Rehashing “The Man Who Would Be Queen”

There is an article that is about Professor J. Michael Bailey book and I think what can be said about Professor Bailey is summed up by,

Bailey might have become an untouchable among transgender activists, but it was clear that evening that he remains on knowledgeable and even friendly terms with the real-life Chicago transgender community, at least in its drag manifestation.

And that is just the point; his entire research is based on the drag community. Dr. Beyer write in an article in the Huffington Post that,

There is little science in the book, and less humanity. The book is an expression of Bailey's salacious interest in the sexuality of trans women, not their humanity. In a remarkable exploration of his personal desires, which he substitutes for data, he fits right in with the Freudians and fetish systematizers who have been marginalized and limited to ever smaller circles in the scientific community. And, remarkably, the author of this review jumps right back into that sensationalistic approach, starting her article with this objectifying comment in the second paragraph: "I stared at her [Sara Andrews] mesmerized, looking for signs that she had once been male." There are images of her "scanty costume" and her "smooth and hairless skin," and she is described as "shy and demure." Language focused on physicality and sexuality, the natural vs. unnatural -- this is the focus of the author and her patron, Professor Bailey. Apparently one needn't have a penis for membership in his crowd.

Bailey’s book right in the beginning says that it is not a scientific study but it is being quote used as if it was a scientific study. His study never went before an Institute Review Board (IRB) which is required for all studies on humans. He didn’t use scientific method, there were no control groups, he didn’t use validated research tools, and he selected only cases that proved his point. In a paper by Alice D. Dreger she says,

Along with accessible, abbreviated accounts of key scientific studies, the book would also feature the author’s hunches, speculations, and personal opinions […]  Thus, TMWWBQ was never envisioned as a work of science in any traditional sense; instead, Bailey viewed the book as his chance to expose to the masses what he saw as the often politically incorrect truth about “feminine males”: boys diagnosable with “gender identity disorder” (GID); surgically feminized, genetic male children; male homosexuals; drag queens; heterosexual male crossdressers; and MTF transsexuals. Bailey also saw the book as an opportunity to make some money; when he was ready to sell the book, he engaged an agent…

However, the book is being used as a scientific study. That is how it is being sold and that is how it is being used by the conservatives.

Dr. Beyer goes on to say,

Allen says the Bailey thesis was controversial in 2003 and is even more controversial now. Now, not really, because while it was controversial then, it is laughable today, held only by this cast of characters increasingly ignored by their colleagues. The two APAs -- the American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations -- and the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and growing numbers of therapists of all schools recognize the biological innateness of gender identity and its manifestations, contrary to her belief that "[t]he medical evidence for a mismatch between brains and bodies is ambiguous." The most recent review was published just last week in Boston. The classic paper on the biological roots of transsexualism, entitled, "Atypical Gender Development," was published nine years ago.

It is time we let Bailey’s book die, but those who oppose us will continue to dredge it up again and continue to defend it despite all the scientific evidence to refute the it.