorial board members. Nothing wrong with that, I'm sure. No doubt the peer review process was quite rigorous.
Posted by: Boo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 08:45 PM
Bailey has not yet responded to my existance. More to the point, Julia and many authors have offered glimpse of themselves in print. There are a lot of us who don't neatly fit into one of Blanchard's two groups.
Bailey never appropriately addresses this. The best he's done is to imply that we're liars. I'm a younger transitioner. I'm not lying about my lesbianism-- trust me on this one. My very existance, in and of itself creates a problem for Blanchard's typology, and in the overall scheme of things I'm not particularly unique. And again, some people (Julia, for instance) have pointed this out in easy-to-find books.
Of course, I suppose I could allow Bailey to hook electrodes up to genitals while he shows me pornographic vidoes (one of his research techniques), but:
1) These methods are about as scientifically reliable as phrenology (they're not).
-and-
2) I'm a lesbian. I didn't transition just to get a vagina, and I certainly didn't transition so I could have sex with men.
Posted by: eastsidekate![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2007 10:19 PM
That was not my intent. My intent was to point out that you are likely to come to the conclusion that young trans women are "homosexuals" who primarily work as sex workers if you select your sample from places frequented primarily by gay men and/or sex workers.
Posted by: Elise![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2007 02:30 AM
There are certainly documented cases in which he did do that, whether or not he did it in your case.
Posted by: Elise![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2007 02:33 AM
There's another gaping hole in Blanchard's unfalsifiable "theory": it assumes that the timing of transition is based on some inherent characteristic in the trans woman, as if there were not plenty of other factors (lack of financial resources, hostile environment, fear, no appropriate health care provider nearby) that could cause someone to transition sooner rather than later.
Thus, a trans woman who is dying to transition at age 20 (therefore a "homosexual" trans woman, who is attracted to men by definition), but quickly decides to wait, after realising that the small fundamentalist community in which she lives would ride her out on a rail if she tried to transition, and ends up finding the strength and opportunity to transition only 15-20 years later in her life will, by Blanchardian alchemy, suddenly morph into an "autogynaephilic" trans woman simply because she is now older and her body has become more masculinised with time (thus meeting Bailey's "less attractive" criterion).
Since this "theory" brooks no contradiction if you don't conform to these categories in some way, you're "lying" the fact that this hypothetical woman was attracted to men all her life will not prevent the transformation.
Posted by: Elise![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2007 02:45 AM
And particularly damning, given the power dynamic inherent in much of the research done by people acting or posing as gatekeepers. The attitude that still exists amongst many is that a trans person must conform to the gatekeeper's preferred stereotypes (sometimes going to ridiculous lengths) or risk being denied treatment thatperson desperately needs. Given that lopsided dynamic, it seems reasonable to assume that the only way Blanchard could feel confirmed in his beliefs was that his research subjects knew that the only way to get what they needed was to humour him.
Posted by: Elise![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2007 02:54 AM
In the 20 some years since Blanchard started with this classification system, no one has replicated his work, a key part of the scientific process. That is false read this.
Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance
Yolanda L.S. Smith a, Stephanie H.M. van Goozen a,b, A.J. Kuiper c,d,
Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis a,c,*
http://akikos-planet.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/files/psychiatry_research__transsexual_subtypes_clinical_and_theoretical_significance.pdf
Abstract
The present study was designed to investigate whether transsexuals can be validly subdivided into subtypes on the basis of sexual orientation, and whether differences between subtypes of transsexuals are similar for male-to-female (MF) and female-to-male transsexuals (FMs). Within a large transsexual sample (n = 187), homosexual and nonhomosexual subjects were compared on a number of characteristics before the start of treatment. Differences within MF and FM groups were also investigated. Homosexual transsexuals were found to be younger when applying for sex reassignment, reported a stronger cross-gender identity in childhood, had a more convincing cross-gender appearance, and functioned psychologically better than nonhomosexual transsexuals. Moreover, a lower percentage of the homosexual transsexuals reported being (or having been) married and sexually aroused while cross-dressing. The pattern of findings was different for MFs and FMs. No differences between homosexuals and nonhomosexuals were found in height, weight, or body mass index. A distinction between subtypes of transsexuals on the basis of sexual orientation seems theoretically and clinically meaningful. The results support the notion that in the two groups different factors influence the decision to apply for sex reassignment. The more vulnerable nonhomosexual transsexuals may particularly benefit from additional professional guidance before and/or during treatment. D 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Which supports some of what Blanchard said.
Blanchard's model is that all of us are either one or the other of two strictly defined categories, with no exceptions and nothing in between. Calpernia Addams was in the military (AG) then worked as a showgirl (homosexual) so which is she? Lynn Conway attempted transition in her late teens, self medicating her hormones and dating men (homosexual) but after being threatened with institutionalization (the 50s) tried very hard for years to fit in as a man, even going so far as to marry and have kids (AG) before transitioning. Which type is she?
:-? :-? I really do not like to classify people. It causes people to become offended. The question below has been posed in such a way that I must respond.
Here is the answer to that.
One source of confusion in this theory is that people took the list that Dr.Bailey put in his book and did not read the part about it being a cumulative sum over the persons history. They read it as an all or nothing thing. Like if you have one indicator of AGP is the usual mistake. Any one of those points alone means nothing. That's like judging a person only by one solitary act.
Sure Dr. Conway was married at one time. However, the balance of her life has been typical of the life of a homosexual transsexual. Ms. Adams was in the millitary but the balance of her life has been the life of a homosexual transsexual. Diedre McClosky's life, for contrast, from reading her biography everything about her points to her being autogynephilic. Not just one thing but detail after detail. By comparison
As for myself my biography is here ( http://www.geocities.com/hontasfx/why.html ). Looking at it and going by the test in TMWWBQ. In the order of the questions as written in a comment above No, no, no, no, no, yes I am a scientist (+1), yes straight men please (-1),yes see my bio (-1), yes in fact I may be who he is quoting there (-1), no I was exactly 25 when I finally transioned, yes (-1), yes I have worked as one of those things(-1) totals up to -4. So I would be a homosexual transsexual from that test.
So you see it's not confusing if you really take the time to understand it.
What can be disputed and tested is the existance of two types of transsexual and if the different types have different motivations. The problem with every test for two types done so far is that they have relied on peoples self reports of their sexual histories, and to some extent on the subjective ideas of researchers and others (i.e. in Smith's study one source of data was having various employees of the clinic she worked at rate the attractiveness of various reserach subjects).
The method I keep refering to whereby a persons orientation is determined from their brain activity (by comparing their reactions as sense by an MRI to homosexual men and women and heterosexual men and women) would eliminate that problem and do so without the flaws inherent in Pleythmoography. As many things can effect bloodflow to the genitals... certain parts of the brain react to sexual stimulus in characteristic ways. (see earlier cited study of homosexual men vs het women and straight men) It could also be used to test for the usually proclaimed "change of sexual orientation". This would be done by randomly testing supposedly non-homosexual applicants for reassignment before they take hormones and seeing if the way their brains respond changes due to hormones....and a number of other test.
I can't say it enough. An objective, independant, and experimental (not just empirical) test is what will settle this. Not more parroting of Dr. Conway's three year old points (most of which were addressed by the study due to Smith etal). Or insults hurled at anyone who dares to differ from the flock. OR of saying things that are just false. This is a scientific problem and it will only be settled by scientific means.
Posted by: HFarmer![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2007 09:58 AM
Ah, another person like Julie Bindel in the UK who likes to spout theories that can only be substantiated by considerable attention to pre-selecting their date.
As a transwoman, I deeply resent people mis-representing my life when it is quite obvious, to me at least, that they haven't got a flipping clue what they're talking about.
Posted by: Helen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2007 10:06 AM
Pre slecting? I wrote "This would be done by randomly testing supposedly non-homosexual applicants for reassignment before they take hormones and seeing if the way their brains respond changes due to hormones....and a number of other test."
Basically I am proposing to have the methods of psychology used to sort into HS or AG...tested using neurology. If the neurological results from the MRI's contradicts the predictions made using BBL theory that would be a disproval of BBL theory.
YOU CANT JUST SAY THEY HAVE NO IDEA YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PROVE THEM WRONG. PRIVILLAGED ENGLISHMAN, THE WORLD DOES NOT HOP TO YOUR BEAT BECAUSE YOU THINK IT SHOULD.
Posted by: HFarmer![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2007 10:52 AM
Just to make an observation to the cissexual people still following this thread:
In my estimation, there's a lot of projection in the trans community. It's like any other group of people, only perhaps more so, given the fact that being transsexual is ultimately something that has to be primarily self-diagnosed.
So.... I tend to see a lot of people trying to claim that all other trans people are just like them. I've seen countless trans women (of all varieties) argue that:
- My personality traits are X, Y, and Z
- My sexuality is A
- My motivations are B
- I've had the following medical treatments/surgeries: C, D, and E
- Therefore, I'm a "true" transsexual. Everyone other "real" transsexual woman has the same characteristics, or is lying (and not "doing" transition appropriately).
It gets really, really tired. There are as many types of transsexuals as there are cissexuals. Seriously.
In the case of Bailey, there are transsexual women who fit his theories. Absolutely. Nobody's arguing with that point. However, I think that many Bailey's defenders within the trans community are guilty of this sort of project-- "Wow, Bailey explains everything about me! It's liberating to know that I'm really transsexual, and know how I fit into the world. Everyone who's arguing with me clearly has had the exact same experiences as me, and is missing the point."
It allows one to be blind to a lot of really remarkable stuff.
Sorry to be blunt, but seriously.
Oh, and I'm still young and lesbian. Nobody's explained that yet.
Posted by: eastsidekate![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2007 11:25 AM
Hi Boo/Hfarmer/Eastsidekate,
So... I don't much yet about the actual evidence. Certainly from clinical videotaped interviews I've seen, some transexual individuals fit his categorization.
Ultimately, though, I'm assuming the binary distinction has to be wrong. When is psychology so simple that a person can be classified as A or B? That seems pretty rare.
So my question is more: How right or wrong is he? For example, do you think 10%, 50%, 90% of transexual individuals fit that classification?
If you think many don't fit the classification, what classification system do you think would be more useful to clinicians?
I really don't know much about it, but am interested in your opinions.
Posted by: UCLAbodyimage![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2007 11:47 AM
Quote: PRIVILLAGED ENGLISHMAN, THE WORLD DOES NOT HOP TO YOUR BEAT BECAUSE YOU THINK IT SHOULD
By denying me a status of female in calling me (english)man, you are inadvertantly revealing a transphobic motivation to your comments on this thread.
Then, by attempting to use my nationality against me, indeed suggesting that I assume a privilege from it, you are being, if not racist, then at least, abusively nationalistic. Quite what being english has to do with the transgender experience is beyond me. However I'm prepared to defer to your obvious expertise.
I thought I was commenting on the subject at the top of the thread. You respond as if I care about what you have written and am trashing it. I'm not, others have got there long before me and I prefer not to intrude on private grief.
As I inferred, I know why I transitioned but neither Bailey nor bindel seem to have a category for me in their absolutist views. That is proof enough for me to understand that,
by making grandiose claims for completist theories, they are mis-representing my life.
And. I. Resent. That.
Posted by: Helen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2007 12:04 PM
UCLA:
I don't have much time to respond, but I'd say that most of the transsexual women I know don't fit Bailey and Blanchard's typology (95%, maybe more...). Of course, most of the trans women I know are of from a limited set (almost all are middle-to-upper class, white, professionals, ranging in age from teens to 70s).
In terms of "replacing" the classification, three quick comments:
1) I don't think you can come up with a useful classification system (any more than you could for non-transsexual women).
2) I don't think it's necessary that clinicians have a classification scheme.
3) Scientists may well be interested in coming up with theories on why transsexualism arises. However, I think any such theory should take into account both biological and social factors-- there probably isn't a single explanation as to why people are trans, nor a simple one.
Best,
Kate
Posted by: eastsidekate![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2007 02:02 PM
Sure Dr. Conway was married at one time. However, the balance of her life has been typical of the life of a homosexual transsexual.
According to an another version of Bailey's Cosmo quiz- sorry, scientific scale, being married automatically makes Conway autogynephilic. Bailey claims that homosexual transsexuals transition because they start out as extremely effeminate little boys and never defeminize. The whole idea of trying to hide one's transsexuality behind the veneer of a hetero life is presented as characteristic of autogynephilia, and Bailey claims his critics are all autogynephiles having a "narcissistic blow" at the thought that they aren't "women trapped in men's bodies." Ask Dr. Bailey, without mentioning any names, if he saw someone who had been married with two kids before transitioning, and claimed to have always had the gender identity of a woman, and was uncertain whether she would make a good looking woman going into transition, but still denied being autogynephilic, what would he think? If Conway had appeared at the Clarke Institute for her second transition attempt, they would mark her as AG and assume she was lying about everything that didn't fit the profile.
Ms. Adams was in the millitary but the balance of her life has been the life of a homosexual transsexual.
According to the same scale, being in the military automatically makes her AG. Her autobiography also does not paint her as extremely effeminate in childhood. It may look nice and neat in a classroom to talk about a strict "type A" and a strict "type B" and nothing in between, but reality just never looks like that.
So I would be a homosexual transsexual from that test.
While virtually all lesbian and bisexual transwomen who transitioned in their teens or twenties would score between 0 and -2.
What can be disputed and tested is the existance of two types of transsexual and if the different types have different motivations. The problem with every test for two types done so far is that they have relied on peoples self reports of their sexual histories, and to some extent on the subjective ideas of researchers and others (i.e. in Smith's study one source of data was having various employees of the clinic she worked at rate the attractiveness of various reserach subjects).
If you're going to discount people's self reports as acceptable data, then Blanchard's theory is unsupported because it has no data and there is currently no reason to accept it. If you're going to count people's self reports as acceptable data, then Blanchard's theory is still unsupported because the data is against it and there is still currently no reason to accept it. What Blanchard and Bailey want to do is count people's self reports as acceptable data if and only if they conform to Blanchard's model. This is what is known, in technical, scientific terms, as "cheating."
YOU CANT JUST SAY THEY HAVE NO IDEA YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PROVE THEM WRONG.
Again, Blanchard's model does not deserve special status as the null hypothesis. As Blanchard and Bailey are claiming their model is correct, it is their responsibility to show that it is. By the standards you have outlined, they have not done so.
So my question is more: How right or wrong is he? For example, do you think 10%, 50%, 90% of transexual individuals fit that classification?
Blanchard's theory of transsexual typology is that all mtf transsexuals who are not attracted to men are attracted to the thought or image of themselves as women. Not some, not even most. All. If there is a single transwoman who does not fit that binary, then they are ipso facto wrong. Many transwomen partially fit either category to differing degrees, but I've yet to come across any transwoman who has claimed either category as an identity who sooner or later will not make statements about herself that contradict the category they chose. #1 Bailey cheerleader and self-proclaimed autogynephile Anne Lawrence claims to have been effeminate in high school despite Bailey's adamance that transwomen of her "type" are always unremarkably masculine until they transition. (To be fair, he also says they lie about their pasts.) A group of self identified homosexual transsexuals have a website called transkids wherein they deny being especially promiscuous or suited to prostitution. (They also have a website, claim to be homosexual, deny being autogynephilic, and claim extreme femininity in childhood without presenting supporting evidence. According to Bailey, those are all "hallmarks of autogynephilia.") What I says is if it speaks to you, great, just don't try to put it on the rest of us, is what I says.
Posted by: Boo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2007 02:12 PM
Part of the reason that this classification system which functions by completely disregarding both the experiences of trans woman and the existence of trans men has been generally rejected is that it doesn't work particularly well with anyone. It conflates gender identity with sexual orientation (and sexual orientation with paraphilia), and takes pre-transition fetishism as the motivator for transition rather than a symbolic expression of the need to transform. And it does all this while creating a rigid system of categories, both of which are demeaning, and dismissing anyone who doesn't fit the categories (which would appear to be most) as a liar. Meanwhile, the sexuality and gender expression of trans women who have completed transition (rather than those just starting, who are disproportionately the focus of research) actually seems to correspond pretty well to the rest of the female population (one wonders if the goal of researchers who start from a position of dismissing the experience of the trans people they supposedly want to study is to prevent any perception of trans people as "just like you and me").
The general rejection of this "theory" is a credit to the field.
The question with any categorisation system, to my mind, is "what purpose does it serve?" Unless there is some significant good done by the use of a categorisation, it's probably better not to have one at all.
Here, the categorisation is one more way in which non-trans people seek to establish interpretive sovereignty over the lives of trans people. This is but one facet with what is wrong with the role of mental health professionals in the transition process: rather than acting to help trans people (e.g., by providing emotional support to ensure a smooth transition in whatever manner the trans person feels is most meaningful), they often position themselves as regulators of transition, who concern themselves primarily with channeling the transition and gender expression of their trans patients into the directions the clinicians most prefer.
In this setting, I think it would take a fundamental overhaul of the role of the clinician in the transition process for there to be any really useful work done at all (though this shift has begun taking place, in research at least). As long as people think that they can reasonably do research on someone who is required to please them in order to get necessary treatment, there will be a lot of chaff to sort through. Indeed, much of the research on trans people seems to suffer from the same fundamental flaws as the early psychoanalytical "research" into women: denying a voice to the person being studied, underlying stereotypical assumptions, and coming from a position of power.
Perhaps, once the culture has shifted away from the tendencies sketched above, there will emerge some categorisation scheme that is scientifically valid and beneficial to trans people. It seems to me a rather small matter compared to the problems that need to be addressed in the clinician population.
My personal feeling is that there's not much point in developing such a taxonomy, and that there won't be such a need to create one once clinicians and researchers reach the point of being able to hear what their trans subjects and patients are telling them rather than imposing their preferred narrative.
Posted by: Elise![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://web.archive.org/web/20080509133637im_/http://feministing.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 25, 2007 02:30 PM
@ helen
The term "Englishman" is like the term "mankind" it includes women.
@UCLAbodyimage
The discrepancy between what I am about to say and what most people here will say boils down to one thing. I recognize that the lack of a perfect fit does not mean that the theory does not fit at all. In my point of view a imperfect fit is as good as a per