Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 264593887 by DarlieB (talk) Please do not remove neutral, properly referenced material from articles.
Vanisheduser5965 (talk | contribs)
608 edits
Undid revision 264606350 by Wachholder (talk)These are neither neutral nor are they referenced.
Line 57: Line 57:


<!--A transsexual woman sex worker who was interviewed for his book said that Bailey had sex with her while she was his research subject, which might have amounted to [[sexual exploitation]].<ref name="McCarthyism"/> This became the subject of a sexual misconduct complaint. She has refused to offer details or discuss the accusation, which Bailey has denied.<ref>[http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i17/17a01702.htm "Northwestern U. Psychologist Accused of Having Sex With Research Subject."] [[The Chronicle of Higher Education]], 19 December 2003</ref> According to findings by Dr. Dreger the sexual misconduct allegation came 5 years after the fact and was unsupported by evidence. Dreger says that dated e-mail exchanges between Bailey and his ex-wife demonstrate that Bailey was at the home of his ex-wife looking after their children at the date specified by the accusation.<ref name="carey2007"/> We have evidence that a woman made a claim, but we have no evidence that supports the claim and only unoffical report that provides an alabi, what does this paragraph actually add to the article? I suggest removal.-->
<!--A transsexual woman sex worker who was interviewed for his book said that Bailey had sex with her while she was his research subject, which might have amounted to [[sexual exploitation]].<ref name="McCarthyism"/> This became the subject of a sexual misconduct complaint. She has refused to offer details or discuss the accusation, which Bailey has denied.<ref>[http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i17/17a01702.htm "Northwestern U. Psychologist Accused of Having Sex With Research Subject."] [[The Chronicle of Higher Education]], 19 December 2003</ref> According to findings by Dr. Dreger the sexual misconduct allegation came 5 years after the fact and was unsupported by evidence. Dreger says that dated e-mail exchanges between Bailey and his ex-wife demonstrate that Bailey was at the home of his ex-wife looking after their children at the date specified by the accusation.<ref name="carey2007"/> We have evidence that a woman made a claim, but we have no evidence that supports the claim and only unoffical report that provides an alabi, what does this paragraph actually add to the article? I suggest removal.-->

==Academic freedom==

The controversy surrounding Bailey's book has been cited as an example of infringement of [[Academic freedom|academic]] and [[intellectual freedom]] and [[freedom of speech]] by Northwestern University professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics Alice Dreger<ref>[http://bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/dreger.html Alice Domurat Dreger, PhD] Professor of Clinical Medical Humanities & Bioethics]</ref> who wrote a "history" of the controversy.<ref name="dreger2008"/> According to Dreger in an interview with ''The New York Times'', "What happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field. 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... The bottom line is that they tried to ruin this guy, and they almost succeeded."<ref name="carey2007"/> Bailey called the two years following its publication "the hardest of my life."<ref name="carey2007"/> Twenty-three peer commentaries were published in reaction to Dreger's article in ''Archives of Sexual Behavior''.<ref>''Archives of Sexual Behavior'', volume 37, special section: commentaries on "controversial paper", pp. 422–510.</ref>


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 04:19, 17 January 2009

"The Man Who Would Be Queen"
Controversial dust jacket.
Controversial dust jacket.
AuthorJ. Michael Bailey
CountryUnited States of America
LanguageEnglish
GenrePopular science
PublisherJoseph Henry Press imprint of the National Academies Press
Publication date
2003
Media typePrint (Hardback & ebook PDF
Pages256
ISBNISBN 9780309084185 Parameter error in {{ISBNT}}: invalid character

The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism is a 2003 book by J. Michael Bailey, published by Joseph Henry Press.[1] Bailey reviews evidence that male homosexuality is congenital (a result of heredity and prenatal environment), and he argues for "the accuracy of some stereotypes about gay men."[2] He also reviews evidence for a taxonomy that states there are two forms of transsexualism in males, one that is an extreme type of homosexuality and one that is an expression of a paraphilia known as autogynephilia.

The book caused considerable controversy, and led to a formal investigation by Northwestern University, where Bailey was Chair of the Psychology Department until shortly before the conclusion of the investigation. Northwestern University has stated that his departure from the department chairmanship was not linked to the investigation.[3] Bailey insists that he did nothing wrong and that the criticism of him was motivated by the desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about transsexualism, especially autogynephilia.[4]

Summary

The Man Who Would Be Queen is divided into three sections: The Boy Who Would Be Princess, The Man He Might Become, and Women Who Once Were Boys.

It starts with an anecdote about a child Bailey calls "Danny." Bailey writes of Danny's mother, who has been frustrated by other therapists she has seen about her son's "feminine" behavior: "In spring of 1996 Leslie Ryan came to my Northwestern University office to seek yet another opinion."[5] Bailey discusses psychologist and sexologist Kenneth Zucker's work with boys who have a mental disorder called gender identity disorder (GID). Bailey uses the anecdote about Danny to discuss young boys considered to have GID. This term is used to describe patients who exhibit a large amount of salient gender-atypical behavior such as cross-dressing, boys preferring to play with dolls, identification with female characters in stories or movies. This section also discusses some case studies of men who were, for varying reasons, reassigned to the female sex shortly after their birth, and emphasizes the fact that, despite this, they tended to exhibit typically male characteristics and often a desire to identify as a male.

The second section deals primarily with gay men, including a suggested link between childhood GID and male homosexuality later in life. Bailey discusses whether homosexuality is a congenitally or possibly even genetically related phenomenon. This discussion includes references to Bailey's studies as well as those of neuroscientist Simon LeVay and geneticist Dean Hamer. He also discusses the behavior of gay men and its stereotypically masculine and feminine qualities.

In the third section, Bailey summarized a taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism that was proposed by Ray Blanchard. According to Blanchard, there are two types of male-to-female transsexualism: one is an extreme form of male homosexuality, and the other is motivated by an erotic interest in being female.[6][7][8] Bailey also discusses the process by which transition from male to female occurs.

On the last page of the book, Bailey meets "Danny," who no longer has gender identity disorder.

Controversy

The book elicited both strongly positive and strongly negative responses. Kirkus Reviews concluded: "Despite its provocative title, a scientific yet superbly compassionate exposition."[9] The book received praise from gay sexual behavior scientist Simon LeVay,[9] from sex-differences expert David Buss,[10] and from research psychologist Steven Pinker, who wrote: "With a mixture of science, humanity, and fine writing, J. Michael Bailey illuminates the mysteries of sexual orientation and identity in the best book yet written on the subject. The Man Who Would Be Queen may upset the guardians of political correctness on both the left and the right, but it will be welcomed by intellectually curious people of all sexes and sexual orientations. A truly fascinating book."[11] It also received praise from journalists John Derbyshire,[12] Steve Sailer,[9] Daniel Seligman,[13] and Mark Henderson.[14] For example, conservative commentator John Derbyshire states that matters of sexual eccentricity are "at the very crux of conservative thinking as it has developed in this country across the past half-century," and praises the book for offering "a wealth of fascinating information, carefully gathered by (it seems to me) a conscientious and trustworthy scientific observer."[12]

Some reviews in the LGBT press were positive, such as from writers Ethan Boatner[9] for Lavender Magazine and Duncan Osborne for Out.[15] Those in the transgender community who agreed with Blanchard's taxonomy also reviewed the book positively. Anne Lawrence, a physician and sexologist whose work on autogynephilia is featured in the book, wrote "This is a wonderful book on an important subject,"[9] and autogynephilia support group founder Willow Arune wrote, "Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence and [Blanchard colleague Maxine] Petersen have done more to help transsexuals over years of service than perhaps any other four people in the world."[16]

The public response of the transgender community was almost entirely negative. Among other things, they opposed the book's endorsement of Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism,[17] its publication by the National Academies Press, by whom it was "advertised as science"[18] and marketed as "scientifically accurate,"[19] which they argued was untrue. They also claimed the book exploited children with gender dysphoria.[20] Among those criticizing the book were computer scientist Lynn Conway,[21] biologists Joan Roughgarden[19] and Ben Barres,[22] physician Rebecca Allison,[23] economist Deirdre McCloskey,[24] psychologist Madeline Wyndzen,[25] writers Dallas Denny,[26] Pauline Park,[27] Jamison Green [28] Gwen Smith,[29] and Andrea James,[30] as well as Christine Burns of Press for Change, Karen Gurney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, and Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America.[31]

Negative responses came from outside the transgender community as well. Liza Mundy in the Washington Post wrote, "I got so bored that I began recreationally underlining passages to decide which was the dullest."[32] Psychologist Eli Coleman referred to the book as "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers,"[10] and his colleague, Walter Bockting, wrote that it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community."[33] Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft referred to the book as "not science," later clarifying that "it promoted a very derogatory explanation of transgender identity which most TG people would find extremely hurtful and humiliating….Whether based on science or not we have a responsibility to present scientific ideas, particularly in the public arena, in ways which are not blatantly hurtful. But in addition to that, [Bailey] did not support his analysis in a scientific manner—hence my comment."[10] Psychologist Randi Ettner said of Bailey, "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned."[17]

Originally, the Lambda Literary Foundation nominated the book as a finalist in the transgender award category for 2003. Transpeople immediately protested the nomination and gathered thousands of petition signatures in just a few days. Under pressure from the petition, LLF's judges examined the book more closely, decided that it was transphobic, and removed it from their list of finalists.[34]

Many of Bailey's critics not only attacked his book, but also questioned his integrity. Two of the transwomen in his book and several organizations accused him of several ethical breaches in his work.[35] Bailey has denied that he behaved unethically.[4] According to Dreger,[10] whether federal regulations required professors to obtain formal approval from a university Institutional Review Board (IRB) before interview people was uncertain at the time; Dreger points out that shortly after publication of this book, the US Department of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the Oral History Association and American Historical Association, issued a formal statement that taking oral histories, unstructured interviews (as if for a piece of journalism), collecting anecdotes, and similar free speech activities not intended to lead to scientific generalization do not constitute IRB-qualified research, and were never intended to be covered by clinical research rules.[36]


References

  1. ^ Bailey, J. Michael (2003). The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. Joesph Henry Press, ISBN 978-0309084185
  2. ^ Bailey (2003), p. 76.
  3. ^ Davis, Andrew (December 8, 2004). "Northwestern Sex Researcher Investigated, Results Unknown". Bailey resigned as chairman of the university's psychology department in October, Alan K. Cubbage, a Northwestern spokesman, told the Chronicle. Cubbage added that the change had nothing to do with the investigation. Bailey remains a full professor at the university. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ a b "Academic McCarthyism". Retrieved 2008-07-27. Cite error: The named reference "McCarthyism" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ Bailey (2003), p. 16.
  6. ^ Blanchard, R., Clemmensen, L. J., & Steiner, B. W. (1987). Heterosexual and homosexual gender dysphoria. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 139–152.
  7. ^ Blanchard, R. (1989). The concept of autogynephilia and the typology of male gender dysphoria. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 177, 616–623.
  8. ^ Blanchard, R. (1989). The classification and labelling of nonhomosexual gender dysphorias. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 18, 315–334.
  9. ^ a b c d e The Man Who Would Be Queen via National Academies Press. Retrieved 6 September 2008.
  10. ^ a b c d Dreger AD (2008). "The controversy surrounding "The man who would be queen": a case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the Internet age" (PDF). Arch Sex Behav. 37 (3): 366–421. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1. PMID 18431641. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  11. ^ Pinker, Steven (June 28, 2003). Pages for pleasure. The Guardian
  12. ^ a b Derbyshire, John (June 30, 2003). Lost in the Male. National Review
  13. ^ Seligman, Dan (October 13, 2003). Transsexuals And the Law. Forbes
  14. ^ Henderson, Mark (December 6, 2003). Who’s got the brains in this relationship? The Times
  15. ^ Osborne, Duncan (March 2003). 'The Man Who Would Be Queen' (review). Out, March 2003, Vol. 11 Issue 9, pp. 54-54.
  16. ^ Arune, Willow (2004). I *AM* Arune! Transgender Tapestry 1(85):65–68.
  17. ^ a b Klein, Julie M. (May 2004). Ethical minefields: The sex that would be science. Seed Magazine, May/June 2004 Cite error: The named reference "klein2004" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  18. ^ Krasny, Michael (Aug 22, 2007). Transgender Theories. Forum with Michael Krasny, KQED
  19. ^ a b Roughgarden, Joan (June 4, 2004). Twist In The Tale Of Two Genders. Times Higher Education No.1643; Pg. 20
  20. ^ Carey, Benedict. (2007-08-21.) "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege." New York Times via nytimes.com. Retrieved on 2007-09-19.
  21. ^ Marcus, Jon (August 1, 2003). Transsexuals Protest. Times Higher Education, p. 13
  22. ^ Holden, Constance (July 18, 2003). Transsexuality Treatise Triggers Furor. ScienceNOW/Science (AAAS)
  23. ^ Staff report (June 25, 2003). Trans Group Attacks New Book on 'Queens.' Windy City Times
  24. ^ McCloskey, Deirdre (November 2003). Queer Science: A data-bending psychologist confirms what he already knew about gays and transsexuals. Reason, November 2003
  25. ^ James, Andrea (Fall 2006). A Defining Moment in Our History. Transgender Tapestry, Fall 2006, Issue 110, pp. 18-23.
  26. ^ Denny, Dallas (December 13, 2004). Viewpoint: Why the Bailey Controversy Is Important. Transgender Tapestry #104, Winter 2004
  27. ^ Park, Pauline (May 30, 2003). Sympathy, But Finding Pathology. Gay City News
  28. ^ Green J (2003). Bailey’s wick. PlanetOut
  29. ^ Smith, Gwen (June 13, 2003). Not a man. Southern Voice
  30. ^ Surkan, K (2007). Transsexuals Protest Academic Exploitation. In Lillian Faderman, Yolanda Retter, Horacio Roque Ramírez, eds. Great Events From History: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Events, 1848-2006. pages 111-114. Salem Press ISBN 978-1-58765-263-9
  31. ^ The Ups and Downs of J. Michael Bailey. Transgender Tapestry #104, Winter 2004, pp. 53-54.
  32. ^ Mundy, Liza (March 23, 2003). Codes of Behavior. Washington Post
  33. ^ Bockting, Walter O. (2005). Biological reductionism meets gender diversity in human sexuality. [Review of the book The Man Who Would Be Queen.] Journal of Sex Research, 42, 267-270.
  34. ^ Letellier, Patrick (2004-03-16). "Group rescinds honor for disputed book". gay.com. Retrieved 2007-03-16.
  35. ^ Wilson, Robin. "Transsexual 'Subjects' Complain About Professor's Research Methods." The Chronicle of Higher Education 25 July 2003, Vol. 49, Issue 46. "The book contains numerous observations and reports of interviews with me," C. Anjelica Kieltyka, one of the transsexual women, wrote in a letter this month to C. Bradley Moore, Northwestern's vice president for research. She added: "I did not receive, nor was I asked to sign, an informed-consent document."
  36. ^ Ritchie, Don; Shopes, Linda (2003), Oral History Excluded from IRB Review: Application of the Department of Health and Human Services Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects at 45 CFR Part 46, Subpart A to Oral History Interviewing, Oral History Association, retrieved 31 December 2008. See also An Update on the Exclusion of Oral History from IRB Review (March 2004).

External links

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen&diff=next&oldid=264606350

Leave a Reply