Banner
    Transsexual Smokescreen: Ignoring Science In “The Man Who Would Be Queen”
    By Michael Bailey | September 4th 2007 11:57 PM | 306 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Michael

    I am Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University. I study sexual orientation and related traits such as sex atypicality and gender identity...

    View Michael's Profile
    Both in her recent appearance on KQED’s Forum talk show and in her blog, Stanford University’s Joan Roughgarden continues her campaign to discredit me and my book, The Man Who Would Be Queen.

    Roughgarden’s rate of false accusations per utterance is so high that it is tempting to take the time to refute them one by one to the exclusion of getting around to discussing the science. Indeed, I believe that is the intent of Roughgarden and my other chief critics. If attention is focused on an endless stream of (false and outrageous) allegations made against me as a person, then no one will pay attention to the scientific ideas, presented in my book, that many of my critics wish to keep hidden. That is the purpose of the Big Lie, which can be summarized as follows:

    “No one need pay attention to the theory of transsexualism discussed in Bailey’s book, because the theory has no evidence to support it, except for a handful of unrepresentative transsexual women that Bailey abused (including writing by about them without their consent).”

    Consider one typical instance of Roughgarden’s method. In the KQED program she accuses me of being racist: “…he actually says this in the book on page 183: ‘About 60% of the homosexual transsexuals and drag queens we studied were Latina or Black.’ Latina people ‘might have more transsexual genes than other ethnic groups do.’ Very clearly racist.”

    Here's what my book actually says, on pages 183-184:

    Alma is a 40-year-old Latina homosexual transsexual who got her sex change in her mid-30s — quite late for the homosexual type…

    Alma has also noticed, as I have, the large number of Latina transsexuals. In Chicago, there are several bars that cater to Latina transsexuals. About 60 percent of the homosexual transsexuals and drag queens we studied were Latina or black. The proportion of nonwhite subjects in our studies of ordinary gay men is typically only about 20 percent. Alma says she thinks that Hispanic people might have more transsexual genes than other ethnic groups do. Another transsexual, remarking on the same phenomenon, attributed it to ethnic gender roles: “My culture is very macho and intolerant of femalebehavior in men. It is easier just to become a woman.”

    I am not sure about the validity of all of Alma’s observations, much less her theories....

    (pp.183-184)

    I didn’t make the “racist” statement about transsexual genes being more common among Hispanics; Alma did. Roughgarden made several other major misstatements during the interview.

    Before I spend more time on Roughgarden et al’s campaign of defamation, let me tell you a bit about the ideas that provoked it.

    Why Do Some Men Become Women?


    Canadian scientist Ray Blanchard conducted a number of studies in the 1980s and 1990s supporting his theory that there are two, and only two, distinct kinds of males who decide to become women. (Abstracts of some of Blanchard's relevant articles are available here.)

    Members of one type are best conceived (before they become women) as very feminine homosexual males. They have been extremely and recognizably feminine since early in life. They are exclusively, strongly, and unambiguously sexually attracted to men. In my conversations with transsexuals such as these, they have said that they transitioned because they decided they would function better, socially and sexually, as women than as men. After all, they had always had overtly feminine behavior patterns. Furthermore, homosexual men tend to dislike feminine traits in their sex partners, and thus the sexual prospects of some of these extraordinarily feminine homosexual males are likely to be better as women than as men.

    It is the explanation of the other type of male-to-female transsexual that is virtually unknown outside of contemporary sexology, and I believe that it is this explanation that offends Roughgarden and the leaders in the defamation campaign against me: Lynn Conway, Dierdre McCloskey, and Andrea James. Members of this type are not overtly feminine (at least prior to taking steps to become women), and they are not primarily sexually attracted to men. Rather, they are sexually aroused by the idea of becoming and being women. Members of this subtype, whom Blanchard has called both "nonhomosexual" and "autogynephilic" male-to-female transsexuals, are best conceived as a type of heterosexual male. In their unusual heterosexuality, their primary erotic target, or sex object, is not an actual, external woman, but rather, a woman that is fantasized, and ultimately created inside the self. That is, the primary sexual orientation of autogynephilic males is toward themselves as women. The inward focus of autogynephilic eroticism is usually incomplete, and so most autogynephilic individuals have some sexual attraction for actual women as well. A male-to-female transsexual with a clear history of attraction to women, such as heterosexual marriage, is almost certainly autogynephilic.

    Autogynephilic males typically first manifest their condition during adolescence via erotic cross-dressing, that is by putting on womens' clothing (especially lingerie such as bras and panties) and masturbating. Some restrict their autogynephilic activities to cross-dressing. Others discover that performing certain stereotypic female activities (ranging from knitting to having intercourse with a man) is exciting. Still others discover that it is especially erotic to fantasize about having female anatomical features, such as breasts and a vulva. It is the latter group that is most likely to undergo sex reassignment surgery [i]. This is not to say that autogynephilic feelings are only intensely sexual, any more than heterosexual mens are. Over time, autogynephilia may become less intensely erotic, just as heterosexual men's sexual feelings for their partners often do.

    Blanchard has referred to the general type of inward erotic focus found in autogynephilia as a "target location error" — the erotic target that should be on the outside is somehow misplaced to the inside. There are some other fascinating examples of inwardly-focused erotic targets, and I will write about these in a later blog. (For example, some men become erotically attached to the image of themselves as amputees.)

    It is important to note, again, that in general, autogynephilic transsexuals show little evidence of femininity aside from their autogynephilia-motivated actions. For example, autogynephilic transsexuals often pursue stereotypically male activities and interests such as the military or race car driving. Interestingly, autogynephilia appears to be associated with increased science and mathematical abilities and interests[ii] (and these are correlated with the male sex). Indeed, the prototypic occupation for autogynephilic individuals is computer scientist. Without knowing about autogynephilia, it is difficult to understand why a masculine, apparently heterosexual man who has fathered several children would decide to become a woman.

    The mantra of some male-to-female transsexuals is that they are simply "women trapped in men's bodies." This assertion has some truth for homosexual transsexuals, who are extremely and recognizably feminine (and like most women, attracted to men), but for autogynephilic transsexuals it is not true in any meaningful sense.

    Useful places to learn more about Blanchard's theory and autogynephilia include autogynephilia.org, Anne Lawrence's website, a FAQ I assembled in the early stages of attacks by Roughgarden et al., and transkids.us, a site dedicated to education about, and advocacy for, homosexual transsexuals.

    Roughgarden's Treatment of the Evidence for Autogynephilia


    In her blog Roughgarden actually provides a critique of some relevant scientific studies, so obviously she knows of some of the science. But she provides a (very partial) review of the evidence for Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism. She restricts her comments to data from three studies as available in a powerpoint file used by Blanchard in a conference presentation, ignoring the complete reports of these studies, as well as other relevant studies. Even beyond the partial nature of her review, her dismissal of the evidence she does bother to consider is bizarre and unscholarly. Most strikingly, in the first study she notes that: "About 75% of 63 heterosexual, asexual, or bisexual (HeAB) people [nonhomosexual male gender patients] found wearing womenÕs clothing to be arousing, whereas about 15% of 100 homosexual (HO) people [homosexual male gender patients] did too."

    A difference of 75% versus 15% is huge and important. Roughgarden rejects it as "mixed" presumably because she believes (or wants you to believe) the difference should be 100% versus 0%. However, this is naïve and unrealistic. Both the relevant variables, sexual orientation and admission of erotic arousal to cross-dressing, are measured with error. (For example, in another study not mentioned by Roughgarden, Blanchard showed that men who fit the autogynephilic profile are not always aware of erotic arousal to cross-dressing even when it occurs. Such men would have been wrongly counted in the study Roughgarden reviewed.) This is an elementary point.

    There is overwhelming evidence for the validity of the distinction between homosexual and nonhomosexual (i.e., autogynephilic) male-to-female transsexualism. Roughgarden's unscholarly review cannot hide the evidence.

    My Book


    My book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, is a popularized summary of the best available science regarding male femininity, including transsexualism. The book is about scientific studies, including some scientific studies that I conducted. It was not intended as a scientific study, itself, and this is obvious to most people. The section on transsexualism both reviews some of Blanchard's research and illustrates Blanchard's theories using anecdotes about several transsexual women whom I met over the years.

    In her radio interview, and also in her blog, Roughgarden repeats her accusation that I committed fraud by only "studying" a few transsexuals and basing my conclusions on them. These accusations are clearly false to anyone who has read my book or internationally-respected historian Alice Dreger's accounting of the controversy.

    Soon after my book was published, Lynn Conway of the University of Michigan sent emails to a group of prominent transgender people, including Roughgarden, McCloskey and James, calling my book "transsexual women's worst nightmare" and calling for help in "investigating" and "exposing" me. Shortly afterwards, Roughgarden attempted to have me disinvited as a colloquium speaker at Stanford. When this failed, she wrote an inaccurate account of my talk there. She claims that I was making mean-spirited fun of gender non-conforming children and adults. Any reasonable person who has read my book or seen me speak about this topic knows that I am highly sympathetic toward feminine males and masculine females.

    Lynn Conway and Deirdre McCloskey of the University of Illinois in Chicago eventually persuaded two of the transsexual women I wrote about in my book to file formal charges to my Institutional Review Board that I conducted research without informing them properly. These charges were false (see Dreger's article, pages 38-41). Other false charges include the accusation that I had sex with a "research subject" (see Dreger, pages 41-46), that I made up the story of Danny (the feminine boy featured in the first part of my book; see Dreger, page 50), among other false accusations.

    Why Believe Me?


    If Roughgarden, Conway, and McCloskey insist that Ray Blanchard's ideas have no merit, why should one believe my claim that those ideas are true?

    Firstly and most importantly, I have already noted, albeit briefly, that there is a body of empirical evidence that provides strong evidence for those ideas.

    Secondly, the insistence of many transsexuals whom Blanchard would classify as autogynephilic, that they cannot be explained via his theory, is unconvincing. Take Anjelica Kieltyka, the transwoman I wrote most about in my book. As a non-feminine male, Chuck Kieltyka cross-dressed erotically from adolescence, and then in college he learned that wearing fake breasts and vaginas and watching himself in the mirror simulating sex with a penis (actually a dildo) was immensely erotic. But to this day, Anjelica Kieltyka denies that her transsexualism had anything to do with autogynephilia.

    Blanchard did two relevant studies. In one he measured the sexual arousal (via penile erections) of apparently autogynephilic males who denied ever being sexually aroused to cross-dressing. He showed that on average, they were in fact so aroused. In the other study, he showed that among apparently autogynephilic males, those who denied their autogynephilia scored high on a psychometric test developed to detect the tendency to respond in socially desirable ways. Thus, among the transgendered, denial of autogynephilia is apparently related to the desire to give a good impression. Both of these studies suggest that denial of autogynephilia should not be taken at face value.

    For these reasons, the protestation by some transsexuals that Blanchard's theory does not include them is unconvincing. Although it is possible that another kind of male-to-female transsexual exists, no good evidence exists that this is the case.

    Are Blanchard's Ideas and My Book Bad for Transsexuals?


    Many of my critics, including Roughgarden, would have you believe that transsexuals are only and always harmed by people believing that Blanchard is correct. Obviously, some transsexuals (evidently including Roughgarden, Conway, McCloskey, and James) dislike the ideas conveyed in my book, especially autogynephilia. I did not mean to hurt these, or any, individuals by writing my book. Rather, I meant to write what I believed, and continue to believe, is the truth. That said, I would not have written my book had I believed that it could have only negative consequences for the transgendered.

    In fact, my book has had some clearly good effects. I have received correspondence from many transgender individuals—including some who explicitly identify as autogynephilic—who have thanked me for writing as honestly as I did in my book because it has helped them to know that Blanchard's theory makes sense of their realities, their identities. The excerpt below just came Sunday (I am happy to allow the editor of this site to check the veracity of these emails):

    I have been following with great interest the controversy that has been over your book and I feel it most unfortunate that you have been subject to such invective from many activists. I myself am a transgender person and have been involved with the transgender community in Germany for several years and feel that many of the observations made in your book are - at last anecdotally - quite an accurate portrayal of some- but not all - transsexuals. Also the observation that homosexuals have an effeminate background is true in some cases - but perhaps not all. Describing your book as an affront to transsexuals seems to me to be very far fetched and unfair, indeed your book seemed sympathetic to our cause.

    This came just a few days before:

    I just recently listened to your KQED interview, and wanted to write in support of your position or autogynephilia. I had been keeping up with Ray Blanchard's theory of autogynephilia as I fully support its conclusions and the sexual component toward M2F transitioning.

    I did purchase and read your book a couple years ago and did not find it offensive but rather a step forward toward bringing the sexual component into the transgendered world. I have struggled with my transsexual issues my entire life but due to a past marriage with children, unsupportive parents, and working for a family business I have not found the right time or courage to transition.

    One more, from a couple weeks ago:

    For almost half of my life, I've had (and still have) a lot of questions about my sexual orientation and sexual identity (I'm a heterosexual biological male). A few months ago, I had a fling with a man I met outside of a transsexual strip club. Afterwards in his apartment, I chatted with him about the confusion I had over my own sexual identity. For a sleazy guy I met outside of a house of ill repute, he was remarkably intelligent and empathetic to what I had to say. He recommended that I read your book, The Man who would be Queen. After a lot of bungling and misplaced orders by Borders, I finally got a copy of your book a few weeks ago and read it cover-to-cover in a single sitting. Until I read the section on autogynephilia, no one I'd ever spoken with and nothing I'd ever read had given me such a sense of identity and self-awareness. Everything I had read about transsexualism prior focused on "the woman trapped inside the man", which never really clicked for me. In fact, your characterization was so spot-on that I'm embarrassed to know someone knows so much about the side of me that I keep hidden from the public. I'm an autogynephilic transsexual, and, embarrassment aside, it feels wonderful to know that there are others like me.

    None of Roughgarden, Conway, McCloskey, and James has ever acknowledged the subset of transsexual individuals who are grateful that autogynephilia is being discussed. Furthermore, the best example of a transsexual woman who openly endorses Blanchard's ideas, Dr. Anne Lawrence, was savagely attacked by James, who assembled an ugly website devoting to smearing Lawrence's reputation. Sound familiar?

    I understand that despite the liberating effect Blanchard's ideas have on some transgendered individuals, those ideas present a significant challenge to some others. Reconsidering one's identity — the way one conceives of oneself — can be quite distressing. (When scientists first suggested that the earth is not the center of the universe, or that there is no fundamental difference between Man and other animals, this must have provoked a great deal of discomfort.) I am sympathetic to this distress, but there is simply no excuse for dishonest and vicious personal attacks and disingenuous discussions of science.

    It is not uncommon for autogynephilic individuals to feel great shame (not unlike the great shame tragically felt by so many homosexual individuals). I find such shame to be unfortunate and unnecessary. As a sexual orientation, autogynephilia may be difficult to understand, but it need harm no one. To me, the most obvious harm occurs when an autogynephilic individual becomes a husband and father and the family then dissolves when he decides to become a woman. Helping to acknowledge autogynephilia earlier in life may help to prevent more trans women from unintentionally ending up in this situation. Shame about autogynephilia can only be intensified by continuing to deny its existence and by acting as if anyone who brings it up is trying to damage transgendered people. As I wrote in my book: True acceptance of the transgendered requires that we truly understand who they are.



    (i) Blanchard, R. (1993). Varieties of autogynephilia and their relationship to gender dysphoria. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 241-251.

    (ii) Laub, D. R., & Fisk, N. M. (1974). Arehabilitation program for gender dysphoria syndrome by surgical sex change. Plasticand Reconstructive Surgery, 53, 388-403.

    Comments

    barres
    This latest response from Bailey is interesting because his entire focus is insisting on the existence of autogynephilia, which actually does not address any of the major concerns that have been raised. To my knowledge no one has ever denied that some transgendered people (and many non-transgendered people) are aroused by cross-dressing. The concerns that have not been adequately addressed are the serious bigotry embedded throughout his book (e.g. that transgendered people are shop lifters and especially suited to be prostitutes), the very poor quality of the "science" he refers to in his book, the questions about Bailey's credentials to be practicing clinical psychology without a license (which means he has not done the intensive one year of clinical training/exposure to real patients), the allegations about sleeping with a subject (whether he was doing research on her or just interviewing her for a book), informed consent issues, the hideous outing of one of the main characters in the book, and the misrepresentations (for instance portraying one of the major examples in the book as transgendered when in fact she was intersexed).

    In my opinion, Bailey's book covered information about transsexuality in the most bigotted, sensationalist, insensitive, misleading, and humiliating way possible, utterly denying transgendered people the respect and dignity they are due as human beings. And now Bailey is comparing us to amputee fetishers. With friends like him, who needs enemies.

    Ben Barres
    Professor of Neurobiology and Neurology
    Stanford University

    jmichaelbailey
    Professor Barres continues to make the same false accusations that Roughgarden made, and which are refuted in material linked in my article. I hope that even he would agree with me in urging anyone who is curious about all this to read both my book and Alice Dreger's scholarly article about the controversy it provoked. Links in my article. J. Michael Bailey Professor
    J. Michael Bailey Professor
    andrea
    Exactly. To deny the existence of autogynephilia would be to commit the same sort of disrespect that we're all complaining that Bailey does, since there certainly are people who self-describe that way. My objection to Bailey's book is partly to the disrespect for trans people's identities, such as describing straight trans women as "homosexual transsexuals" and partly to the propagation of the rather derogatory stereotypes you refer to on the basis of a tiny and rather distinctly biased sample. Bailey finds "About 60 percent of the homosexual [sic] transsexuals and drag queens we studied were Latina or black." If you looked at a support group I know of here in Seattle, you'd find mostly thirty- or forty-something white trans women, with young trans women such as myself, non-white trans people and trans men all being single digit minorities. If you sampled the conference that was in town last weekend, you'd find about 90% twenty-something white trans men. I could point to either of the samples I've mentioned and claim that shoplifting and prostitution are quite rare among trans people, regardless of gender or orientation, but I'd have no more justification for that claim than Bailey does for his. Surely one can't reasonably make claims about trans demographics or the frequency of behaviors such as shoplifting or prostitution from any of these samples. Most strongly though, I object to the claim that the classification of trans women into two types, "homosexual [sic]" and autogynephilic is exhaustive, which is rendered unfalsifiable by the accusation that any trans woman who isn't exclusively androphilic and who denies being autogynephilic must be lying about it. According to this theory, I and most of the trans women I know either do not exist or are just making it up. Consider the set of rules for classifying trans women from Bailey's book:
    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.
    Notice how you're supposed to stop as soon as you get to +3 or -3, rather than continuing to the end of the test, and all the autogynephilia questions come first, so the test has a built-in bias toward classifying people with traits from both groups as autogynephilic. Anyway, I'm going to see how I do on this test. To start off with, my score is 0:
    +1 Have you ever been married to a woman?
    No, I didn't even so much as have a first date until I was almost 21. Playing the male role in that context was extremely uncomfortable for me, and according to people who knew me then I was quite unconvincing at it. In any case, I was on the verge of coming out as trans less than a year into my one and only pre-transition relationship (with a bisexual cisgendered woman who was rather distinctly "butchier" than I've ever been), got scared and ran away from it for a few months, had a nervous breakdown because of it and came very close to suicide, and then came out and transitioned at age 22. My score is still 0.
    +1 As a child, did people think you were about as masculine as other boys?
    Some of my earliest memories include getting my mother to teach me how to apply lipstick at age 3 and pretending to be Penny from the Inspector Gadget cartoon at age 4. I didn't have much of a social life as a kid, but all of the early playmates I can recall were girls. I'd say that's a no. My score is still 0.
    +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.)
    I'm lesbian-identified. Functional male genitals bother me almost as much on my partners as on myself, and I'm usually more attracted to feminine to androgynous personalities, but exceptions exist in both cases. My current primary partner is a trans woman, and she hadn't started hormones yet when we met, and I'm sometimes attracted to trans men. I suppose cisgendered men are the only partners I categorically rule out. That's a yes. My score is now +1.
    +1 Were you over the age of 40 when you began to live full time as a woman?
    No, I was 22. See my answer above. My score is still +1.
    +1 Have you worn women's clothing in private, and, during at least three of those times, become so sexually aroused that you masturbated?
    No. I have no history of fetishizing my own female identity either before or after transition. My score is still +1.
    +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 physician?
    I'm a computer programmer. My score is now +2.
    -1 Is you ideal partner a straight man?
    No, I'm a lesbian. My score is still +2.
    -1 As a child, did people think you were an unusually feminine boy?
    Yes, see above. As far as I can tell, I was perceived as unusually feminine throughout my life before I transitioned. When I did, I found it quite a bit easier to pass as female than as male. At least two people I knew before transition had apparently thought I was biologically female and just dressing butch, and one other friend had once told me quite directly (about seven months before I came out), "I've figured out what's so weird about you. You're actually a lesbian." My score is now +1.
    -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?"
    No, I'm lesbian-identified, and my sex drive seems to respond much more strongly to feeling connected to a specific individual than to broad categories like this. My score is still +1.
    -1 Were you under the age of 25 when you began to live full time as a women?
    Yes, I was 22. My score is now 0.
    -1 Do you like to look at pictures of really muscular men with their shirts off?
    No. I'm generally not physically attracted to men, and my sex drive doesn't respond very strongly to visual stimuli in any case. My score is still 0.
    -1 Have you worked as a hairstylist, beautician, female impersonator, lingerie model, or prostitute?
    No, my score is still 0.
    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"
    This one's rather hard to self-evaluate honestly, but then, it's also rather obviously bias-prone when evaluated by someone who already does know that the subject being evaluated is trans. I'll take the fact that, as far as I can tell, no one at work has any idea about me as evidence in favor of a no. My final score is now -1, and at no point did it ever reach +3 or -3, so it looks like Bailey's test fails to classify me as either "homosexual [sic]" or autogynephilic. I guess I just don't exist. Well, I suppose a lesbian I actually am a homosexual trans woman, but that's certainly not how Bailey meant it. <sarcasm>Wait! I confess! I've been lying all along! I just pretend not to fetishize my own gender identity, but I secretly go home every night, dress up in fetish wear and lingerie and masturbate with the organs I only pretend to hate the sight of!</sarcasm> That's what is really wrong with Bailey's theory; it fails to describe the experience of a large group of trans women, including myself and most of the other trans women I know, and covers for this failure by accusing us of lying and claiming that we're really just men with a weird fetish, thus invoking some very deep rooted negative cultural attitudes toward fetishism or any other non-heteronormative sexual behavior against us, while simultaneously denying the validity of our identity as women. This, coming in the context of a long, long history of gatekeeperism, presents a distinct threat of providing intellectual support for those who would disrespect our morphological freedom by denying us access to hormones and surgery, and also of encouraging cultural attitudes which undermine respect for our identities as women, which have the effect that in many social contexts only those of us who are lucky enough to pass flawlessly will be able to be widely accepted in a gender role that is comfortable for us. Andrea
    Andrea
    Jean-Pierre
    An inquiry into the “Queer Science” and history of the Bailey Controversy on behalf of the Organisation Intersex International Edited by Curtis E. Hinkle Background: Alice Dreger has written an article on the controversy that ensued after J Michael Bailey published a book on transsexualism and male femininity. Alice Dreger is a professor at the same university, Northwestern, which did an investigation that left still unresolved the charges that Anjelica Kieltyka and other women portrayed in the book brought against the author, also a professor at Northwestern University. I, Curtis E. Hinkle, have been working with Anjelica to reveal the truth and expose the obfuscation of facts and continued abuse and neglect of some very vulnerable women used as unprecedented case studies without their expressed informed consent. As a result, I have all the transcripts of Anjelica’s interviews with Dreger and all the documentation on Lynn Conway’s website, two of the main sources for Dreger’s article. After reading Dreger’s article, it is obvious that it is biased and not based on the actual documentation that she cites. Academics who are interested in serious academic discourse and ethical treatment of vulnerable case studies and/or research subjects are negligent by not demanding serious questions concerning this unprecedented abuse which is once again being perpetrated against Anjelica and the other women in the book. If the academic community does not ask serious questions and demand high ethical standards of other academics, the damage that this will do to freedom of speech and ethics in academia could be irreparable. To read the full report, cut and past the following address: http://www.intersexualite.org/Dreger_Bailey.html
    barres
    Yes, I encourage readers to judge for themselves what is false and what is true. One of my most serious concerns is Professor Bailey's insistence in his book that many transgendered people are best suited for work as prostitutes. I had hoped that in the past 3 years he might have had the opportunity to reconsider this, and so I asked him on the recent Kqed forum show whether he still believed this. He again insisted that this was true (which can be confirmed by listening to the I-Tunes podcast of this show). I was stunned at his failure to apologize or correct this claim. I focus on this example, because his insistence on transgendered people being especially suited to be prostitutes are so unfair and bigoted that it calls into question his judgements on pretty much everything else. This is an example of just one of the great "truths" that Bailey is pronouncing. Here in the Bay Area there is an atmosphere of respect for different peoples including LGBT peoples. I have young incredibly (incredibly) talented undergraduate students, medical students, and postdoctoral fellows in my office nearly every week telling me of their fears that if they are open about who they are (gay or transgendered) that their careers will be harmed irreparably (none of them are prostitutes by the way). I wish that I did not have to spend so much time speaking out against bigotry, and could just focus on my research, but as long as there is a breath in my body, I will fight so that these young people will not have to be subjected to this sort of abuse and can have the same legal rights, respect and human dignity that are accorded to everyone else. Ben Barres
    Hank
    Hi Ben,

    I think we all agree that discrimination is a bad thing and it's terrific that you fight for tolerance but what about the science aspects of this?

    As a layman, I get that psychology is a work in progress, but so is biology. We've mapped the entire genome and no one can pinpoint what makes a person's eyes blue, for example. So we have to give the field of psychology some credit for trying to map a lot of unknown territory.

    "X is wrong therefore all of it is wrong" isn't very good logic, I think. I am inclined to assume most people, you, me, Bailey, Seth, Joan, etc. are not bigots if we take an unpopular stance based on data we might believe. That's the essence of science integrity, really.

    So if the data is wrong ( I have no way to know - though every one of us took a personality survey when we were kids and it told us what career would be best and none of the choices were 'prostitute') does it mean the entire book is wrong?

    barres
    Dear Hank, There is no peer-reviewed data or science that shows that transgendered people are especially suited to be prostitutes or are more likely to be shop lifters than the general population. It is often difficult for advantaged people who are not the recipient of such slurs as occur throughout Bailey's book to appreciate how threatening and false they are. The only reason he can get away with some of them is because transgendered people are so oppressed. Let's take his claim that many transgendered people are especially suited to be prostitutes. His logic was clearly stated on the Kqed Forum show: Men and gay men really enjoy sex. Transsexuals are like gay men. Therefore transsexuals are especially suited to be prostitutes. What? What does enjoying sex have to do with being a prostitute??? If men have lots of sex that makes them real males, whereas when women like sex they are sluts. If that's not offensive, I don't know what is. Here are some of the reasons why calling transgendered people especially suited to be prostitutes is bigoted and so deeply offensive to transgendered people: 1) Because it is totally false. 2) Because there is no worse slur used to insult people. 3) Because women or transgendered women who enjoy sex are labeled as sluts, whereas men and gay men are not. 4) Because it implies that the motivation for sex change has to do with sex desires rather than gender identity. 5) Because the view that prostitutes especially like sex serves the fantasy need of the John's who exploit them. 6) Because as a result of their oppression, transgendered people have often been forced to survive by prostitution. 7) Because by defaming transgendered people like this, it sustains their oppression. 8) Because there is a history of calling other oppressed people by the same or similar slurs. 9) Gay and transgenderd people that are forced into prostitution to survive have very high rates of HIV infection and mortality. 10) Because it is totally false. You cannot characterize a group of people as especially suited to be prostitutes (however you qualify it, e.g.compared to women) and expect not to be treated as a plain old fashioned bigot. All I really was doing on the Kqed show was giving him the chance to make a simple apology. I was stunned that he failed to do so. When professors categorize whole groups of people as especially suited to be prostitutes under the guise of high quality science, this is not responsible free speech as it powerfully further oppresses these people. It's always people in the advantaged groups who defend bigotry, which maintains their priviledges at the expense of others. Ben Barres
    mbmiller
    Ben Barres lies again. Ben-- All of your deceptive claims about Bailey's ideas and statements make one thing perfectly clear to me: Everyone needs to read Bailey's book if they want to know what it says. You are not a trustworthy source. The book can be ordered or downloaded from links on Michael Bailey's web page here: http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/book.html Also available on that page is a link to Bailey's discussion of the so-called "controversy" about his book (is it a controversy if many of those partaking in it are lying?). Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hmm Look at it from another viewpoint. If someone went to a bar near the University of Minnesota, studied the racial characteristics and sexual attractiveness of the students, asked lots of questions about thier sex lives, had a few conversations over a few drinks, and then said "Students at the University of Minnesota are especially suited to or for prostitution". In a book which is described as science and then popular science when the "Science" tag is challeneged. What would you think? And if as a Professor at that university you said: "This is wrong" and you were branded a liar because of saying that. You would be justifyably upset. Not only that I was recentley led to believe that calling someone a liar was "anathema to scientific inquiry." Whatever work Professor Bailey has put into TMWWBQ. It seems to have been undermined from the very beginning. I am sad to say this but by Professor Bailey's approach to the subject.
    mbmiller
    Sophia-- You seem to believe that Bailey developed his ideas by hanging out in bars. Instead, he spent many years studying human sexuality, reading the scientific literature, doing research of his own and writing books and papers. The book now under discussion reviews a lot of scientific literature, and the major theory under contention here, that there are two types of transgendered women — "homosexual transsexuals" and "autogynephilic transsexuals" — was developed by a researcher named Ray Blanchard who used an unbiased sample. Read about Blanchard's sampling here: http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversy.htm#ideas http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/sampling.htm I hope that you will read Michael Bailey's book, which is available here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10530 With a few rare, but extremely vocal, exceptions, the book was very highly regarded by reviewers writing for GLBT publications (see my earlier post), and it was even nominated for the prestigious GLBT Lambda Literary Award! Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Michael "You seem to believe that Bailey developed his ideas by hanging out in bars." Which illustrates my point. That is the impression one gets. That is Professor Bailey's style of writing. On the issue of Transsexualism, it is not my area of expertise. I am not sure if a taxonomy I am already familliar with was also the work of Blanchard, that is the two categories being "Primary" and "Secondary". (Feel free to correct me on that). What I find difficult to understand is why Professor Bailey used "Homosexual Transsexual" and "Autogynehilic" (Presumably assigning sexual motivation to these categories)and when his critics so angrily objected. He suggested that they were somehow "Self Deluded". So his critics shout at him even more. Then there are debates about specific passages in the text. Such as the one that is being mentioned often here about prostitution. And then even more fury ensues. It is six of one half dozen of the other isn't it Michael? I thought this "dabate" had finished 3 years ago but no it continues. "With a few rare, but extremely vocal, exceptions, the book was very highly regarded by reviewers writing for GLBT publications (see my earlier post), and it was even nominated for the prestigious GLBT Lambda Literary Award!" Fine, but the question is why was the reaction against the book so severe? And why does Professor Bailey seem ambivalent about it (The Reaction that is)? Because the "controversy" helps sales? I would probably have heard of the book but not read it were it not for the "controversy". To a hardened cynic like me that is how it looks. However I think in the long term this will damage both his reputation and that of some of his critics. I happen to believe this is unfortunate. Professor Bailey is quite content to provoke people and then cries foul when people shout at him. But he knew that would happen, probably not with the level of ferocity that it did. But even Dr. Alice Dreger points out that he was aware that TMWWBQ was going to provoke people. I am not going to go into precice details or talk of the individual issues people have mentioned. (There is too much rumor flying around anyway). What is it about Professor Bailey that makes him feel the need to be so provocative? Is it the money, or does he really have some conviction about the "truth" If so what is his conviction? That is the part I am curious about.
    mbmiller
    I don't know what Bailey would say, but I see provocation as essential to the maintenance of freedom of thought within science and that freedom is, in turn, necessary if major scientific progress is to be made. We can't allow any group of people to dictate which theories can be discussed, no matter how honorable their intentions might be. Darwin and Galileo were provocative, so were Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Why shouldn't a scientist of our time, who grew up with such people as role models, want to be provocative just as they were provocative? We know that provocateurs suffer the wrath of their opponents — Darwin was incessantly lampooned, Galileo was imprisoned, and both Gandhi and King were assassinated — and their opponents were self-righteous, confident defenders of a faith or way of life. Yet we believe that the provocateurs were right and that our society advanced scientifically and socially when we were finally able to hear and accept their messages. We also believe that the moral outrage coming from their opponents was misguided and quite embarrassing in retrospect. No matter how things appear at first, the way to decide which side is right is through a careful analysis of the facts of the matter. Alice Dreger's recent paper is an excellent first step in the right direction. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Michael "I don't know what Bailey would say, but I see provocation as essential to the maintenance of freedom of thought within science and that freedom is, in turn, necessary if major scientific progress is to be made." Believe it or not I agree with you. I am myself known to be a bit provocative. "We can't allow any group of people to dictate which theories can be discussed, no matter how honorable their intentions might be." Indeed. it is when it appears that the theory cannot be questioned it becomes a problem. I mean it is clearly obvious that not everyone agrees with the model Professor Bailey is presenting, there are alternative models out there. Swaab's BSTc theory is one example. I have not however seen Swaab write books that present it as popular science, and making that more controversial than it need be. I suppose I can see the paralel with Galilaeo's: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems In terms of provoking the establishment. While Galilaeo was a bit annoying to Pope Urban VIII, portraying the Pope as a fool. Galilaeo didn't describe the Pope as a fool to prove the pope was a fool, he wrote it to illustrate, via a semi ficional debate to advocate the Copernican viewpoint. As for Blanchard (Bailey's Copernicus if you like) while something resembling Blanchards ideas are from what I understand already part of the practice at Gender Idenity Clinics. This sexual motivation bit is yet to be proven. But proven or unproven the sexual motivation bit is presented in an accusational way. But the sexual motivation bit, it has to be proven, and repeatable. How about people discuss that rather than attacking each other. Thankyou for explaining as best you can why there is a provocative side Professor Bailey's writings.
    barres
    I maintain that there is a difference between responsible free speech and irresponsible free speech. Irresponsible free speech certainly occurs when totally unsubstantiated claims are made by a professor (or other person in position of authority or influence) that seriously threaten the welfare of a whole group of oppressed people targetted by those false claims (such as that they are more likely to be shop lifters or especially suited to be prostitutes). It is patently absurd to compare the quality of Bailey's science and "truths" to those of Galileo or his compassion and sensitivity to the welfare of others to Marthin Luther King. I also maintain that there are times when it is appropriate and responsible for appropriate authorities to be contacted--and that this was one of those times. Even though one of the subjects in the book provided a written statement alleging that Dr. Bailey had slept with her, Dr. Miller somehow feels it was inappropriate for concerns about this (and lack of informed consent and his licensing status) to be brought to his administration. Should not the welfare of patients and research subjects be put ahead of that of those who are caring for them and studying them? It is not Lynn Conway or others fault that Dr. Bailey claimed on his book jacket cover and within his book that he was doing research on his subjects. I believe that the Northwestern University acted responsibly to fairly and promptly investigate these concerns, although their determinations and recommendations were kept confidential. There are many important issues raised by this whole affair which require much more future discussion, hopefully without everyone visciously calling each other liars: What is the responsibility of a psychologist to his subjects, whether he is doing research on them, interviewing them for a book, or making recommendations for their medical treatment? When is informed consent necessary? Is it ever appropriate (as opposed to legal) for a psychologist to sleep with such subjects? What responsibility does a scientist have the consequences of his research results and, when they are obviously harmful to a whole group of people, does he have the responsibility to meet a high quality of proof before he publishes them? Also, Dr. Bailey was writing recommendations to physicians for some of his subjects for sex change treatment. What is the appropriate level of training that should be required for a psychologist to do this? Although I fully believe in the right of adults to change their sex if that is their wish, it is crucial that the ocassional person with a serious underlying psychopathology such as schizophrenia be first treated for that illness before any decisions about sex change can be responsibly made. Speaking as a physician, I strongly question whether someone who is not a psychiatrist or a licensed clinical psychologist should be writing such letters no matter how well meaning their intentions. Ben Barres
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Ben "It is patently absurd to compare the quality of Bailey's science and "truths" to those of Galileo or his compassion and sensitivity to the welfare of others to Marthin Luther King." Well to be fair, I did point out that Galilaeo went to prove the compernican viewpoint not that the pope was a fool As for Baliey and Blanchard's model, I think it needs to be assesed entirely on it's own merits. I do think attributing sexual motivation alone to transsexualism is too arbitrary, and probably incorrect, but this is my opinion. I think this is the important point. I mean yes if that view became accepted it would certainly make life difficult for transsexual folks. I think the mistake Professor Bailey is making (Aside from Dropping gaffes all over the place) is that he considers much of the opposition to the model he describes as being motivated by people wanting to ensure some "Sexual motivation secret" is never mentioned. I am not enirely conviced by that. I think Swaab's model makes more sense to the way I understand it (Which is limited I admit). By the same token I think the mistake of those who are obviously very hostile to Bailey's views. Are probably motivated by his persistent gaffe dropping. I am sorry I have noticed that Bailey is the object of visceral hatred. I took the time to read some of Blanchard's ideas and felt he tends to associate unlike with unlike with sexual motivation as the "common denomiator". I think Blanchards ideas are too generalised to work. I also belive there are inherent risks in one size fits all theories. especially theories that do assume certain psychosexual attributes to an individual. If someone has a dissocaitve problem with say being reffered to as a male as in "homosexual" (Implying male) Lets say "Autandrohobia". then I think "Homosexual transsexual" and "Autogynephilia" clearly do not apply. I will be truthful though, it is something I need to read up on a bit more. It is not my area of study. I am a bio-informatics developer/geneticist by training.
    mbmiller
    Ben, if you don't want to be called a liar, don't lie. You are a professor, and you do research work, so I have to assume that you know the difference between a research subject and the subject of a vignette in a trade book. Your latest message conflates the two senses of "subject" in an obvious attempt to confuse the reader and to make Bailey out to be unethical. You don't want to be called a liar, so I will call you a mendacious, prevaricating dissembler. Is that better? Regarding the charge that he had sex with one of the transgendered women he wrote about in the book: (1) he claims that he did not have sex with her, (2) he can prove that he was not in the same city as her on the day that she claims he had sex with her, and though he did not have sex with her it is worth noting that (3) it is not considered wrong or even ethically questionable to have sex with a transgendered woman and (4) it is not considered wrong or ethically questionable to write a vignette in a trade book about someone you have had sex with, and while remembering that this woman was not a research subject we should also note that (5) it is not ethically wrong under most conditions to have sex with someone who was, or will become, a research subject. Thus, you are falsely accusing Bailey of doing something that wouldn't have been wrong if he had done it.
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    barres
    To correct all the misinformation in this latest message from mbmiller, as is well documented on this blog, all I have done is to use my free speech rights to express concerns about the mischaracterizations of transgendered people in Bailey's book. I have never once accused Bailey of any of these things you are now claiming. However, as I have said, it would appear to me that many of the concerns that were raised by others were in fact reasonable concerns to raise given that Bailey himself claimed to be doing research on these people in his book and book jacket cover. However, to the general point about when it is ok for any psychologist to sleep with transgendered folks he is writing about or who have or may depend upon him for a sex change letter in the future, I think it is obvious that this would be inappropriate behavior.
    mbmiller
    You are now saying that you didn't write what you just wrote only a few lines above. It's gotten surreal and it isn't worth my time anymore. The people who think that it isn't productive to call someone a liar should tell me what they would do about someone who lies incessantly. Barres also claims that he is unable to remember things — all sorts of things actually, whatever is convenient for him. I hereby nominate Barres for the first annual Alberto González Convenient Memory Award. Of course, as expected, what he has written in his post above "To correct all the" of 8 Sept 2007, 8:32 pm, is also entirely false and misleading. I don't think he got through a single post without at least one major distortion of reality. Some of you are here to persuade readers, lying when you think it will be helpful to do so. That is not my purpose. Others might be here to learn, but they have come to the wrong place. They should stick to Dreger's paper: http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/work/dreger/controversy_tmwwbq.pdf If Barres, Conway, Roughgarden and others would write a paper about their concerns for an academic journal, that could be helpful because any decent editor would force them to cite page numbers, use quotes, etc. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Boo
    I believe if you call him a liar three more times, you might finally reach the post-modernist threshold wherein reality is warped to your perceptions and calling someone a liar makes it so. Seriously, I understand. Since you have nothing of substance to offer in rebuttal, I guess you're just stuck with the "Liar!" bit. You really need to find some material tho (like say, giving an example of exactly what Barres is supposed to be doing all the lying about, and if all you've got is the "best suited" vs. "especially well suited" schtick, you might as well pack up and go home now), even the funniest broken record gets annoying after the first couple skips. It's weird, if I didn't know any better I'd almost think... wait a minute, are you really some kind of plant out to make Bailey look stupid? If you are, sorry if I just blew your cover, and I salute you. If you're actually serious, then good lord, get some help you sick little monkey.
    barres
    Gee, you are not much fun to talk to Dr. Miller (in reference to your message of 9 Sept 2:12 AM), As you have now referred people to Alice Dreger's paper 5 times, I think it is important to point out that the problem I see with her paper is that it is a remarkably one-sided unbalanced account. I say that because she seems to have missed that the Bailey book was one of the most insensitive, misleading, sensationalist, and humiliating accounts of transgendered people ever written. It completely denied transgendered people respect and human dignity. Although nearly all transsexuals feel strongly that their inborn gender identities do not match their anatomic sex, on the basis of a few anecdotal accounts Prof. Bailey writes in his book that they instead choose to change sex for sexual reasons, and that many are low socioeconomic liars especially suited for work in the sex trades. His comments are not only deeply hurtful, but fly in the face of common sense and much other data. For instance, as already pointed out on this blog, most transgendered people have deep feelings of gender dysphoria that compell them to change sex even as children, long before they have any libido whatsoever. Bailey's book wrongly promotes hateful stereotypes about transgendered people, contributing to a climate where transsexuals are abandoned, shunned, and beaten. A transgendered person wrote in on this blog to say that she was thrown out of the house by her parents after they read the Bailey book. This is hate. In his defense Bailey states that "he will not be a slave to sensitivity" and "is more concerned with science and truth than the feelings of groups". Are we really supposed to infer from this that he is sympathetic to us? Can you see where a reasonable person might wonder about the nature of Bailey's judgement and conscience? The transgendered community is small and we have few defenders. We are still denied many basic rights. As a result of ostracization by the medical community, there has been little high quality research done and we have been left to the mercy of dubiously qualified others. At some point even the most oppressed of all people have had enough. That moment came with the publication of Bailey's book. That is what Dreger missed in her paper. Transgendered people have had enough of this kind of treatment. You can beat us, abuse us, take away our rights, forbid us to marry, subject us to health and employement discrimination, but when you start saying that we are more likely to be criminals (shop lifters) and whores (especially suited to work in the sex trades), we have had enough. In terms of the memory issue you are raising in your message, I believe you are referring to a recent conversation between Dr. Dreger and myself in which I expressed my concerns about Bailey's book and her unbalanced coverage of it. Alas, I confused the real name and fake names used in the books in one of my comments, which lead her to insist that I did not read her paper. Nothing could be further from the truth. I also did not yield to her aggressive demand that I invite her to Stanford to give a talk (our ideas of scholarship are different). In response to the concerns I raised, although I was at all times polite to her as I have been to you on this blog, I was then subject to a highly aggressive, deeply offensive personal attack from her in which I was once again repeatedly and called a liar. Another odd thing that I would like to point out, is that although Dreger's paper has not yet been published by the Archives of Sex Behavior, she has already published it on her own web site. That is unusual because most journals would consider that as published elsewhere and would refuse to republish the paper. It is also unfair, because those of us who have written counterpoint responses have not been allowed to pre-publish their own commentaries. This is not fair play. It is also not fairplay that the journal has announced that Dreger will be allowed to write a 2nd response in that same issue to all of the other commentaries. She got to say her point of view, others get to say theirs. That should be it, and she should not get to respond yet again, as would be the policy at most other journals. What I think would be highly appropriate is for the ASB journal to instead call upon a neutral, senior 3rd party in the field who is well respected and not attached to any point of view, to write a final commentary about the situation that would conclude with recommendations for the way forward. It is ashame that Dr. Bailey's book has so antagonized and inflamed the transgender community that many of us will be unwilling to participate in research studies performed by psychologists in the future unless standards are defined that we can all respect going forward. By the way, I don't know why you say that Harry Potter picture of me is 20 years. I am quite fond of it, as my students gave it to me, but that was only about 5 years ago. Ben Barres
    Again, the book is incredibly sloppy science that in no way even flirts with the idea of trying to make his hypothesis on autogynephilia and sexual opportunism as key motives for transition remotely repeatable. I've mentioned, off the top of my head, and again, my field of study is economics, and political science, I'm sure peers, you know, peers who don't want their prejudices confirmed and instead are gladly willing to subject the hypothesis to an acid test, could design better studies than I.

    mbmiller
    Ben Barres is a self-righteous liar. He knows that Bailey has not claimed that anyone is "best suited for work as prostitutes," yet he repeats that false claim above. I know that Barres knows that his claim is false because he was forced to admit it on the KQED radio show. Michael Bailey was on that show and he corrected Barres emphatically and directly: Bailey said that he does not believe nor has he ever claimed that anyone is "best suited" for work in prostitution. Bailey made no such claim in his book. The exchange during the radio program should have been embarrassing for Barres, but some people have no shame. Barres obviously does not want the world to know the truth about Bailey's book and Barres himself may wish to avoid reality. Consider that he uses a 20-year-old photograph of himself on his web page and actually seems to view himself as some sort of Harry Potter wizard boy: http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/Ben_Barres/ http://images.google.com/images?q=ben%20barres This man wants to be taken seriously? To make Michael Bailey look bad took a coordinated team of scheming liars working for months. To make Ben Barres look bad, all you have to do is tell the truth. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    barres
    Dear Dr. Miller, My apologies. I inadvertantly said that Bailey has said that many transgendered people are best suited to be prostitutes when in fact he said instead that many transgendered people are especially suited to be prostitutes. I don't see much difference, but except for my one slip above I have been careful to quote Dr. Bailey accurately. Regardless of what names you wish to call me, my point remains the same, however. Ben Barres
    mbmiller
    Please, Ben! That was "inadvertent"? That is possible if you have Alzheimer disease or some other kind of brain disease or mental disorder, but it is hard to believe given your position as Professor at Stanford University. I think you are trying to cover your first lie with an additional lie and you will continue in this vein ad nauseum. I note your lack of quotation marks in your reply, the absence of page numbers, and I conclude that either you don't know what the book says, or you don't want anyone to find out. For those readers who haven't kept abreast of your coordinated defamation campaign, I'll explain this a little further. The KQED radio show featuring Bailey and Dreger with you as a quite disingenuous call-in guest can be heard here. I say that you were disingenuous because you merely introduced yourself by name and job title and without telling the listeners that you had been harrassing Bailey for years. You wrote a letter to his administration falsely accusing him of "hate speech" because of his book (a very thoughtful and sensitive book which was widely enjoyed by many gay, lesbian and transgendered people leading to its being nominated for a Lambda Award). But I guess that you didn't want the listeners to know your history as a defamation worker because you could deceive your audience more thoroughly by pretending to be an ordinary caller. Alice Dreger put transcript of the radio show here and I have copied some of it below:
    Bailey: OK, the idea is that the other kind of transsexual, which Blanchard calls a homosexual male-to-female transsexual, meaning they're homosexual with respect to their birth sex, that is, they like men, is a type of, if you will, very feminine gay man, who decides for various reasons that he would be more happy living his life—"his," meaning before transition—as a woman. I think that men in general, including heterosexual men, including homosexual men, even including very feminine homosexual men, have a greater propensity to enjoy casual sex than women do. If this is a news flash, you all need to get out more. And homosexual male-to-female transsexuals for whatever reason tend to be male-typical in that respect. Krasny: And you find that offensive, Ben? Ben: I don't think he's answered my question. Does he think that some transgendered people are best suited for work as prostitutes in the sex trades? Yes or no? Bailey: That’s typical of Professor Barres'... Ben: I'm quoting your book. Bailey: I say "they’re best suited"? Is that a quote? Ben: Your book is very clear on that. Bailey: Does it say the words "best suited"? Does it say the words "best suited"? If not, I think that you are— Ben: Just answer my question, whatever your book says. Do you feel that transgendered people, some of them, are best suited for work as prostitutes? Bailey: I never said "best suited." And I... Ben: Just answer the question, do you feel so or not? Bailey: I don’t say "best suited" and I don’t think they are best suited. Krasny: I think you answered the question. Bailey: They’re better suited than genetic women are. Roughgarden: He says "especially suited." Krasny: You say "especially suited," you have that there, the quote? Roughgarden: I have the quote, yes. "...transsexuals might be especially suited to prostitution." Krasny: Professor Bailey? Bailey: Well, I think that reflects what I just said, especially compared with genetic women. That's not "best suited," like that’s the best thing they could ever do.
    Is it really even conceivable that you do not remember this after only two weeks? We are to believe that this radio show was so far behind you that you "inadvertently" repeated your mistake today? I think it is inconceivable. You have proved to me repeatedly that you don't care about the truth. Your goal is defamation of Bailey and the suppression of his ideas. Perhaps you feel that you are serving a higher purpose turning public opinion against Bailey and his work. Maybe you think that in doing so you will save transgendered people from "oppression" (your word). I strongly disagree with you. Can you find an example in the history of science where the truth was suppressed and it turned out to have been a good thing? Instead of lying and defaming I think you should be trying to find ways that research findings about autogynephilia can be used to make people's lives better. Suppression of facts, even seemingly unpleasant facts, will ultimately cause more harm than it prevents. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    barres
    Dear Dr. Miller, To clarify, I do remember and that is why I have been using the word "especially" in this context ever since (with the exception of the one slip, which you pointed out and I immediately apologized for and corrected). Thank you very much for posting the dialogue so that others can see the confirmation of exactly what Dr. Bailey has said on this issue. I think that the dialogue you posted helps makes it very clear exactly who is being defamed. Transgendered people are not especially suited to be prostitutes in any context. Ben Barres
    mbmiller
    Mike Bailey has studied transgendered prostitutes and I have to think that he knows something about their lives, attitudes, etc. I'm not sure that you know anything about them, but maybe you do. So far on this forum you have only pontificated and have not cited a single study to back yourself up. Luckily we do have Michael Bailey's book, which does cite many studies for people who are interested in more than mere opinions and impressions: http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/book.html I think you should read the book again. You wrote "Transgendered people are not especially suited to be prostitutes in any context," but Bailey is not talking about transgendered people in general, only certain feminine homosexual men who transition to being women. By "especially" he meant more so than women. Bailey has an explanation for the high rate of prostitution and sex work among those transgendered women. You have a different explanation. If you have some data, please share it. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    barres
    Dear Dr. Miller, I have an explanation for the high rate of prostitution of transgendered people too (if there actually is a high rate). My explanation is that it is due to oppression and prejudice rather than any special innate abilities that they have to be prostitutes. When you say that Mike Bailey has "studied" transgendered prostitutes, I believe you are referring to a research study. I am puzzled because he has already stated clearly that he has not done any research on the transgendered people in his book. Perhaps I misunderstood his meaning. You ask for an explanation of why Bailey sees a high incidence of prostitution in the transgendered population he studies: it's called selection bias. If you take a poll in a place where prostitutes frequent or work, you will get a different result than if you do your study anywhere else. A study of the rate of prostitution in the transgendered population at large has never been done. Quite possibly the rate is significantly lower than for women. Ben Barres P.S. For the record, I have made it clear that I am a transgendered professional. I do not know Dr. Miller but he is a direct collaborator of Dr. Bailey's (for instance: Bailey JM, Pillard RC, Dawood K, Miller MB, Trivedi S, Farrer LA, Murphy L. A family history study of male sexual orientation: No evidence for X-linked transmission. Behavior Genetics 1999;29(2):79-86.).
    mbmiller
    For further information, you should read Michael Bailey's book "The Man Who Would Be Queen." Your puzzlement is in itself puzzling because you are commenting here on an article by Bailey wherein he answers some of the questions you just posed about his research:
    The book is about scientific studies, including some scientific studies that I conducted. It was not intended as a scientific study, itself, and this is obvious to most people. The section on transsexualism both reviews some of Blanchard's research and illustrates Blanchard's theories using anecdotes about several transsexual women whom I met over the years.
    In other words, the transgendered people described in the vignettes in the book were not research subjects, but he has done research on other trangendered people and some of that research was described in the book. Regarding biased sampling, you can read these pages by Bailey: http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversy.htm#ideas http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/sampling.htm It is possible to determine if the rate of prostitution is higher in transgendered women than in other women without studying an unbiased sample of transgendered women. What you would need is the proportion of female prostitutes who are transgendered, and the proportion of women who are transgendered: If the first proportion is larger than the second, then transgendered women are more likely than other women to work as prostitutes. You have a theory to explain a higher rate of prostitution among transgendered women. Bailey also has a theory. Instead of claiming that your theory (oppression and prejudice) is better than his theory (sexual interest), and that his theory is insulting (your opinion), why not find a way to test these theories? We are scientists. Maybe Bailey will want to respond -- he might know of some data that can be used to resolve this. Yes, I have met Michael Bailey on a couple of occasions while traveling to conferences and I have exchanged some email messages with him over the years. As you discovered, I was the fourth of seven authors of one of his papers eight years ago -- that was all done by email. I think you might also find that I was mentioned in the acknowledgements of one of Blanchard's papers on birth order and homosexuality also during the 1990s. You seem to want to know so I will tell you that I am not transgendered. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    barres
    Thank you for the interesting message. I hope that Bailey will take your excellent suggestions to heart. When you say I am insulted, however, I suspect you have misunderstood my primary concern which is the inaccurate and potentially harmful portrayal of LGBT folks in Bailey's book. LGBT people are quite used to being insulted. Afterall from childhood, they are insulted, ridiculed, and humiliated every single day, by every one around them: their families, their teachers, their friends, and they are made to feel they are somehow lesser human beings because of their difference. They are told they are sinners (even by the President of our country) and laws are made banning them from marrying and so forth. Ultimately some of them feel so badly about themselves that they take their own lives, particularly gay and transgendered young people. They wrestle in internal anguish and agony, often all their lives, not because there is the slightest thing wrong with them but because of society's prejudice against them. It is not infrequent for their own parents and family to disown their gay or transgendered teenagers or throw them out on the street (where they must survive as prostitutes because they have to, not because they enjoy it as Bailey suggests). Today, on this blog, I have maintained that it is inappropriate for a professor to wrongly categorize a group of oppressed people as especially suited to be prostitutes. Yet I have been subject to deeply personally offensive comments from nearly every blogger and others who have e-mailed to me today about this. Some people have actually seriously maintained that there is science that supports that transgendered people are especially suited to be prostitutes, that these transgendered folks particularly enjoy it, and that it is a venerable profession (despite the high HIV risk I guess is what they meant). It would be agreed by all that it is inappropriate to make such claims about any other group of people--what makes it ok to say such things about transgendered people? What does gender identity have to do with being a prostitute? All people are programmed to need sex. I expect more from Bailey as a professor and particularly as a psychology professor. From their first year of medical training, physicians are taught to always respect and support human dignity. Should we expect any less from psychologists?
    mbmiller
    Everyone is attacking you because you are lying. Bailey is as aware as anyone of the problems of LGBT people and he has dedicated his professional life to understanding those problems through scientific studies of sexual orientation. He has written a book that was widely hailed in LGBT publications for its compassionate, thoughtful approach to understanding the issue of femininity in men, some of whom choose to become women. The book was nominated for a prestigious Lambda Award. But all that was before you, Conway, McCloskey, Roughgarden and James started your hateful disinformation campaign which was geared toward portraying Bailey as an anti-GLBT bigot. Nothing could have been farther from the truth and you knew it. For those who find this hard to believe, here are some bits of reviews of Bailey's book:

    "Compassionate without attempting to be politically correct, Bailey examines the science behind sexual orientation and identity, using original and rigorous research. It will interest anyone with curiosity about the variety of human sexuality."
    -- The Times (London), December 6, 2003

    "...recommended reading for anyone interested in the study of gender identity and sexual orientation. ... Bailey has produced a thoughtful book that cites recent scientific studies on homosexuality and transsexuality. It is written, however, in a style that makes it easily accessible to any reader."
    -- Out Magazine, March 2003

    "All of Bailey's musings are interesting and provocative, and his evidence is often powerful... Bailey has written a book worth reading. ...it will have its readers, both pro and con, thinking and talking..."
    -- Frontiers, March 14, 2003

    "...a highly readable and well-researched book... Most interesting: his differentiation of the autogynephilic and homosexual transsexual; and his examination of the latest theories of the roles biology and genetics may play in gender determination. Detailed, but never dry. A fascinating book."
    -- Lavender Magazine

    "...fascinating revelations... In a personable and straightforward manner, [Bailey] describes his research techniques and reproduces the questionnaires given to his subjects. ... Despite its provocative title, a scientific yet superbly compassionate exposition."
    -- Kirkus Reviews, January 2003

    "...the first scientifically grounded book about male femininities written for a general audience. ...Bailey sympathetically portrays these peoples' experiences and explores the roots of their development. Bailey's respect for the people he describes serves as a role model for others who still struggle to accept and appreciate homosexuality and transsexuality in society."
    -- James Cantor, PhD, in the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues (American Psychological Association) newsletter, summer 2003

    "...any educated person with an interest in this topic would find the material very accessible. The stories of various boys and men are woven together with the discussion of research to create a highly interesting and very worthwhile book. In fact once I started I had difficulty putting down! ... The author provides a very accessible and readable account of the sometimes confusing array of studies that have attempted to account for sexual orientation and draws the conclusion that there is some fundamental biological influence that transcends culture. ... The great value of this book lies in the way it has brought together a wide range of research on important questions relating to sexual orientation. This gives the reader a wonderful opportunity to reflect further on what being other than heterosexual might mean."
    -- GLIP (Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology, an Interest Group of the Australian Psychological Society) News, August 2003

    "J Michael Bailey s The Man Who Would Be Queen is an engaging book on the science of sexual orientation. ...highly sympathetic to gay and transsexual men..."
    -- The Guardian (London), June 28, 2003

    "Bailey is a sympathetic and compassionate believer who wants to convert others. This is a fascinating read... Summing up: Highly recommended."
    -- CHOICE, September 2003

    "Absolutely splendid"
    -- Simon LeVay, Ph.D., author of Queer Science

    "...[this] book offers a wealth of fascinating information, carefully gathered by (it seems to me) a conscientious and trustworthy scientific observer."
    -- John Derbyshire in The National Review, June 30, 2003

    "Bailey writes with assuredness that often makes difficult, abstract material--the relationship between sexual orientation and gender affect, the origins of homosexuality and the theoretical basis of how we discuss sexuality--comprehensible. He also, especially in his portraits of the women and men he writes about, displays a deep empathy that is frequently missing from scientific studies of sexuality."
    -- Publishers Weekly, April 1, 2003

    "This is a wonderful book on an important subject."
    -- Anne Lawrence, M.D., Ph.D., sexual medicine and transgender medicine practitioner

    "With a mixture 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."
    -- Steven Pinker, Peter de Florez Professor, MIT, and author of How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

    "Bailey is one of a rare breed of writers who manages to combine first-rate science with deep psychological understanding, resulting in great breadth of vision. He takes us on an unforgettable journey into the minds and lives of feminine men. Bailey skillfully interweaves vivid case studies with cutting-edge scientific findings, placing both in a deep historical context from the sexual playground of ancient Greece to the dilemmas of gender in the modern world. Refreshingly candid, remarkably free of ideology, this book is destined to become a modern classic in the field. But readers should be prepared to have some cherished assumptions about human nature shattered."
    -- David M. Buss, author of The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating and Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind

    "...a real page-turner of a popular science book on male homosexuals and transsexuals. I finished it in a 24 hour period... Lots of fascinating individual profiles along with summaries of scientific studies by Mike and others in the field."
    -- iSteve.com

    "[Bailey uses] chatty, lay readers' terms and anecdotes from his own personal life and research... Recommended for comprehensive collections in sexuality, psychology, and social science."
    -- Library Journal, May 15, 2003

    Again, I think what you have done to Mike Bailey is deplorable. He's a good man with a good book that more people should be reading. They can download the book here. They should also read Alice Dreger's historical study of the aftermath including your hate-based disinformation/defamation campaign against Bailey. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    barres
    I have done nothing to Michael Bailey except use my free speech right to criticize the content of his book. Either you agree with him or you are called a liar who is trying to defame him: http://transadvocate.com/blog/2007/09/06/three-card-monte-bailey-style/#... Alice Dreger is an immediate colleague of Michael Bailey and her upcoming historical study will be published alongside the commentaries of other academics who have a very different point of view. Although I disagree with much of the contect of the Bailey book, I do think he is a tremendously talented writer. It is too bad he is unwilling to discuss his book with anyone who does not already fully agree with him. Ben Barres
    Hank
    Well, he is here discussing it with people who do not "already fully agree with him" so I am not sure your point is correct.

    I think it's a tremendous credit to Professors Roberts, Roughgarden and Bailey, and to science in general, that they're tackling this on a neutral science site rather than just on the websites of people who already agree with them.

    We get hundreds of thousands of readers per month so, if anything, the points you all are making are at least educating a lot of people.

    mbmiller
    Barres proves that he'll take anything. Who wrote that ridiculous web page? It really made no attempt at understanding -- a total smear job. Whoever wrote it knows nothing about science, or (again) is part of your lying defamation campaign. You say that Bailey is "unwilling to discuss his book with anyone who does not already fully agree with him." False, again -- you have an almost perfect record in the sense that everything you say about Bailey is false. Also, you fail in every message to support your claims with any kind of evidence. On this forum you have done nothing but attack and smear Bailey. You have not tried to have a discussion about his book. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    barres
    Leaving aside Dr. Miller's smearing of me for disagreeing with him and trying to defend LGBT people from all the prejudices conveyed as scientific truths in Bailey's book, he seems to have missed my major point of concern: there is no scientific evidence that supports Bailey's many prejudicial claims in his book. When he says that he uses his eyes to report what he sees (for instance that gay people are more likely to be florists), this is not science because such anecdotal evidence is well known to be marred by the phenomenon of confirmation bias, leaving aside the issue that he could not possibly know the sexual orientation of most florists he encounters. As to Dr. Miller's claim below that transgendered people are not normal, they most certainly are. The differences between people that really matter have nothing to do with their sex, race, gender identity, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs, and differences in these paramaters do not quality a group of people as abnormal. Once in our history, laws were passed that stated that African-Americans did not deserve the status of full human beings. Although such a law has not been passed for LGBT people, it is nonetheless the legal reality in our country and much of the world today that they are denied the basic rights every one else takes for granted. It is difficult to have a conversation when every time a concern is raised that person is called a liar even though the concerns are quotations directly from the book.
    barres
    In regard to all of the supposedly wonderful reviews of Bailey's book, most of these quotes come directly from Bailey's friends and the rest from reviewers likely ignorant about transsexuality. This is another great example of selection artifact. Is this sort of highly selected anecdotal account of the book something that constitutes high quality data? It seems unlikely to me that the publishers would select critical quotes to advertise the book. Also, I once wrote a fairly negative book review of a neuroscience book, and the publishers selected the few words in it that could be construed to be positive and used them to advertise the book. Very few people are knowledgable about transsexuality and few of the opinions quoted could be considered informed opinions. It is obvious that quite a few people are obtaining their education by reading Bailey's book. A young transgendered women wrote in below to say that she was thrown out of her house by her parents after they read Bailey's book. Nothing better expresses my concern about the harmfulness of his book. You can read Bailey's book 100 times, and no where in it, despite its claims, will you find any scientific evidence that transgendered people are more likely to be low socioecononimc origin or shoplifters or especially suited to be prostitutes in any context, or that gay people are more likely to be feminine or florists, etc. It is a book filled with locker room prejudices and unsubstantiated opinions sold under the guise of high quality science and published by an imprint of the National Academies Press. Dr. Miller, in every one of his posts, has called me a liar, simply because he does not agree with my views. There are non-transgendered male psychologists that have expressed serious concerns about the Bailey book (such as Dr. Bancroft's comment that the book is not science) and I note that Dr. Miller has not called any of them liars. I think this raises the question about whether I am being smeared by him for my opinion or because of my gender identity. Either way, I cannot be intimidated into silence when the welfare of so many oppressed people is at stake. Ben Barres
    mbmiller
    Playing the gender identity card. It won't work. I called you self-righteous. What do you call this?:
    I cannot be intimidated into silence when the welfare of so many oppressed people is at stake.
    I don't want you to be silent, Ben, I just want you to be honest. I actually like for people to disagree with me because I might learn something from it. I accused you of lying not because you disagreed with me, but because you were lying. It's that simple and you know it. You can sue me, and you will lose. Regarding "oppression" of transgendered women and your theory that they are unable to work and thus turn to prostitution: Roughgarden, McCloskey and Conway are all prominent full professors at major universities with solid international reputations. They are all transgendered women. I know that being transgendered causes many social problems for people but it looks like success in academia is not one of those problems. In fact, Bailey has claimed that the group of women he terms "autogynephilic transsexuals" are especially successful in their careers, often in the computer field. I want you to know that I respect you and all other transgendered people just as much as I respect anyone else. I know it is very hard for you sometimes and I am sympathetic. Bailey surely feels the same though. If you don't think so, I think you really aren't getting him. You do bring up one point that I think is worth pursuing. You state that many of Bailey's claims about transgendered people are not based on any kind of science. I will ask him if he can respond to that. I know that Blanchard had good sampling methodology and that Bailey based some of his ideas on Blanchard's samples, but I don't know about specific claims (e.g., about shoplifting). Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    barres
    Leaving aside all your personal slurs yet again, Blanchard and his work have never been questioned by me on this posting. My concern, as I have stated clearly, is not in how many subsets you wish to divide transgendered people into but with the lack of science supporting the very damaging new claims that Bailey is making in his book, such as that gay people are more likely to be florists or that transgendered people are well suited to be prostitutes or that they are more likely to be shop lifters, etc. It would appear based on anecdotal data that you wish to conclude that being transgendered does not affect success in academia. But many academic LGBT people are still in the closet because they are so concerned that it might affect their careers. And with people now being educated about homosexuality and transsexuality by Bailey's book, they have new cause to be concerned. Can anyone imagine that an employer who has read Bailey's book would be likely to hire a transgendered person? A sympathetic, accurate, or fair portrayal it is not. Ben Barres
    paulkasman
    You know, perhaps I failed to appreciate the crux of the argument. Nonetheless, I stand by my assertion that the real problem here is a bias against sex workers on the part of Bailey's critics, and not a bias by Bailey against transexuals.
    jmichaelbailey
    Ben Barres is rather persistent in his obsessive haranguing regarding my views on transsexual prostitution. I do in fact write the following sentence in my book: "In this sense, homosexual transsexuals might be especially well suited to prostitution." (page 185). The paragraph that this comes from is pretty clear, and I stand by it. I will explain my reasoning at some point IF someone besides Barres cares. But I won't do it now, because I prefer that people focus on the important material in my blog and not on Barres' wild, varied, and inaccurate accusations. J. Michael Bailey Professor
    J. Michael Bailey Professor
    khogan
    I do in fact write the following sentence in my book: "In this sense, homosexual transsexuals might be especially well suited to prostitution." (page 185). The paragraph that this comes from is pretty clear, and I stand by it.
    Dear Dr Bailey - perhaps it would help dissipate the contentiousness of this blog if you were to clarify what attributes make a person "especially well suited to prostitution", and, for further clarification of this point, it might help if you were to mention some attributes that make a person not well suited to prostitution. Thank you. K Hogan
    I would like to say "I care". As I have said on other blogs, I do not necessarily agree or disagree with your findings per say, but I was taken aback by the wording in your book, particularly when it came to young transwomen and prostitution. I will be honest in speaking of this, so you know where I'm coming from. My family kicked me out of the house after reading your book, I realize that this was their choice and likely just about any other book covering trans may have had the same result, but that's where I'm coming from. However despite that, I am also concerned about the way and wording of the way people are attacking you. I would think that the best way to debate the issue would be to arrange additional studies, rather than try to discredit your personal life. Honestly what has taken place with your book just doesn't seem really logical, but then people rarely are of such a demeanor, myself included. I transitioned in college through my last years of undergrad and through my graduate years. I've met many trans people, in fact in colleges I attended the FTMs outnumbered the MTFs four or five fold. I've never met a transwoman prostitute, ever (as far as I know anyway!). All of us at school were getting an education, working normal college jobs. Prostitution was never even our minds, and this was an inner city school. We all had a dragqueen or a crossdresser friend or two, but none of them were prostitutes either. Studying them in particular just seems so narrow, when I've never even really met one despite being a probable 'type 1' according to your point scale. I say probable because I'm in the limbo spot just like Andrea above. All of us at the school fell under type 1 or fell into limbo in the middle. One limbo'ing factor was I was in an MBA program, however there were more women than men in the program. Maybe a limbo score is a sign of youth? I have no idea, but I know more people who seem to honestly score in the 'limbo' area than not. Are some of them lying? Perhaps. Are ALL of them lying? That I'd be more hesitant to agree about. I realize my own experiences don't account for anything close to resembling a statistical sample, but it does include two inner city universities and over thirty people transitioning in their twenties and not a one was or is today, to my knowledge, a prostitute. Rachel Owens pathia@gmail.com
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    I See, How Polite "Ben Barres is a self-righteous liar" (MB Miller). "Consider that he uses a 20-year-old photograph of himself on his web page and actually seems to view himself as some sort of Harry Potter wizard boy" (MB Miller) "That is possible if you have Alzheimer disease or some other kind of brain disease or mental disorder" (MB Miller). "Everyone is attacking you because you are lying." (MB Miller). "a total smear job. Whoever wrote it knows nothing about science, or (again) is part of your lying defamation campaign." (MB Miller). "Ben Barres is rather persistent in his obsessive haranguing regarding my views on transsexual prostitution." (J M Bailey) "Roughgarden’s rate of false accusations per utterance is so high that it is tempting to take the time to refute them one by one to the exclusion of getting around to discussing the science" (JM Bailey). I suspect saying that the above comments appear to be condescending and arrogant would be another grand smear campaign. While the statments themselves could not be said to be a smear campaign, Oh no! it is "Exercising freedom of speech". Professor Bailey, And Dr Miller, do you not think you have a little bit of a problem? I mean in the "How to win friends and influence people" department?.
    mbmiller
    Please advise me on the best way to deal with a group of people who lie, over and over again in print media, on the internet and in radio interviews. Should I be nice to them and try to be their friend? If you think Ben Barres is not a liar, I think you don't know him very well. It is easy to document his lies and I have done so. The defamation campaign started several years ago. Barres joined a group of several well-placed academics led by Lyn Conway that included Joan Roughgarden and Deirdre McCloskey. They have been attacking and lying and distorting and misleading for several years now (sorry that I can't think of friendly words to describe such extreme hostility). An excellent introduction to the history of this defamation campaign can be found in Alice Dreger's new paper: http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/work/dreger/controversy_tmwwbq.pdf I hope you will read that. It's hard to believe some of the things that have happened, but believe me, it's all true. I'm involved in this only because the conduct of Barres and others offends me so greatly as a scientist that I feel I must act to defend Bailey (who I have known for years, mostly by email, but we are not close). What good would I be if I could let this happen to a fellow scientist and not speak up?! Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Again Michael. "Please advise me on the best way to deal with a group of people who lie, over and over again in print media, on the internet and in radio interviews. Should I be nice to them and try to be their friend?" Well no (You could try but it won't happen will it? on your part or theirs) but their opinion differs strongly from yours. (If as you have said before now it is just "Angry transsexuals"). As I have said before I don't agree with much of the commentary against Bailey. I just get the impression that Professor Bailey did not want to listen to them to begin with. OK here he is talking about it. "Should I be nice to them and try to be their friend? If you think Ben Barres is not a liar, I think you don't know him very well. It is easy to document his lies and I have done so." OK enlighten me about his lies. And then Perhaps you, Prof Bailey and Prof Barres could go and do some tree hugging, a bit of fishing, and take a trip to the Somme and give each other tobacco and chocolate. Like It could not get more unpredictable and surreal could it? Who is lying and who is telling the truth? It has gone on in total for four years now. "The defamation campaign started several years ago. Barres joined a group of several well-placed academics led by Lyn Conway that included Joan Roughgarden and Deirdre McCloskey. They have been attacking and lying and distorting and misleading for several years now (sorry that I can't think of friendly words to describe such extreme hostility). An excellent introduction to the history of this defamation campaign can be found in Alice Dreger's new paper:" This is the crux of tha matter really. who is claiming who is defaming who and why. When this "controversy" started up, I found it to be an amusing spectacle. I have often seen academics squabble, it is nothing new. Then it got real personal, and then people were literally threatening each other. Then along comes Dr. Alice Dreger. who was not exactly flavor of the month with some other people who felt she was applying a terminolgy that was, well a bit unsettling. Somehow she managed to mention both sets of issues (Bailey's taxonomy and her DSD nomenclature, which is unrelated) in her recent paper. The impression I had was "Dr. Dreger is studying the angry squeals of what she sees as the provked lab rats". It is perhaps unjustified, but again, that is how it all comes across. That is the impression Dr. Dreger gives, right or wrong, intended or unintended. Again I ask myself why the provocation? That is not a slur or a lie. Bailey and his critics can be as bad as each other sometimes. so much so nothing actually gets debated.
    mbmiller
    You really need to read Dreger's paper: http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/work/dreger/controversy_tmwwbq.pdf You present the case as if it were difficult to tell who is correct, who is lying, etc., and you conclude that "Bailey and his critics can be as bad as each other sometimes," but where is the evidence that Bailey has been attacking Conway and others, or lying about them, or harrassing them through their university administrations? He seems to me to have been very well-behaved and to have defended himself quite honorably. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Michael No he does not go out to destroy them like they have done to him. He is a Professor of Phychology, he is going to be a bit more subtle than that. Observing this row is quite amusing because he just sits there, makes the odd comment and then ducks. Then when the fury reaches fever pitch his advocates appear "politely" defending Professor Bailey's work and then all goes quiet for a few days and then it starts all over again. I am sorry it does look like tactically influenced bickering. I mean yes if some of Professor Bailey's critics get their way he would be ruined. it would be unwise of him not to appraoch it tactically. I love it when Bailey is playing to the gallery it is like watching Meerkat Manor. But it has come to dominate the science, Michael I can understand why it has got to this point, I think people need to sit back and think about this carefully. I have read Alice Dreger's paper and felt it was just re-opening old wounds. and yes the hardend cynic in me says that if her paper was not published TMWWBQ would not be going into a new wave of sales. I mean yes it is entertaining to watch, when you are on the outside. But I imagine it is getting quite painful now for all concerend. And it is frustrating because yes we find claim, counter claim, then another claim. and after four years no one is any the wiser.
    Boo
    You appear to be somewhat confused, mbmiller. Calling someone a liar over and over is not the same thing as documenting lies, although if you follow the Bailey school of scientific investigation it's easy to see where the confusion could have come from. All you've done is get all hot and bothered about Ben saying "best suited" instead of "especially well suited." If you think there's some sort of vast chasm between those two expressions, perhaps you could explain it to the rest of us? I mean, I'd hate to think that you're so intellectually bankrupt you have to resort to cheap little word games. Btw, did you have that conversation with Bockting yet? Or maybe you just ran up to him and started shouting "Liar!!!" over and over? You could also try Milton Diamond, Eli Coleman, or pretty much anyone in the field who isn't connected to Blanchard's little CAMH clique.
    barres
    I think Dr. Bailey's message speaks for itself, but I do wish to also point out that his claim there are only a couple of people that are wildly and unfairly criticizing his book is not the case. The academic transgendered community that I am aware of is remarkably unified in their concerns about this book (with the possible exception of one or two of Baileys immediate colleagues). We speak in one voice. We are either all liars or there is some truth in our concerns. Transgendered people are totally normal, hardworking, talented, and decent people. Few people would conclude this from reading Bailey's book. For all the reasons that I have stated on this blog (and many more), this book is not a fair or accurate portrayal of our population. It is the stuff that contributes to a hostile climate for LGBT folks and is used in deciding the public policies and laws that have enormous repercussions on all of our lives. I am going to end my comments on this blog here as anything else I can say will be repetition.
    mbmiller
    Your PC pontifications are unconvincing. First, transgendered people do not "speak with one voice" regarding Bailey's book and you know it. Why do you want to deny that not everyone agrees with you? Second, your claim that "transgendered people are totally normal" is a real hoot -- what does that mean? I think we can accept and celebrate our differences, but wanting to change one's sex and undergoing sex reassignment surgery is not "totally normal." You go on to say that "transgendered people are ... hardworking, talented, and decent people." Are you stereotyping them? They are, on the one hand "totally normal" and on the other they are all alike and are all "hardworking, talented and decent" while the rest of us show a range that includes lazy, talentless criminals. Have you done a study on an unbiased sample where you measured these traits? Needless to say, I think you are just saying what works for you now and ignoring any real data. People who want to know what the scientific literature shows, including results from Blanchard's excellent sample of transgendered women should read Michael Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen. I'm glad you are giving it a rest. I hope that someday you overcome your persecutory delusions and realize that Bailey is 100% on the side of the LGBT community. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Boo
    Your quote-mining pontifications are unconvincing. First, he said it was the academic transgendered community that "speak with one voice" regarding Bailey's book, and you know it. Why do you want to twist people's words to attack them? You go on to claim that he's saying every single transgendered person is "...hardworking, talented, and decent people" and then accuse him of stereotyping when you know full well that he meant we are as much as any other sub-population. Are you really so out of ammunition that you have to stoop to this kind of transparently false misrepresentation? Level with me, you're just kidding about the whole "PhD" thing, right? I mean, obviously no responsible person would entrust students to someone like you.
    MiladyM
    I at times find that "science" isn't very Scientific.From all that I have read, it seems to me that some people are having sex change operation for purely Sexual gratification. But What I find most disturbing about this topic is that no one has ever mentioned doing a chromosome test on these men or women to test for AIS or CAH, to determine the genetic sex of the individual. I feel it’s a grave injustice to operate on a person if they do not have these Chromosome changes. The person, who doesn’t have a chromosome condition or another disorder, should not be operated on. In all likelihood they may have a mental disorder. The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.
    The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.
    andrea
    This illustrates exactly why theories like Bailey's are dangerous to trans people. Here we have someone who believes the accusation that our identities are motivated by fetishism, and combines that with the prevailing negative cultural attitudes toward non-normative sexualities to assert that we should be denied the freedom to control our own bodies. Andrea
    Andrea
    Jean-Pierre
    In response to: ----------------------- Submitted by MiladyM on 6 September 2007 - 9:51am. But What I find most disturbing about this topic is that no one has ever mentioned doing a chromosome test on these men or women to test for AIS or CAH, to determine the genetic sex of the individual. I feel it’s a grave injustice to operate on a person if they do not have these Chromosome changes. The person, who doesn’t have a chromosome condition or another disorder, should not be operated on. In all likelihood they may have a mental disorder. ------------------------------------------------ I reject your disordering of intersex people and I also reject the notion that the people you are referring to should have surgery imposed on them to comply with any sex stereotypes unless they so desire. And what about those who wish to have surgery for an incorrect sex assignment? I maintain that trans women request surgery for the same reason that intersex people would. A wrong sex assignment. And just how would you know what someone's "genetic" sex is? I find the whole notion of my "genetic" sex, sexist.
    Boo
    For a debate that's supposed to be about science, a few reality checks are in order: 1- Blanchard's ideas about transsexuals are not accepted by the majority of experts who actually work with and study transsexuals. Bailey even reluctantly acknowledged this in his book, but claims this can only be because they aren't keeping up with current scientific journals. This is ludicrous on its face. Blanchard's ideas have been out there for almost 20 years. The reason they haven't been widely accepted is not because no one's cracked a journal in all that time, but because most clinicians find them silly and not particularly representative of the clients they see. (mbmiller- that would include your colleague at the U. of Minnesota gender clinic Walter Bockting, I'm sure he would be happy to educate you if you asked) I'm sure Bailey did himself no favors in trying to advance Blanchard's ideas among those who treat transsexuals by implying that they're all being tricked by their clients. Now that Blanchard's no longer on the committee that writes the DSM diagnosis, we should hopefully see some major reform in DSM V, and that'll put an end to this nonsense. 2- While the assertion of Blanchard colleague Maxine Petersen reported in Bailey's book that many transsexuals lie at rigid control-centered gender clinics like CAMH is true, for some reason the people like Maxine Petersen running those aforementioned control-centered clinics never seem to realize that they themselves are the ones creating the situation that makes it necessary to lie in order for their clients to access health services. To the extent that Blanchard's clients have lied to him, it isn't to avoid his typology. That would make absolutely no sense. His clients are at the clinic to get government-subsidized medical services for transition, which are only available in Ontario through Blanchard's clinic. To get those services, they have to convince Blanchard and his clinicians that they fit his ideas about transsexuals. Ergo- they lie. Do I like to dress in skirts and masturbate? Um... sure, yeah, all the time. Can I have the magic paper now? If Blanchard's clinic is the one place where transwomen can be honest about themselves, why does it have the most notorious reputation for making it necessary to lie? What would be the point of lying to try and avoid Blanchard's typology? To make transition more difficult? Do you really think "most gender patients" are that stupid? 3- Bailey once again employs the little semantic game he plays when referring to the study he thinks prove transwomen who deny AG are lying. You notice this time he says "apparently autogynephilic males." Other times he's referenced this study, he's also used ambiguous terms like male gender patients, autogynephilic individuals, etc. He never actually uses the word "transsexuals" when referencing this study, because it wasn't exactly done on transsexuals. It was done on crossdressers, some of whom may or may not have been transsexual. (Iran, Iraq, what's the difference?) 4- Blanchard's transsexual typology studies have serious methodological flaws. In the first place, he wasn't exactly studying "transsexuals." He was studying male-bodied individuals at his clinic who claimed to have "felt like a woman." Two rather large problems with using this as selection criteria are that many mtf transsexuals do not claim to feel like a woman, especially before transition, and many transvestites do. If it's true that transvestites are almost never homosexual, than transvestites who got into the samples would end up distorting the responses for the "nonhomosexual" groups far more than for the "homosexual" group. In the second place, as he was studying clients at his own clinic, any transsexuals who were in his samples would have an extremely strong incentive to tell him whatever they thought he wanted to hear. This is the Hawthorne effect; this is the Hawthorne effect on crack. Finally, Blanchard's one study of autogynephilia and transsexual typology did not actually measure the tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of onesself as a woman. The scale was constructed in such a way that someone reporting fetishistic fantasies and someone reporting "normal" fantasies could end up with the same rating. Go get yourself a copy of Nancy Friday's Women on Top and go through it rating the fantasies on Blanchard's Core Autogynephilia Scale. Many will end up rating as AG off one single fantasy (and most of the questions start out "Have you ever been aroused while...") This doesn't necessarily prove that transwomen fantasize just like cisgendered women do, only that Blanchard's study was too poorly constructed to tell anything about anything. "I hope that someday you overcome your persecutory delusions and realize that Bailey is 100% on the side of the LGBT community." Bailey's contempt for transpeople was displayed quite well in his book, especially in passages like: "My avowedly heterosexual male research assistant told me he would gladly have had sex with her, even knowing… [she] still possessed a penis." (p. 182) I once asked Walter Bockting if he would consider this an appropriate thing for one of his research assistants to say about one of his research subjects, or to put in a book. His reply? "Absolutely not." Any further doubts about the utter contempt Bailey has for transpeople were dispelled in his reaction to Andrea's reprehensible use of captions from his book to describe his children. Language that had been "compassionate" when describing transsexuals was suddenly "dirty" and "obscene" (Bailey's words) to use to describe nontranssexuals. Now of course, this is America, and if Bailey or anyone else wants to despise transsexuals, they can go right ahead. Just please don't insult everyone's intelligence by calling it compassion. Don't crap in my cereal bowl and tell me it's Cheerios, cause I can smell the difference. And of course that's not even mentioning Bailey's support for the idea of screening for homosexuality in the womb so the gay population can be wiped out by selective abortion (all in the name of "parental liberty," of course). Personally, I prefer the people on my side to be just a tad less genocidal. In the end, I suppose in a weird way everyone's coming out ahead. Bailey got the notoriety he wanted. People who hate transsexuals got a "scientific" excuse to spew the nasty bigotry they would have spewed anyway, and it looks like this is serving as a wake-up call among the experts to finally take a look at what they've been shoveling or at least passively stood by while others shoveled. HBIGDA/WPATH has now repudiated Blanchard, so ironically Bailey may have inadvertently helped the reform cause for DSM V. And it's worth noting that the only "academic journal" still willing to defend his views in this matter happens to have several members of Blanchard's clinic sitting on the editorial board, along with Bailey himself. (The editor of a journal solicits puff yellow journalism to defend one of the journal's own editorial board members- I'm sure the peer review process was quite rigorous.) None of this matters to the Baileys and Millers of the world, of course, because your protestations about being martyrs for The Truth are an empty smokescreen. At the end of the day, you're just bullies who enjoy finding "politically incorrect" ways to pick on minorities. (And then of course Bailey whines about censorship and his poor hurt feelings the moment someone responds in kind- ooooh, you're just such a politically incorrect badass, you are.) You can't get away with doing this to blacks or women any more, and not so much even with gays, so for now it gets to be us. Okay, have your fun. But history is leaving you behind, and I think deep down you guys know it.
    khogan
    Mike Bailey has studied transgendered prostitutes and I have to think that he knows something about their lives, attitudes, etc. [...] Bailey is not talking about transgendered people in general, only certain feminine homosexual men who transition to being women.




    Dear Dr Miller - with the lines quoted above, you have stated precisely what a couple of the major problems are with Dr Bailey's book. That is, he has studied* particular individuals who are engaged in sex work, and then says, hey, these people are temperamentally well suited to sex work. I trust I don't need to point out the circularity.



    Further, as you state, he's not talking about trans people in general (in fact Blanchard's typology says nothing about trans men), and yet he does want to generalize from his observations of certain individuals. The classification proposed by Dr Blanchard and supported and advanced by Dr Bailey claims to account for all people who are born male and eventually undertake living as women.



    In summary, the work is anecdotal and not well reasoned. I don't intend this as a personal comment on Dr Bailey himself, and I completely agree that this discussion has been inappropriately personalized.



    K Hogan



    * Here I use "studied", the word that you used, with some reservation, because that might be read to imply that what he did was research, which raises the ethical question of whether he used some people as research subjects without their consent.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Professor Bailey I have to admit being curious about the transcript posted by Ben Barres. I mean "Might be better suite" and "Best suited" and "Especially suited" essenially amount to the same thing. Why is it so important to make the distinction on the precise wording when your critics misquote you, when it is quite evident the intention behind the statment appears to be unchanged regardless of the wording? Surely you are giving your critics ammunition? Having read quite a considerable body of your work, I have to admit this habit of giving critics apparent reason to confront you is intriguing.
    mbmiller
    Hi Sophia-- I don't know if Michael Bailey will be responding to these messages, but I'll just say that I don't agree with your idea about wording. To say that someone "might be better suited" for some occupation is recommending that occupation to that person. To say that someone is "best suited" for some occupation is saying that of all the occupations one might choose, that occupation would be best for that person. Bailey said neither of those things about prostitution for any person and he does not believe either of them to be true. Michael Bailey actually wrote "In this sense, homosexual transsexuals might be especially well-suited to prostitution." (page 185 of his book). What did he mean by "in this sense?" In what sense? "Well-suited"?? Compared to whom? Why is he writing about prostitution, of all things? Don't you want to know the answers? All such questions are answered in Michael Bailey's book, which can be ordered or downloaded from this page: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10530 You should also look at the laudatory comments from many reviewers praising Bailey's book for its compassionate treatment of GLBT people. You can see those comments in my earlier post on this thread. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Yes Well.... "Don't know if Michael Bailey will be responding to these messages" I suspect he will not. but i can always ask. "but I'll just say that I don't agree with your idea about wording. To say that someone "might be better suited" for some occupation is recommending that occupation to that person. To say that someone is "best suited" for some occupation is saying that of all the occupations one might choose, that occupation would be best for that person." Regardless of Professor Bailey's actual motivation for that comment. It is another example of how people take Professor Bailey's work. It is provocative. "Bailey said neither of those things about prostitution for any person and he does not believe either of them to be true." I sort of got the impression from the debate it was what Professor Bailey was saying about Transsexual folks rather than who does prostitution. As is the tradition with Professor Bailey the comment could well be construed in some very bad ways. And people have evidently construed it that way. This is an interesting remark, when he says: "I do in fact write the following sentence in my book: "In this sense, homosexual transsexuals might be especially well suited to prostitution." (page 185). The paragraph that this comes from is pretty clear, and I stand by it." Ending with "I Stand by it" That is a classic JMB wind up. Like he knows what he is saying and he knows the howls of fury that will be flying his way. You are free to disagree and enlighten me. I just feel Professor Bailey has made dropping gaffes into an artform. OK good for him if it sells his books. It can make for an amusing read, (Bailey playing to the gallery) I just think I can see why some people would be really angry about it though. Which is why I said what I did about the example of the bar near the minnesota campus.
    Jean-Pierre
    Bailey abused an intersex research subject It is very simple to prove this. Bailey insists that he knows more about his research subjects than they do and when his research subjects do not give the answers he wants to confirm his theories, then he states they are just liars. We in OII (Oganisation Intersex International) have proved just the opposite. The person lying and deceiving the public is none other than the psychologist who is projecting his own mythomania onto others. In his book, Bailey wrote that Cheryl Chase told him that transsexuals frequently join intersex groups believing they are intersexual. He states that they are not. They do this (he assumes) because they want to believe that there is a real biological woman inside them as well as a psychological one (p. 175). This is discussed in the context of the autogynephile's self-deception, something that he says has misled gender identity clinics for many years - and why they had not been noticed nor accounted for. He is also known for his “research” which supposedly proves that all men are heterosexual or homosexual and that bisexuals are liars. There are no bisexual men according to Bailey. The actual deception involved in his transsexual theory is very ironic. Bailey and Dreger both should have known that the main star in the book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen” was intersexed. We in OII (Organisation Intersex International) have confirmed that she is. When we read Dreger’s paper, we were stunned that a person who prides herself on being an intersex activist would stoop so low as to verbally depict an intersexed person’s genitalia without her consent. Dreger did that in the recent paper in which she defends this lying psychologist, Bailey. When we read the descriptions of Anjelica Kieltyka’s genitalia in Dreger’s article, it should have been obvious to any intersex activist and to Bailey himself that she was born with what Dreger calls a “disorder of sex development.” (See footnote) Bailey also published very private details about Anjelica's sex life without her knowing that the material she was sharing was to be public. This salacious description of her most intimate sex life is humiliating to her. Once again, Dreger has come to the defense of another transphobe and has humiliated another intersex person, something she has done many times before. Bailey cannot hide behind Dreger because Dreger unwittingly revealed who was telling the truth all along. It was Anjelica Kieltyka. Anjelica has never agreed that she was a representative of autogynephilia and furthermore, this outright lie about her has shamed not only the fraudulent historian, Dreger, and the lying psychologist, it has perpetuated a fraud against the whole intersex community by using one of us to prove such a vulgar theory about transsexuals. How can an intersexed women such as Anjelica prove anything about male-to-female transsexuality? The whole theory is based on a fraud and the humiliation of intersex people. Bailey is a liar and a deceiver (something he projects onto all transwomen) and he has gotten caught red-handed by: ANJELICA In his book, Bailey himself agreed that Anjelica was not only the number one case study of his theory but that she was open and honest. Why was he not open and honest about her facts? She is not a male to female transsexual and she has repeatedly stated she is not an autogynephle. So who is telling the truth? Welcome to the intersex community, Anjelica. In solidarity, Curtis E. Hinkle Founder, Organisation Intersex International Footnote: Kieltyka explained to Bailey how, before she had sex reassignment surgery (SRS), [...omitted because what Dreger wrote is salacious and not necessary to understanding what intersex is] (made easier by having been born with only one testicle), p.7. I noticed that Dreger chose to use the word 'only' in 'only one testicle'; why that choice of terminology? Why not just say 'having been born with one testicle'. Having 'only one' might suggest that the author regards having less than two testicles is in some way deficient, or defective. An interesting perspective for an intersex activist. I have since spoken at length with Anjelica and there are many other aspects of both her body, her endocrine system and her early childhood that further confirm her intersexuality. I am not going to further humiliate Anjelica by revealing private medical information about her without her formal consent and Bailey and Dreger should have been even more cautious since they are researchers and Dreger is a professor at a medical university. What is Bailey lying about: Bailey not only said she was an autogynephile, he makes her his STAR, his main case study and he did that over her repeated objections. That is lying. This would make her out to be lying about not being an autogynephile. We have proved that she does NOT even fit his own definition of an autogynephile. He should have listened to the person who was telling the truth, Anjelica. She is not an autogynephile and it has been humiliating to her to be the main case study for one when she has repeatedly been trying to make him tell the truth. An academic complained about my use of the word "liar" when referring to Bailey and couched her opposition to my use of the term by saying that I was using a term that was "anathema to scientific inquiry." My response: Then why does Bailey who claims he is a researcher refer to many of his subjects as liars? I agree that researchers should not use the term "liar" when referring to research subjects, especially when the research subjects are NOT lying. My article is not research. It is political activism and I am not a researcher. I am an intersex activist. I wish that academics would STOP their political activism which they dress up as scientific research. As an activist who has been harmed by these people who are lying, I think that it is very accurate to simply state the truth. These academics are lying. Is there something wrong with simply stating the truth to academics? Also, it is not OII which is doing a disservice to the intersex and trans community, it is precisely those academics who are spreading lies about us and they do this even when they know they are lying. This is an abuse of power and academic privilege over very marginalized groups and it is time that people denounced it for what it is: ABUSE. An analogy: Let's say that Bailey had used you as an example of a pervert that was supposedly a perversion that only affected men (remember women cannot be described by this theory). Even though your genitalia had been described, he went ahead and used you as a prime example of that perversion and you had insisted from the beginning that you did not belong to that category. Then some people here spot that you are intersex. How could an intersex person validate a theory of a perversion that CANNOT affect women? You should have been eliminated from the beginning. The fact that the person keeps lying about you might very well reflect his ignorance and sloppy methods but the fact remains, he would be lying and with your intersex variation, you could prove that you were telling the truth. (This would be trickier to do if this perversion were something that affected the whole population regardless of sex. But this perversion only affects men. An intersex subject could in NO way validate such a theory. Bailey is not only a liar, he is a dumb liar). Now here is Dreger's dilemma and I think she knows it. If Bailey tries to justify this because he knows who is a "genetic" male and who is a "genetic" female, that will just make more and more people in the intersex community feel abused by Bailey and I bet AIS-women are already concerned.
    mbmiller
    Curtis-- Apparently you have been deceived by someone. First, Anjelica was not a research subject, she was merely discussed in a vignette in the book, and of course she was not "abused" by Bailey in any sense. Second, she knew what was going to be written about her in the book, she read it before it was published and she approved of all of it. Third, you wrote:
    Anjelica has never agreed that she was a representative of autogynephilia and furthermore, this outright lie about her has shamed not only the fraudulent historian, Dreger, and the lying psychologist, it has perpetuated a fraud against the whole intersex community by using one of us to prove such a vulgar theory about transsexuals.
    But you should know that anything Bailey or Dreger attribute to Anjelica is supported by Anjelica's written messages or audiotaped interviews. Bailey and Dreger are not the ones lying to you. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    donnatvtg
    How does Mr. Bailey explain the fact that a number of children 3, 4, 5 years old 'know' they are not the sex they were assigned at birth? Barbara Walters did a 20/20 special on some of these children. They weren't old enough to know anything about sex with men, nor about autogynephilia. Many transwomen relate similar stories about 'knowing' they were girls instead of boys. So, I would like for Mr. Bailey to explain how his (and Blanchard's) theory of transsexualism correlates with such children.
    Jean-Pierre
    Free speech????? I would like to know how the Bailey affair can become bound up with the rhetoric of free speech when Bailey himself denies academics who might disagree with him access to Sexnet - preferring an academic forum dominated by academics and activists supportive to his own perspective. Much of his research appears to be more about what his cronies on Sexnet have said about the types of people he researches than what his research subjects have said themselves.
    Jean-Pierre
    And who cares about Anjelica? I think that academics who do not challenge Bailey on the abuse of this woman are condoning abuse of research subjects.
    Susan
    After reading his book and corresponding with him in AG-Support, a yahoo discussion group. I have found little scientific value in The Man Who Would Be Queen. In my opnion the work has more political value to be used to discredit true transsexuals. Let us hope the great unwashed masses don’t see this book as it would further the urban myth that transsexual females are homosexual males. There is no constructive purpose for TMWWQ to be in print.
    mbmiller
    Bailey's book is well-liked and well-regarded. It was even nominated for a LGBT Lambda Literary Award. My earlier post is here and I give more information there on how well the book was received by reviewers for LGBT publications. For those who would like to make up their own minds, the book can be ordered here. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    That nomination was withdrawn when the judges re-evaluated the book in more detail and deemed it to be transphobic. My parents kicked me out after reading the book, before they read the book they were actually becoming supportive. Then after the book they told me I was a pervert and wanted the changes so I could sleep around with more men. My experiences bias me tremendously, I admit to that, but when someone keeps claiming that the book is GOOD for me, when I know very well what happened to my own life after my family read the thing, it does make me wonder. Yes, I own the book, and yes I have read Dreger's article. Dreger herself is a fairly controversial figure in the intersex community. Why they had her write the article I have no idea, fighting fire with fire does not help things.
    mbmiller
    If you really exist and your story is true (that your parents kicked you out of the house after reading Bailey's book), then I think that you definitely should contact Michael Bailey by e-mail and tell him your story. I'm sure he will want to help you. If your parents let his book affect them that way, I'm sure they would like to be able to talk with him and that he can help them to be more sympathetic to what you have been going through. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    I really do exist, and that point is moot. First of all I live three thousand miles away from my parents now, and we've mostly reconciled, though it took the good part of a year and the discovery that I am a Klinefelter's case (XXY chromosomes). That seemed to mollify my parents a good deal for some reason. These would be why I'm not raving and approving of the slandering of his private life and a few others things. DURING that year of numbness between us I was quite enthusiastic about the muck raking, and as I admitted in the very first post I don't blame Bailey. As strongly as my parents reacted, likely most scientific books about gays or transsexuals that weren't written by a devout fundamentalist christian that accepts this state of existence as normal, the result would have been the same. My mother had just been diagnosed with ovarian cancer and my entire family fled into religion to cope with it, thus I was an aberration in the family to be removed. My situation is a rare one. I would very much like Bailey's commentary on those of us that have posted in this entry about falling in the middle of his scale. I am -1 or +1 depending on whether or not you think I pass. I never went to -3 or +3 at any point. According to his studies, we don't exist, yet here we are.
    Susan
    I cannot see how anybody who has actually read the book can place any credibility TMWWBQ. It leads one to believe that J. M. Bailey has never met a real transsexual; the type who transitions and moves on into mainstream society. Anybody who boils an entire class of people down into “two kinds of people” as Bailey does in his book must have a rather simplistic and unsophisticated outlook out on life. Anybody without a degree can do that. drawing conclusions on TS folk based on interviewing sex workers shows it’s own bias. I do believe people should order the book, read it and make up their mind after reading the autobiographies of the TS folk who have transitioned and moved on.
    Jean-Pierre
    The book is not liked by the person it is written about and that is what matters to me. Did she give her actual consent to have this distorted, salacious picture of her published? I feel this is a form of identity theft. If the person in the book is not an autgynephyle, what is the actual value of the book as a scientific tool. I personally don't care whether this theory is accurate or not. This theory does not affect me personally but it does affect people I care about and I have listened to them. It would be nice if Bailey would.
    mbmiller
    The answer is, yes, she did give consent. You might not like her and the way she has chosen to portray herself, and you might not like the way she presented herself in public lectures either, but that is who she is and I support her. I think that accusing Bailey of fictionalizing the character is an insult to her because she is real. If someone changes his testimony under duress, it becomes inadmissible in a court of law. Believe me, the same sort of logic should be applied here. Anjelica was a classic autogynephile until she was pushed by Conway and others to change her story and help their defamation campaign against Bailey. Sometimes people have an adverse emotional reaction to a theory that is perfectly valid. We must consider that possibility while awaiting further evidence and a more complete analysis of the issues. In the meantime, I hope you will read Alice Dreger's history more thoroughly. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Boo
    "The answer is, yes, she did give consent. You might not like her and the way she has chosen to portray herself, and you might not like the way she presented herself in public lectures either, but that is who she is and I support her. I think that accusing Bailey of fictionalizing the character is an insult to her because she is real. If someone changes his testimony under duress, it becomes inadmissible in a court of law. Believe me, the same sort of logic should be applied here. Anjelica was a classic autogynephile until she was pushed by Conway and others to change her story and help their defamation campaign against Bailey." Okay, first of all, there is documentation that Angelica had problems with the way she was being presented in Bailey's writings before she had anything to do with Conway: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Anjelica.html so please stop trying to pass off that silly lie. Second of all, no one has accused Bailey of fictionalizing her as a character, so please stop trying to pass off that silly lie. "In the meantime, I hope you will read Alice Dreger's history more thoroughly." Indeed I hope people do, because as biased as it is, she actually validates the main complaints transpeople have been making about the book and Bailey. She acknowledges the book is not science despite the fact that it was presented as such, and she acknowledges that Northwestern did find some of the charges to have merit and took some sort of action but refused to say what it was. Then of course there's the part where she drones on and on about Angelica's conspiracy theories without once stopping to note that it doesn't really reflect well on Bailey that he used someone with obvious signs of mental instability as the centerpiece of a good portion of his book. And if you think it was wrong of Conway to inform Angelica and the other women that they could file complaints against Bailey, then you're saying it's okay to violate someone's rights as long as they don't know their rights are being violated. For someone who loves to fling baseless accusations of lying around so much, you really should stop all the, you know, lying. As an alleged professional in this field, perhaps you are familiar with the psychological phenomenon known as projection?
    Jean-Pierre
    Dear Dr. Miller, I believe Anjelica and I don't see how an intersex subject could be an autogynephile. That is what disturbs many of us in the intersex community. I have seen pictures of Anjelica dressed as a girl in her childhood. So dressing as a girl was not a recent phenomenon and cannot be proven to be intricately related to her sexuality. Evidently she didn't take the pictures herself. She was far too young. I don't feel she was ever very masculine really. At least not from my observations of her childhood photos or from what I know about her. That would be a stretch. So once again, I don't see how she would fit the definition of an autogynephile concerning her masculinity. I knew many girls that were far more masculine than Anjelica in their childhood. So, we have an individual who is intersexed and who had pictures taken in girl's clothing when she was a child. How typical is that of an autogynephile?
    mbmiller
    People who want to know more about Anjelica Kieltyka (known in Bailey's book as "Cher Mondavi") should read Alice Dreger's paper: http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/work/dreger/controversy_tmwwbq.pdf Kieltyka's name probably appears 100 times or so. Dreger interviewed Kieltyka for 11 hours and Dreger is an expert on intersex issues and transgendered people. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    khogan
    Dear Dr Miller - I have read some interesting and thoughtful writing by Dr Dreger (e.g. here), but I didn't realize that she is an "expert on [...] transgendered people." I would appreciate it if you could refer me to some of her salient research publications on the subject. Thank you. K Hogan
    mbmiller
    She has been more involved in intersex issues, which are related, but she has written on the history of transsexuality. You can find more here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=dreger+%28transgender+OR+transgendered+OR+transsexual+OR+transsexuality%29 http://www.isna.org/about/dreger Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Michael "She has been more involved in intersex issues, which are related, but she has written on the history of transsexuality." Well Dr Dreger has dicussed intersex issues but people do have disagreements with her. I think one error of judgment on her part was to somehow invlove the controversy surrounding "DSD" with this controversy being discussed here. I will be honest I reagarded the TMWWBQ row as Professor Bailey slugging it out with the people he had upset. But when Dr. Dreger brought "DSD" (Disorder of sexual Development whioh focuses on "SEX" from what I can see) to the same table. I could not quite understand why. You say: "She has been more involved in intersex issues, which are related" Would you take the time to clarify how you regard intersex and transsexualism as being related, in the context of Dr. Dreger and Professor Bailey's overall opinion. I will be truthful with you, it is not an sttack on Dr. Dreger. The one thing that struck me about her paper was this "Study the squeals of the objecting lab rats" tone which she seems to have adopted in that paper. (I was very surprised she did that) The problem here is she knows how sensitive intersex people are to this tone of discussion. While there are those at ISNA who agree with her, there are a lot of intersex people who do not. We are not talking political correctness Vs Truth. But in some cases people who have real greivances with the medical profession. I really do not want all this to get any worse. Seriously Michael, I really think people need to start talking, I have said this often. After what Dr. Dreger wrote it has started to involve a lot of other people. and it really does need to be sorted out. On all sides, quietly calmly. I think people need to stop, I think now would be a good time and talk about it and at least come to some agreement.
    Boo
    2 things- 1. Do you have any suggestions for how we can have a calm dialogue with people who keep calling us liars, whilst ignoring the pesky step of actually showing that we're lying? 2. Do you really see any point in having a calm dialogue with a guy who thinks nothing of publishing in a book the details of his lab atmosphere wherein he and his research assistants sat around talking about which trannies they'd like to screw? (p.182) There reaches a point where there is no point in having a calm dialogue with a certain sort of person.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Boo 1: Yes he stops calling you liars. Like "If they are saying they are not autogynephiles they are liars". And yes Bailey has provoked a hell of a lot of anger. But how much of that anger is aimed at him and how much of it is aimed at that he is saying. Like "We will destroy him". Six of one half dozen of the other. 2: Well yes that was a classic Bailey Gaffe. You should see the one in a paper of his I recentley reviewed for a one organization where he talks (As an analogy) of "Non Jewish Parents being forced to have Jewish Children" (That must go down as Gaffe of the century, I am Jewish by the way and found it, annoying in the extreme. But it was a Bailey Gaffe. I am used to reading them, My comment was, in the review "What a stupid analogy" then in the review I illustrated why it was stupid). Does it mean I have to go out and try to destroy the guy? His gaffes tend to haunt him anyway. I still make attempts to talk to him and his collegues. (in fact the review of the paper I am thinking of was started by a conversation of a board like this with one of the present posters) The thing is if people make no attempts to talk over this (This cuts both ways). Then everyone shouts and we get consequences. I am not saying "Do not Challenge Professor Bailey" Last week I am led to belive I really wound him up. But you will notice I am still talking with his supporters. And hopefully him at some point. It was this "out to destroy" bit 4 years ago that got to me. There are a lot of people who's opinions an actions I really do not like. But I am not going out to destroy them. I just argue back. I can see why people felt that angry. but I really think that people had better start talking and that is because whatever the outcome, it will affect how people in this society are treated. It will affect people's health care. Someone posted that "Transsexual people should not have surgery" on the strength of Bailey's work. I know that in the midst of the gaffes and wierd attitude that come across he would not seek to ban surgery. Can't you people, on both sides just try to talk? I cannot tell you or MB Miller what to say or do. All I can say is if this four year old feud continues, it is going to get a lot worse.
    Boo
    "Well yes that was a classic Bailey Gaffe." It wasn't a "Gaffe." It is the normal way Dr. Bailey operates. He sensationalizes things as much as possible in the hopes that people won't notice he's got no real data to back up what he's saying, and also so when he is challenged he can start harping about "political correctness" instead of dealing with the actual criticism. It's his bread and butter. "Does it mean I have to go out and try to destroy the guy?" Do we have to punish thieves just because they steal? Complaints were filed regarding unethical conduct on the part of Bailey. The university, quite reluctantly, from the impression one gets of reading through everything, investigated them, dismissed some, but as even Dreger had to concede, apparently found at least some to have merit and took some sort of action, but refused to state publically what it was. Bailey was not exonerated. Bailey did wrong, and got caught. If Lynn Conway had not gotten involved, the complaints probably would not have been filed. As I stated earlier, is it okay to violate someone's rights as long as they don't know their rights are being violated? Did Conway and McCloskey go a little overboard? Probably, but if they'd done nothing he would have gotten away with it. And for all Bailey's whining about censorship, no one has tried to censor him. The closest anyone came was suggesting the National Academies transfer the book to a more appropriate publisher (such as perhaps Penthouse Forum). Criticising what someone says, even in strong terms, does not somehow equate to trying to deny them the right to say it. Actually, I'd be quite happy if Bailey went out on another tour like the one he did right after the book came out. By all accounts, every time he opened his mouth he made an even bigger ass out of himself. Also, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the history of all this, but what blew up after the book came out was actually the middle of an argument, not the beginning. The draft version of the transsexual section of the book had been floating around the internet for a couple years prior in the form of an essay called "Women who were once boys." A lot of people in that time had tried the reasonable approach with Bailey, only to get blown off or (surprise!) called liars. We're dealing with a guy who refers to his own words used to describe us as "dirty" and then later "obscene." You simply can't reason with people who are out-and-out bigots. That's why they're bigots. You may notice that in addition to the snark I put up some legitimate criticisms of Blanchard's original typology studies, to no response. I've had this argument with Bailey supporters before, and each time I get around to pointing out the severe methodological flaws that invalidate Blanchard's TS typology studies, without fail, they change the subject. I'm not especially worried in the long run, because the majority of professional opinion remains against Bailey and Blanchard, and that's not going to change. This isn't about who's going to "win," just about how many people like pathia are going to get hurt until these dinosaurs are finally left behind for good. And if you haven't heard this one, let me tell you a little story about Blanchard's clinic. A couple years ago, they invited a speaker from the local trans community in to give a talk on the longstanding antagonism that exists between the community and the clinic. They ended up having to professionally sanction one of their own clinicians for harrassing the speaker: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/james-cantor.html (about a third of the way down the page) That is the caliber of people we're dealing with. People who are furious that those whom they regard as their property would dare to get uppity enough to question them. If this was the mid nineteenth century, they'd be "race scientists" babbling about Drapetomania and Dysaethesia Aethiopica. It was crap when they did it to black people, it was crap when they did it to gay people, and it's crap when they do it to us.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Boo "The draft version of the transsexual section of the book had been floating around the internet for a couple years prior in the form of an essay called "Women who were once boys." A lot of people in that time had tried the reasonable approach with Bailey, only to get blown off or (surprise!) called liars." Well yes I can belive that. We have the same Problem with Dr. Alice Dreger. While she does not resort to calling us Liars, she does tend to ignore most if not all the points we wish to discuss. So I would ask Professor Miller what the truth is in this. Did Professor Bailey ingore the opinions of transgendered folks, if so why? "That is the caliber of people we're dealing with. People who are furious that those whom they regard as their property would dare to get uppity enough to question them. If this was the mid nineteenth century, they'd be "race scientists" babbling about Drapetomania and Dysaethesia Aethiopica. It was crap when they did it to black people, it was crap when they did it to gay people, and it's crap when they do it to us" Well yes this is where I fall foul of Professor Bailey. There was I belive quite a reaction to a commentary I wrote for OII where I was "Gaffing him" (I do that often). I was confronted about my statment that he does advocate *a form of* (I emphasise that, a form of) eugenics. (This was about onother of his papers). So I sat down reviwed that paper in depth and concluded that Bailey was advocating eugenics. What he proposed is not that dissimilar to the Dor Yeshorim program in New york (So it is neither racial or Nazi). But it is still "negative" by virtue of the fact that it is normative and seems to want to "Give the choice" of parents not to have a potentially gay child. If it helps Dor Yeshorim is something that would "Target" me because I am jewish and have a double recessive genetic condition. (It was set up a Rabbi trying to avoid the births of people with such conditions). I personally hate Dor Yeshorim with a passion. For me it feels worse because it feels like my own people want me "Screened out". But there is no way on this planet I am going to compare them with ideologies they simply do not represent. But what they do is still eugenics. Andrea James' website associates Bailey's ideas that involve eugenics with some pretty scary people and some scary connections. But I do not see that with what Bailey has wriiten (What he has himelf written is the point). It may be proven he is hobnobbing with the scary. I would need more evidence though. Again I do not agree with his methodology in that paper and I take the time to explain why. Without associating him with ideologies that he simply does not adhere to. Which is probably why I have as of yet not been called a liar. what I am saying is when I ask awkward questions I make sure that they are factual. Since the publication of TMWWBQ. I have read all sorts of things about Bailey. some of which are downright nasty. But then he is not exactly "polite" either. You then wonder who is telling the truth. The only way to find out is be as impartial as is possible. Which at the moment means I am saying thiings neither side want to hear. Why am I doing this? Because I belive Alice Dreger was not entirely impartial and she has succeeded in bringing the intersex community into all this. I hope this clarfies, I am now going to duck because last week was, well heated from what I remember.
    Boo
    "Again I do not agree with his methodology in that paper and I take the time to explain why. Without associating him with ideologies that he simply does not adhere to. Which is probably why I have as of yet not been called a liar." Yes, well neither did Andrea. What she pointed out, and what happens to be true, is that almost all positive reviews of Bailey's book can be traced back to the aforementioned association of scary (silly, really) people. As for his own ideologies, he does write favorably of using selective abortion to cull the gay population. That's eugenics. "Why am I doing this? Because I belive Alice Dreger was not entirely impartial and she has succeeded in bringing the intersex community into all this." I found a couple places where she lied about Andrea James in the article. She uncritically reports a claim that Andrea attacks any transwomen who won't say they're a "woman trapped in a man's body" which is untrue. If you check Andrea's website, she states quite clearly in several places her belief that gender is a social construction, and the only places she even uses the phrase "woman trapped in man's body" is to ridicule it. She also quote-mined an email from Andrea to Anne Lawrence to make it look like Andrea was claiming to be autogynephilic. Plus, you have to admit the claim that legions of academics are cowering in terror under their beds at the thought that Andrea James might call them names is kind of, you know, stupid.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Boo "Yes, well neither did Andrea. What she pointed out, and what happens to be true, is that almost all positive reviews of Bailey's book can be traced back to the aforementioned association of scary (silly, really) people. As for his own ideologies, he does write favorably of using selective abortion to cull the gay population. That's eugenics." I know I reviewed the culling bit and I was not particularly favourable. Some were upset I even used the "E" word. As for Alice Dreger, well I actually agree with you about her. Her blog "The blog I write in fear" was in my view her crying woolf. I found her paper to be "Studying the squeals of disobedient lab rats". and her "Intersex is a feminist issue" is more like "This is the privilged group who I think should control intersex people". The thing is I have too many issues with Dreger to comment on her work in an objective manner. Which is why I have avoided reviwing her recent paper. Like trannsexual folks do not like being defined as a "Homosexual transsexual" or "Autogynephile" I dont like being called a "Disorder of Sexual Development". And if she is claiming "Gender is a social construct" that's her undermining herself because she is backhandedly supporting Money's idea that gender is socially influenced. Even Bailey finds that hard to accept. (Chapter 3 TMWWBQ he is clearly being biologically deterministic about it, not entirely accurate, but Biologically deterministic all the same). This is my Problem Boo. Dreger, she has decided that she knows all about intersex people, she does not. OK the row between us and her is not as fierce as that between Bailey and Transsexual folks. but I do sometimes wonder whether all these alliances between people like Dreger and Bailey are motivated by some normative need to control the lives of different minorities. again it appears like that. This is what I am trying to acertain really. The truth is DSD and the guidelines, consensus statment etc. have adversly affected my health care. The thing is I need to prove these problems are connected with DSD. in the same way Bailey;s book appears to have contributed to someone's parents turning against them.
    Jean-Pierre
    Dear Dr. Miller, You wrote: "Dreger is an expert on intersex issues" A large number of intersex people from all over the world do not feel that Dreger is an expert on intersex issues. She has refused to listen to almost anyone other than a very few people, mostly from privileged parts of the United States. She has consistently marginalized those of us who reject our original assignment and those who reject binary definitions of themselves. She has particularlt shown no interest in the serious gender issues that many poor intersex children face who have no access to treatments. Her focus has been extremely narrow and her group of intersex friends also. She is also responsible for what many, if not a majority, of intersex people consider the very stigmatizing terminology for intersex with DSD and also a very dangerous redefinition of intersex based on genetic etiology only, which is new. This genetic redefinition of intersex will make it much easier to detect intersex infants in utero and select against us as a group. Also, she did this without practically any input from intersex people and of the handful that were consulted, three of them have denounced this DSD terminology. Kind regards, Curtis
    khogan
    Dear Dr Miller - I agree that a skeptical, dialectical approach can be a productive way of advancing science. This assumes that the discussion is undertaken with a constructive, open-minded attitude and includes alternative hypotheses. The objective should be to build up a coherent, consistent understanding, rather than simply knocking down ideas or, worse, individuals. Much of the heat in this debate derives from the personal attacks by certain individuals against Dr Bailey and his family. I don't see anyone here trying to defend the behaviors that Dr Dreger describes in her paper. But I do see personal attacks within this blog, and that isn't productive. The point that some people here are trying to make is that "academic" theory can have serious personal consequences for individuals. It seems that there should be little argument on that point — consider various "scientific" arguments for racial superiority that we now find egregious. It should be generally understood by now that science has social, political, and personal consequences. We should try to arrive at our best understanding, and we should think carefully about how this understanding is expressed. Respectfully, I would like to suggest to all concerned that statements that can be formulated along the lines of "the idea that ____________ contributes (or doesn't contribute) to our understanding by explaining ___________" have some chance of making a positive contribution to the discussion. Statements along the lines of "Dr. _____ is a _______" are unlikely to increase our scientific understanding of the issues. Thank you for your consideration. K Hogan
    Boo
    "You should also look at the laudatory comments from many reviewers praising Bailey's book for its compassionate treatment of GLBT people." Well, obviously if he's got John "I'm not gay, I'm just obsessed with buggery" Derbyshire on his side, who can argue with that?
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    OK about the Book Itself. (In the broader context) In chapter 3 "The boy who would not be a girl" Professor Bailey seems to discuss cases where people are either intersex or were castrated at birth. The one thing that stands out from the entire chapter is "They are boys". which raises some questions in my mind. Professor Bailey on Page 49 asserts that 7 out of 14 people who were raised as female under the above cicumstances reverted to male. Well it helps to see Professor Bailey telling the truth on that one often the statistics are skewed in a number of papers to something like 100% (Mc Ginley) "in favour of male". Now Bailey's 50:50 seems about right. However Proffessor Bailey then goes on to say that this 50:50 ratio is almost unheard of in "Biological females" This gives the basis for the idea that "They would all really want to be boys". (oops, how so?) I have two problems with this (Male bias). The first would be that in the US Dr. John Money instigated a policy of blanket feminization. As Professor Bailey correctly implies on Page 40 (Discussing a pregnant women who's child has been diagnosed with Cloacal Extrophy and her being given the "prognosis"). The policy was a casue of much distress. Later he discusses the Reimer case illustrating this further. My first problem is that this sounds like the Backlash against Dr. John Money, and for some reason that backlash has resulted in suggestions that there should be a policy of blanket masculinization, either by rearing or by surgical means. I do not suggest Professor Bailey would advocate such a policy but it does raise questions about this overall "They are male" thread in much of Professor Bailey's work. Isn't that just jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire? I would be interested to know Professor Bailey's opinion on this. (As he used this in comparison with "Danny".) The second problem is what happens when the parents "over compensate" the male upbringing (Often on medical advice). If say someone who is intersex is "Raised as male" and they reject it violently because of the overdoing it with the "Boys are tough pain is good" routine over compensation involves. What then? I can forsee problems with a blanket male assignation policy. I would be interested to know Professor Bailey's view on that. He does seem to point to a biological basis for gender identification. which means he would have something to say on this. I am wondering how much he would consider the current opinion (Veering towards a male bias) as being motivated by a Backlash against Money and how much of the emerging male bias (That is reccomending "Raise as male") is based on scientific study.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    I have to admit The deafening silence that happens when confronting a certain male bias never ceases to astound me. I wonder what that is about?
    Jean-Pierre
    Dear Dr. Miller, I appreciate your honest replies to my inquiries. They are very helpful. I am not suggesting that Bailey did or did not have consent. I simply do not know. What I do believe however is that Anjelica is not an autogynephile. That is what I am very skeptical about. Kind regards
    Jean-Pierre
    All men are self-deceptive AG's or HSTS's All quotes from Bailey's book TMWWBQ: Bend Over Boyfriend, an instructional sex videotape showing straight couples how women can (with appropriate equipment) anally penetrate their male partners, was a bestseller. (p 83) Perhaps being penetrated anally is one of the perks of being a gay man. (p 84) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now, this is what is really interesting. These are all descriptions of one of the autogynephiles in the book: Increasingly, he began to fantasize about having a vagina, and about being penetrated by a man. He enjoyed the fantasy of being physically dominated, as well as vaginally penetrated, by a man. During the time between [her] birth and her full transition, she had sex with several men, always involving their penetrating her anally. ... now the dildo penetrates her vagina rather than her anus. To many autogynephiles, the act of being penetrated by a penis is the ultimate statement that one is a woman... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The ultimate statement that one is a woman" is being penetrated with a penis - that is part of being an autogynephile? In other chapters, Bailey stresses that autogynephiles are non-homosexual. I am concluding from the success of the video Bend over Boyfriend, that all men might be autogynephiles or homosexual transsexuals. These definitions are really elastic. I am more and more convinced of the serious faulty logic at the foundation of Bailey's (not necessarily Blanchard's) definition of autogynephilia and homosexual transsexuality Here is why. I think that all men are self-deceptive about their sexuality and I think that I could prove it because the very definition hinges of not being falsifiable. I don't agree with Bailey when he says that one of the perks of being gay is enjoying anal sex. I have met many straight men who would never admit this to a clinician but who in fact love anal sex. I therefore concluded that the prostate and the pleasure from stimulation of the prostate is a perk of being a man, period, not of being a gay or straight man. Why are men self-deceptive about their sexuality. Well, there are a lot of reasons. 1) Fear of being perceived as gay 2) Stigma attached to certain sex practices involving masturbation etc. etc. Transsexuality according to Bailey is not about gender so much as sexuality. Also, since the other great theorist (Lawrence) of autogynephilia once described these people as "men trapped in men's bodies" (something I feel applies to all men), it is logical to conclude that all men could be self-deceptive transsexuals or homosexual transsexuals. The test that Bailey proposes to determine if someone is an AG or a homosexual transsexual could be given to just about any man in the world and they would come up as AG or HSTS. Since, deception is central to the diagnosis, they could never prove they were not.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Jean Pierre There is also one small issue which may explain some of the intense hostility shown towards Professor Bailey. The way I understand it fdrom the transsexual folks I know is that some of them reject masculinty rather than simply seek to embrace the feminine. This is where "Men trapped in Men's Bodies" (Blanchard, Lawrence)could prove problemmatic. It is also where the sexualization could prove difficult as well. This is why I think that Bailey needs to exercise some caution in his approach. In some (Not all) cases Bailey could well be saying to somene who is "Autandrophobic" (the term I would use in part borrowing and adapting words from Blanchard's model)"I define you as everything you despise, your very sexuality is everthing you despise". I would not describe it as self hatred either, rather the hatred of an attribute (The definition of Male). If the "Autandrophobe" is presented with "Man, Man, fetish, etc". I suspect that would exacerbate the problem rather than alleviate it. My deepest concern lies with the application of all this to intersex people who were assigned "male" and rejected it. the problem here is that some may consider the definition of "male" as a violation. I am not making generalizations, I just suspect that here, with the Blnchard model the "exception to the rule" could prove to be the downfall of the rule. I also suspect that if the rejection of "male" involves anger (Exacerbated by the masculinizing "treatment", or Roid rage, where such intervention is involved to put it bluntly). I would not want to be in the shoes of the medical professional trying to re-enfoce the "Male normalization" on such an individual. The "Male normalization" would in such a cases would result in the destruction of someone's personality. It would be the ultimate insult or act of personal erazure. I am not saying this "autandrophobia" is universal, and certainly would not apply to all of Bailey's critics, But if this "Man with autogynephilia" model is applied in a situation like that. It could be a disaster. I suspect that some of the hostility that is shown towards Professor Bailey may well be motivated by that. I do get the impression that the "Homosexual transsexual" and "Autogynephilia" and the application of "masculine Psychology" is where some of the anger is aimed. If this is so I think Professor Bailey really does need to consider revising his theory. I think this is a point worth considering. I also stress that this "Autandrophobia" would not be universal, would not describe every transsexual or male assigned intersex person who rejects "male". I suspect it would merely illustrate the potentially damaging flaws in Blanchard's (Male biased) model.
    Jean-Pierre
    Objectivity Dear Dr. Miller, One thing I do think that Bailey should be applauded for and that is the attempt to speak honestly about certain subjects which can be very controversial. I feel there are serious flaws in his logic but I do not in any way feel offended by his approach to dealing with certain sensitive subjects such as homosexuality which can provoke controversy. Quite frankly, when I first read his book, I was not personally shocked by a lot of the contents. Nor do I feel that academics need to be politically correct. I think political correctness can cause much harm to serious scientific inquiry. On all these issues, I am supportive of Bailey's and Dreger's positions. The issue with me is not at all about political correctness but about intersex issues and how that fits in this theory and about the fact that I cannot come up with a way that this theory would be falsifiable. I have met people like those described in Bailey's book. Although his descriptions may offend some people, I was not personally offended. I have heard much worse in my life. So, I am happy to see that we are able to have free speech here and congratulate the owners of this blog for that. This is all that is really necessary - open and honest dialogue about scientific topics. Kind regards,
    Michel
    I would ask Miller to cite one academic paper by Dreger on the history of transsexuality. The list he gives shows a poor understanding of query syntax - as most of these are references to texts which include her work on intersex in their Bibliography. She has reviewed Terry's book on the history of transsexuality - but that is not the same as writing on the history of transsexuality. If you look at her recent paper on Bailey's book, despite having a very long bibliography, it is remarkably lacking in references to books on transsexuality for a paper in which the subject is so significant. I can find little evidence of Dreger being knowledgeable on the subject from searching Google Scholar, her paper's bibliography, or from my reading of the literature on transsexuality. Perhaps she now seeks to extend her expertise in this area - but as yet she has not appeared to have done so. Perhaps this paper was intended as a short-cut to achieving this? Michel
    mbmiller
    I'm sorry about my mistake. I thought she had written a history of transsexuality, but she had only written a book review of a history of transsexuality: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_sexuality/v015/15.1dreger.html I saw that it was cited many times and thought it was her own history. She also wrote a review for New England Journal of Medicine of the book "Cutting to the Core: Exploring the Ethics of Contested Surgeries." http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/15/1626 You can see a complete listing of her papers and books here: http://www.alicedreger.com/writing.html As I said earlier, her focus is mostly on intersex. I'm glad I ran across your note. Unfortunately, it has gotten to the point where I am finding it difficult to track these comments because the URLs in my more recent email notifications do not work (they started failing after a second page was added for these comments). Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michel
    Hi Michael, thanks, we all make mistakes, I just wanted to make sure people were not misled on this point. I think it could be useful if people were able to discuss the issues raised here in a forum that was easier to navigate. I have to say that I find Bailey's book does raise some interesting points, although I find that there are some things in it that are problematic. I certainly did not find Dreger's commentary as interesting, and a bit too long to be honest. As with Bailey's book, I was left unconvinced. I do have criticisms of her paper, as I did for his book, but I will leave those for the peer commentary process etc. I do find it sad that academics behave this way, as it does not do their credibility any good. I understand that discussions within the trans community can be volatile at times, and perhaps it is a bit disconcerting when this spills over into academia. I do not think that certain comments directed at Bailey, however ironic in intention, were justified - but I do not think it helps to treat other critics of Bailey's work as if they had a part in that. I certainly do not wish to see Bailey destroyed. I would far rather that through discussion and being able to extend his research he could have taken account of new information and modified his views accordingly. Unfortunately it seems hard to see how he might be able to do that, as I doubt that any who do not identify with the two Blanchard types would want to assist him now. Here in the UK, I have yet to come across a transsexual who identifies with autogynephilia. I have to accept what people say about themselves, as a phenomenologist, because it is more important than what I might think about them. Michel
    mbmiller
    I figured out what the problem was with the URLs I receive from this site: They are missing the page number. For example, for your comment I received a URL that ended like this: man_who_would_be_queen#comment-1754 But that failed because it didn't point to the correct page number. It should have ended like this: man_who_would_be_queen?page=1#comment-1754 The system was configured so that it would add comment pages when the first page became long, but the email notifications are not taking that into account. (By the way, "page=1" seems to be the second comments page, or first additional page.) Best, Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Boo
    "Here in the UK, I have yet to come across a transsexual who identifies with autogynephilia. I have to accept what people say about themselves, as a phenomenologist, because it is more important than what I might think about them." It's not a question of how someone "identifies." Someone can identify as an "autogynephile" or a "woman-trapped-in-a-man's-body" (not that you'll find any actual transwomen who use that phrase to describe themselves) or a brick of cheddar cheese. Virtually all of the small number of transwomen who have claimed the identity of "autogynephilic transsexual" or "homosexual transsexual" sooner or later end up making claims about themselves that contradict the category they have chosen to identify with. Self proclaimed "autogynephile" Anne Lawrence claims to have been effeminate in childhood, despite Bailey's adamence that "autogynephiles" cannot be so (to be fair, she could just be trying to illustrate his contention that transwomen such as herself are prone to lie about their pasts). Self proclaimed "autogynephile" Willow Arune has denied having any history of cross-gendered eroticism. On the short-lived "autogynephilia support" yahoo newsgroup, most of the few actual self-proclaimed "autogynephilic transsexuals" on there denied that autogynephilia was a paraphilia. On the "transkids" website that Bailey linked to as an example of transsexuals who support his views, the self-proclaimed "homosexual transsexuals" denied being especially promiscuous or suited to prostitution (in both the quite-different-ha-ha-yeah-I-didn't-buy-that-lame-excuse-either "best suited" or "especially well suited" senses). It's useless to talk about identities based on specific terms when people start bending definitions to mean whatever they want them to mean. My guess (and unlike Bailey, I am willing to admit when my guesses are just guesses) is that it's basically the same phenomenon that leads the occasional transperson to try and join an intersex group or pull something like "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" out of their butt. There are currently no objective tests of any kind that can confirm a diagnosis of transsexualism, and when people encounter the "Prove it!" mentality often enough, especially when it's in the context of clinicians witholding medical treatment, some people just latch onto anything that's handy as an explanation for why they're trans. Sooner or later they find that AG or homosexual as defined by the guys who actually coined the terms doesn't really fit, so they just construct their own personal little definitions to make them fit. That may be many things, but science it ain't.
    Michel
    It's not a question of how someone "identifies." Hi Boo, but for me that is more important than how I identify them. When somebody says they are autogynephilic, I believe them; what I do not do is then argue from the particular to the general by extending that self-identification to those who do not claim it. I find Blanchard/Bailey's analysis of this phenomenon problematic because it places them in a difficult situation ethically if they help one type in gaining a referral for surgery. Autogynephilia is in DSM under transvestism, according to Bailey - yet here we are supposed to have transsexuals who have autogynephilia. He would still recommend them for surgery on that basis, which has to be a very dubious approach - recommending such surgery for somebody with a paraphilia of that type. I would be wary of suggesting that an autogynephile is a transsexual, because that is not what is usually understood as such. I have met non transsexual autogynephiles, and transsexuals do seem very different, so it does seem odd to lump them in the same category. I do appreciate that there are different types of transsexual, but this is not new. What Bailey did in his book was create a straw man and demolish it. The first aspect of this was 'woman in a man's body', it is a myth, yet he approaches it as if it were a current belief among transsexuals. The second aspect was that there was only one type of transsexual recognised - and yet in clinical practice (in the UK anyway), there have been regarded as being two types back to the 1950's, and one of those types rarely managed to get treatment for many years ('primary' and 'secondary' transsexuals). The distinction was along similar grounds, which included things like age of transition, sexual orientation, history of erotic cross-dressing, etc. So, there was nothing new in Bailey or Blanchard - apart from the replacement of gender identity by sexual motivation. Bailey talks about things having been lumped together, and Blanchard separating them out as two distinct diagnostic categories, as scientific progress. But, I would suggest that what Bailey has done is simply take a diverse range of behaviours and lumped these together in two categories. I am sure that there are individuals who do fit these two categories, but that it is more complex than just those two. However, he seems intent in forcing anybody who does not fit these categories into one or the other based on a rather simplistic questionnaire. Bisexuals do not fit, but as he has argued elsewhere, male bisexuality does not exist - bisexual prefer males or females, so are heterosexual or homosexual. People with intersex-type physical characteristics (as covered under recent guidelines using contested terminology) do not feature - because Cheryl Chase has told him they are not really intersex. People who are asexual or non-sexual do not exist - because his ideology is dominated by the male-sex drive as a motivating factor. People who transition early with no history of erotic cross-dressing and who are attracted to females do not exist, and so on - and yet these types do seem to exist. A more accurate approach, which according to him would be more scientific, would to build on (rather than reinforcing) Blanchard's typology; extending that limited analysis to cover the complete range of types. This would be following more from Magnus Hirschfeld, who identified 64 possible types of sexual intermediary. I have detailed half-a-dozen examples that specifically relate to transsexuality, and ignoring them by insisting they are one or the other of only two types is not progress, it is regressive and oppressive. There is a problem where people with intersex issues who have been trying to deal with those issues have been told that they are transsexual. For some it may work, but for others having transsexual treatments could be harmful. I am sure the same is true for autogynephiles who are told they are transsexual; for some they may benefit from transsexual treatments, but for others it could be a disaster. Mish
    Boo
    "Hi Boo, but for me that is more important than how I identify them. When somebody says they are autogynephilic, I believe them; what I do not do is then argue from the particular to the general by extending that self-identification to those who do not claim it." Hi Michel, but for me it is important to ask, when somone says they are autogynephilic, what do they mean by that? Do they actually mean it as defined by the guy who dreamed up the term, or have they constructed their own personal definition that is similar in some ways and different in others? Many of the few self-identified "autogtynephiles" on the now-defunct "autogynephilia support" yahoo group claimed to be autogynephilic but then turned around and came up with their own definition of what it actually meant, usually something like "enjoying one's sexuality as a woman." It'd be like me saying I am hispanic, and by hispanic I mean someone of entirely european ancestry with fair skin. "I find Blanchard/Bailey's analysis of this phenomenon problematic because it places them in a difficult situation ethically if they help one type in gaining a referral for surgery. Autogynephilia is in DSM under transvestism, according to Bailey - yet here we are supposed to have transsexuals who have autogynephilia. He would still recommend them for surgery on that basis, which has to be a very dubious approach - recommending such surgery for somebody with a paraphilia of that type." What's the only successful method of reducing paraphilic drives? Basic endocrinology- lower the testosterone levels. What does the mtf transition process involve? Lowering testosterone levels. What happens when confused middle aged transvestites try to transition? After a little while on hormones they realize it isn't the kick they thought it would be, and back out. Part of me wonders how seriously Blanchard takes his own bs. He thinks sex reassignment should be discouraged when possible. Would it make more sense for him to a) force people he thinks are "autogynephiles" to act out an ultra-stereotypical version of femininity for years at a time (No pants for you! Science says so!) and reinforce the paraphilia, or b) put them on testosterone supressants for a couple months to try and snap them out of it? But of course, if he went the b route, he wouldn't get the sublime thrill that comes from jerking vulnerable people around for years at a time, and then where's the fun? "I would be wary of suggesting that an autogynephile is a transsexual, because that is not what is usually understood as such." Fortunately, there's a very simple solution to the dilemma of whom the gatekeepers should allow to pass through: get rid of the gatekeepers. Do you have any kind of objective test which can determine who's "really" trans and who isn't? Do you rely more on subjectivities? Suppose we were allowed to control our bodies the same way that everyone else is? When someone who isn't trans wants a hysterectomy or a vasectomy, they don't have to plod through a year of therapy and get certified with a fake mental disorder, they just go and get it. I realize there's the issue of national insurance coverage for jurisdictions outside the U.S., but that's a political question, not a scientific one. There might be people who regret doing it, but to put it bluntly, so what? People regret things. If Sam Hashimi/Samantha Kane/Charles Kane/whatever the hell he wants to be called wants to do something stupid that messes up his life, it's his life to mess up. Make someone jump through enough hoops and proving it to the clinician can become an end in itself. If the only requirement was, say, a year on hormones before surgery, that would tend to weed out the people who haven't really thought it through and the confused transvestites. If the mental health profession is going to be involved at all, then the only legitimate question that needs answering is "Is this person actively psychotic?" If the answer is no, then there is no reason to deny them control over their own body. "A more accurate approach, which according to him would be more scientific, would to build on (rather than reinforcing) Blanchard's typology; extending that limited analysis to cover the complete range of types. This would be following more from Magnus Hirschfeld, who identified 64 possible types of sexual intermediary. I have detailed half-a-dozen examples that specifically relate to transsexuality, and ignoring them by insisting they are one or the other of only two types is not progress, it is regressive and oppressive." Or you could just acknowledge that all human characteristics cover a range and trying to identify discrete "types" is kind of silly. My TS friends are generally people who transitioned in their 20s, middle class, socially integrated as women, and were in both the gay and str8 communities before transitioning. Can we be a "type?" How about Type X-23, that sound cool. You sound like a reasonable person, but this stuff is going to cause problems until all the reasonable people acknowledge that all the gatekeeping and the "types" nonsense is the problem.
    Michel
    Hi Boo, > You sound like a reasonable person, but this stuff is going to cause problems until all the reasonable people acknowledge that all the gatekeeping and the "types" nonsense is the problem. I agree, ideally these human variations need to be detached from the whole notion of disorder - whether GID or the recent retrograde step of calling certain intersex variations DSD's. I do not think that an approach to transsexuality which repathologizes feminine male homosexuality through the back door and lumps everybody else into paraphilias is in the least bit progressive - the opposite. My point was about the argument that this was progressive - if breaking down into sub-categories is progess, then a more accurate and precise expanded set of categories would be more progressive. As you say though, anybody who has actually spent time with the people concerned, ultimately the variations are so diverse that you would end up with a load of categories populated by single people. I understand what you are saying about gatekeepers, but I would be cautious about that approach. Russell Reid was very keen on the early use of oestrogen to weed out the autogynephiles, and it appears to have been very effective. Much easier for people to turn back after three months of oestrogen and androcur than a year of RLT. My concern is that without some kind of assessment, vulnerable people will be harmed. There are people who are mentally ill (real mental illness, not the travesty of having GID in DSM) who will be deluded. There are people who are autogynephilic who will regret losing the part that gave them so much pleasure. There are people who are homosexual who will find that they can no longer find sexual partners in the gay community once they have SRS. My point was that having such limited categories is not going to help people - especially if they have to prove that they conform to these categories in order to get help. It did not work well for many with GID, it will not work well with HSTS and AGP. Already a few people have lined up trying to squeeze into these two categories, and from what you say it sounds like they don't even fit these any better than they did GID. Because it is such an unusual course of action, changing sex has to have some kind of moderation and scrutiny; it is not like buying a new car, nor about sexual preference - it has physical and existential consequences that are bound up with whom one is as a human being. One of the problems with Blanchard/Bailey's theory is that by locating it as a phenomenon rooted in sexuality, this opens the door to an approach that would be all about personal choice and sexual preference. The homosexual transsexual sexual desire for heterosexual men becomes a sexual orientation; the autogynephilic focus on sexual pleasure as a woman becomes a sexual orientation. As a sexual orientation it would become as legitimate as any other sexual orientation that was once in DSM (homosexuality, for example). As a sexual orientation there would be no need for gatekeepers. That in itself would not be a problem apart from one thing - it is not always about sex-object choice. Gatekeeping may be a problem, and it could be managed much better if the resources were made available and managed more sympathetically, but I would not want to see it removed completely. The problem is that if the gatekeepers are medical, they have to have a diagnosis to recommend treatment - and that involves having a diagnostic category. If you do not see this as a medical issue, nor a sexual preference, nor an identity, then what is it? Michel
    Boo
    "I understand what you are saying about gatekeepers, but I would be cautious about that approach. Russell Reid was very keen on the early use of oestrogen to weed out the autogynephiles, and it appears to have been very effective. Much easier for people to turn back after three months of oestrogen and androcur than a year of RLT. My concern is that without some kind of assessment, vulnerable people will be harmed. There are people who are mentally ill (real mental illness, not the travesty of having GID in DSM) who will be deluded. There are people who are autogynephilic who will regret losing the part that gave them so much pleasure. There are people who are homosexual who will find that they can no longer find sexual partners in the gay community once they have SRS." So screen for psychosis and require a year on hormones. You weed out those with delusions, paraphilics, and give people who were in the gay community quite enough time to realize that gay people won't want them any more. Right now the entire process is self-contradicting. First you have to prove that you aren't crazy, then you have to prove that you're incurably crazy so the only thing to do is run with it. Obviously you'd want to take some care with minors, but for anyone over 18 who rushes into major surgery without thinking it through, my response would be: you're an adult, grow up and deal with it. "Because it is such an unusual course of action, changing sex has to have some kind of moderation and scrutiny; it is not like buying a new car, nor about sexual preference - it has physical and existential consequences that are bound up with whom one is as a human being." So does having a hysterectomy. Where is the data showing that gatekeeping actually does anything useful? The one year RLT requirement was pulled out of thin air. The only study I've ever heard of done on it (ironically by Bailey-Blanchard cheerleader Anne Lawrence, of all people) found that length of time in RLT had no bearing on satisfaction with SRS. "One of the problems with Blanchard/Bailey's theory is that by locating it as a phenomenon rooted in sexuality, this opens the door to an approach that would be all about personal choice and sexual preference." And yet the one GIC that applies it is known for being the most regressive and controlling on Earth. They make their clients submit their new names for approval by the clinicians. They actually do that. "The problem is that if the gatekeepers are medical, they have to have a diagnosis to recommend treatment - and that involves having a diagnostic category." Again, a political issue, not a scientific one. It may be a legitimate political question, but it is purely political. "If you do not see this as a medical issue, nor a sexual preference, nor an identity, then what is it?" Like everyone else, I don't really know what it is. Unlike many others, I admit it. Could be a cross-gendered brain thing, could be I just bopped my head falling off the monkey bars in preschool and woke up thinking I was a girl. I ask the same question of the "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome" people that I ask of the "autogynephilic/homosexual" people: where's your data? Until we really have some way of knowing, it makes no difference to me what anyone wants to "identify" as, just don't try to push your identity politics on me, is all I says.
    Michel
    "Again, a political issue, not a scientific one. It may be a legitimate political question, but it is purely political." Well, I would say that was more about ethics, specifically medical ethics. But most of these points are as much ethical and/or socio-political as they are medical-scientific and/or psycho-sexological. The idea that science can deal with social phenomena without political issues being raised is a redundant delusion. "The only study I've ever heard of done on it (ironically by Bailey-Blanchard cheerleader Anne Lawrence, of all people) found that length of time in RLT had no bearing on satisfaction with SRS." Was this for autogynephiles or transsexuals? Were non-transsexual autogynephiles who had SRS included? Were other people who had SRS who were not transsexual included? Where was the sample drawn and were those who were not satisfied included? I do not understand what the problem with the RLT is. It has been found the best way I am aware of for diagnosing that somebody is suited for SRS. It was found to be a more objective method than the long-redundant (by 20+ years) practice of having people parrot the 'woman-in-a-man's-body' narrative that Bailey sets up for criticism as his straw man. The problems I have heard are not with the RLT itself, but centres still witholding treatment from people who have done their RLT. Michel.
    Boo
    "Was this for autogynephiles or transsexuals? Were non-transsexual autogynephiles who had SRS included? Were other people who had SRS who were not transsexual included? Where was the sample drawn and were those who were not satisfied included?" My mistake; actually, she's done two: http://www.annelawrence.com/shortrlt.html Recruiting from her website isn't the best sampling method by any stretch, but she claims she had them submit documentation of SRS. http://www.annelawrence.com/portlandpaper1.html This one was from Toby Meltzer's patients. Interesting story on this one: she tried to use this as more evidence of AG. When I had my consultation with Meltzer, after I signed the information release forms I told him I didn't want any of my information finding its way to Anne Lawrence (you know, cause she's a perv). With no further prompting from me, he went off for about ten minutes on how she had hijacked their survey to support her autogynephilia agenda and how he felt she had gone way beyond what the data actually said and was drawing conclusions that really weren't warranted (for her AG claims). His opinion of AG was "I don't believe in it." Of course, what could Meltzer know about anything? After all, his head isn't jammed up Ray Blanchard's ass. Exactly what objective criteria would you use to determine that someone is an autogynephile instead of transsexual? Especially if they had undergone SRS? "I do not understand what the problem with the RLT is." It's just kind of silly. "It has been found the best way I am aware of for diagnosing that somebody is suited for SRS. It was found to be a more objective method than the long-redundant (by 20+ years) practice of having people parrot the 'woman-in-a-man's-body' narrative that Bailey sets up for criticism as his straw man. The problems I have heard are not with the RLT itself, but centres still witholding treatment from people who have done their RLT." Found by whom? Using what methodology? Where are the studies confirming its effectiveness? I don't have a huge problem with it, but it's another example of assumptions that are passed off as science in this field. Oh btw, Blanchard's clinic demands a year RLT before they'll even give hormones. Not that big a deal for the young androgynous set, but exactly how someone who has to spend a year looking like a man in a dress is supposed to be gaining experience of what it's like to live as a woman, I'm not sure.
    Michel
    "Exactly what objective criteria would you use to determine that someone is an autogynephile instead of transsexual? Especially if they had undergone SRS?" How about asking them? It is a methodology that has yielded results on a wide range of social phenomena. "Found by whom?" Richard Green, according to himself. "how someone who has to spend a year looking like a man in a dress is supposed to be gaining experience of what it's like to live as a woman, I'm not sure." It does seem cruel, I agree, and you would think that those supposed to be caring for somebody would show a bit more compassion. Michel.
    Boo
    "How about asking them? It is a methodology that has yielded results on a wide range of social phenomena." In another response lower down you say autogynephiles often call themselves transsexuals, so asking isn't going to work if you're right. What evidence is there that there exists a discrete category of "autogynephiles" who are distinct from "transsexuals?" What evidence exists that AG is anything more than a personal subjectivity? The guy who coined the term didn't even know how to test for it. Check this out: "As I am finally pulled into the machine, a mechanical hand reaches into my vagina, and a green light above the hand goes off, meaning I have passed the test of having a satisfactory vagina. The second arm manipulates my clitoris, and again the green light goes off. A third arm (all the while I’m being pulled into the machine by the belt) comes out and inserts a cold yellow rod up my anus, and the green light goes off…" Sounds like a textbook case of autogynephilia- arousal directed towards one's own feminine anatomy. Teensy lil thing tho- the women who reported this fantasy happens to have two X chromosomes. (Nancy Friday's Women on Top, p. 369) Is there some defining point on the freak-o-meter when a woman should no longer be considered a woman? Then why for transsexuals? Mechanical Arms Girl makes Angelica's Robot Man look positively vanilla. "I often stand naked before the mirror and play with my nipples as though I were being photographed several times for a Penthouse spread. I bend forward and hold my pussy lips open from behind so that I can see the silhouette of my lips in the mirror. I usually bring myself right off there and observe closely my face as my body quivers with orgasm." If a transperson reports this fantasy, does that make them AG? Suppose this were another genetic female?** Top of p. 552 in Friday's book is also illuminating: "I'm a man in this one- no particular man, sort of myself but with a cock. My hands and feet are spread and somehow attached to the sides of a doorway. Three other anonymous men are involved, all of us wildly aroused." Cue "autoandrophilia." Plus there's hundreds more in there or any other collection about women's sexuality that would rate as AG on Blanchard's Core Autogynephilia Scale. Female sexual arousal tends in general to be more dependent on context than male sexual arousal. I think it's extremely interesting that transwomen's sexual arousal can be rather hard to distinguish. Doesn't necessarily prove anything, but it's very interesting indeed. "Richard Green, according to himself." Is there a reference? "It does seem cruel, I agree, and you would think that those supposed to be caring for somebody would show a bit more compassion." Cue High Anxiety's Nurse Diesel- "We're dealing with sick people here, Dr. Thorndyke, VERY SICK PEOPLE!!!" Boo ** She is, p. 345.
    Michel
    Hi Boo, I do not wish to get bogged down discussing this with you, I am more concerned with other aspects of this issue. The point is that AGP does not apply to 'genetic' females (whatever that means), but to men - and male-to-female transsexuals are not men. So, there is certain self-contradiction involved in somebody claiming to be an autogynephilic transsexual; they would be a 'man in a woman's body' (to follow on from Lawrence's 'man in a man's body'). Richard Green explained this aspect of his work at the Royal College of Medicine last year - that they found RLT to be a better means of assessment than life histories, which tended to become tailored to suit the expectations of the 'gatekeeper'. Whether he was referring back to his work with John Money published in 1969, or his clinical experience since then he did not make clear. I do not like the practice of using the terminology of love in the way it has been - child molesters are not child lovers, yet we call them paedophiles. It fully accept that women can love themselves as women - but when anybody else (including transsexual women) love themselves as women, it becomes a paraphilia. I do not understand why - but then I don't understand men or women very much, and they make the rules. Michel
    Michel
    There was a mention of libel earlier. Is this an actual libel, or an allegation of libel? If this is more than a device to detract from criticism, then there would have to be some substantive case that has either been established under law, or is to be pursued through the courts. Otherwise it is just an allegation. Allegations are not science (not even in social-science), yet they do seem to abound from those claiming scientific credibility for their representations of other people's reality:- 'I am trying to find out about what happened to me as a child, I'm concerned I might be intersex' - liar (transsexual) 'I did not give consent to be portrayed this way' - liar 'I am not an autogynephile' - liar 'I am not a promiscuous homosexual who is a hooker in order to enjoy having sex with straight men' - liar 'I am a bisexual man' - liar 'I am a lesbian' - liar 'He said homosexual transsexuals are best suited to prostitution' - liar (he said 'especially suited') OK, these are characterizations of what is going on, but the response of saying people are lying is a persistent attempt to undermine the credibility of opponents by portraying them as dishonest in perpetuating falsehood in the light of 'truth' (which is actually theory) - it is a rhetorical device dressed up in academic language. Looking at who these comments tend to be directed at, the intention seems to be an 'argument ad hominem'. 'Transsexuals are not to be believed, they are mentally ill, and they are liars'. If this is repeated enough, simply accusing somebody of being a transsexual will undermine their credibility. A discourse of allegation and conspiracy is not academic discourse, and certainly not scientific discourse. Mish
    Michel
    As Sophie said, the responses are highly selected - things that can be rebuffed in a way that score points and show the questioner in a bad light are responded to. Things that are harder to deal with get left there unanswered. That truncates genuine dialog. Michel
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Michel I suspect the reason they are uneasy about discussing the "male bias" question has something to do with the obvious unfavorable comparisons that will happen with a publication from the last century called "Der eigene". Having said that, they do need to address this because if Professor. Bailey does continue with this focus on "male" sexuality then that comparison will crop up. The thing is Der Eigene was an androcentric publication that was very political, and very clearly connected with an ideology that Professor Bailey has sought to distance himelf from. However some of the rhetoric found in that publication does sound like that of the present day androcentrism as expressed by Professor Bailey. Perhaps he is playing to the gallery. Well if he is, he is only going to undermine his work even further.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Well I may as well Say it as Bailey et al will not. On the issue of Intersex, Dreger and her friends generally allow for "Accepting" infant masculinizing surgery because it is more complex (And thus more lucrative for surgeons). and if the child grows rejecting this surgery, that gets more lucrative because then the likes of Bailey call them "homosexual trans gynephile whatevers" and the brainwashing to accept the damage continues raking in more money. (This is why ISNA keep quiet about infant masculinizing surgery) That is my explanation for the male bias.
    M Italiano
    The book is NOT science, and there is NOT overwhelming evidence for Blanchard's theory (which is not his thory actually). Bailey has an odd statement in this blog title, when he states "Ignoring Science" in regards to his book. We can't expect to have a legitimate claim for even a poplular scientific presentation of the subject, when he omits, what may be the most discussed studies on transsexualism to date-the BSTc studies. Thus, see my commentaries about the "convenient omission" in the book, and then the attempt to disuss them "back door" on his web site. http://www.gendercare.com/library/italiano_paper4.html www.genderhealth.net/library/italiano1.htm Not only does the book not address this science, but the "backdoor" criticisms are very flawed. Secondly, if we take a look at some of Benjamin's work, we find that around 40% of his transsexuals were hypogonadal. (Gee, could 40% of these people be lying about their "new found" DSD status? LOL). To be a Benjamin transsexual, one needed to have a partner orientation which, for m to f transsexuals, would typically be men. Yet, far from seeking to have sex with many partners, or being especially suited for prostitution, transsexuals were described as "undersexed", which would fit with an increased finding of hypogonadism. Often they would have trouble passing in their assigned sex, would never masturbate and infrequently have erections. (In a time where they didn't need to fabricate stories, as clinics and their requirements were few). They would be asexual in behavior (although have men as a typical partner preference). When we examine Blanchard's writings on asexuality and its inclusion as a form of AG, we find how weak the link really is. There is far from overwhelming evidence for Blanchard's theory. Whether Kallman's transsexuals, hypogonadal transsexuals, the writings of William Turner demonstrate that asexuality and transvestism may have a common mechanism with male homosexuality (Turner 1995 Arch Sex Behav, 24, 109-134; Turner 1997 Amer J Med Genet, 74, 661-662; Turner, 1997 HBIGDA Symposium poster presentation; Turner 2004 GIDJ (Brazil), online. Incidentally, Blanchard's theory is not unique-he just used a different name. Psychoanalysts, long before Blanchard, described the wish to change sex, as a result of either homosexuality or pathological narcissism, (transitional)object relations and seperation-individuation disturbances. The latter have plenty of writings about the desire to change sex and have used other terms for what Blanchard would just call AG. Indeed, the self psychology and object relations neo Freudian schools, have as the crux of their theories, de-masculinization of the self, as a source of erotic and romantic fullfillment, though they claim it is due to unresolved narcissm (self-love/hate), unresolved castration anxiety. Psychoanalysts call this perversion. In part, thanks to John Money, we have paraphilia. Thus we have a-philia coined by Blanchard. Just another PC term for what has been described before by analysts, such as Heinz Kohut, Margaret Mahler, Otto Kernberg, Charles Socarides, Gertrude & Ruben Blancke and so on. Further, while Blanchard and Bailey claim those who disagree are "lying", these analysts used "repressing". Again, same thing....just other wording. Plus, analysts also believe their theories still have the preponderance of evidence. TMWWBQ discusses two non-transsexual groups. Big deal.
    Jean-Pierre

    The Underexposure of Racism, Sexism and Homophobia in Alice Dreger's Commentary on the Bailey Controversy:

    A feminist analysis on behalf of Organisation Intersex International

    Curtis E. Hinkle, United States. Chairman OII, former SC Coordinator & SC Lesbian Issues Coordinator, National Organization for Women.

    Michelle O'Brien, United Kingdom. Social Science Researcher, Roehampton University. Complete article available at:

    http://www.intersexualite.org/Dreger_Eugenics.html#anchor_31

    Hank
    I know this is off-topic but we want to make the comment viewing system a little more elegant.

    Is it better to have all of the comments on one page, like this, or on multiple pages, as before?

    Michel
    much better on the one page, Hank. Thanks
    Boo
    Dr. Bailey: "None of Roughgarden, Conway, McCloskey, and James has ever acknowledged the subset of transsexual individuals who are grateful that autogynephilia is being discussed." Here is a link to where Andrea James acknowledges the tiny subset of transsexual individuals who are grateful that autogynephilia is being discussed: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/autogynephilia-support.html Here is a link to where Lynn Conway acknowledges a transsexual individual who is grateful that autogynephilia is being discussed (toward the bottom of the page): http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Reader/Chicago%20Reader.12-12-03.html Dr. Bailey, you are a liar.
    Boo
    Oh yes, let's not forget this link to where Roughgarden acknowledges the subset of transsexual individuals who are grateful that autogynephilia is being discussed: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/alice-dreger/bailey-kqed.html "Right, um—we have to be clear that the issue here is not whether or not there exist some people who satisfy the narrative of… that they’re motivated to become transsexuals because of a sexual motivation." You might remember this one, you know, the radio interview you were a part of only just recently? The one you reference at the top of this very blog post? Dr. Bailey, you are not only a liar, you are a bad liar.
    Michel
    "Roughgarden acknowledges the subset of transsexual individuals who are grateful that autogynephilia is being discussed" There is a problem in the categories. People with autogynephilia call themselves transsexuals, but that is not what has tended to be undertsood as transsexuals. They are a very small minority of autogynephiles (most of whom are transvestites), and a small minority of transsexuals (the support network in the USA only had 200 members max). I do not understand how what we have been accustomed to understanding a transsexual is can be confused with a man who changes sex for sexual purposes. I would not want to say that they are transsexuals, but by my own rules I have to accept that is what they say about themselves. If Bailey has achieved anything, he has highlighted through this debate how loose the category has become. My concern is that intersex people who had medical interventions in childhood and who reject that assignment later in life have been forced into this transsexual category as well. When that happens, their intersex past is denied, they are pressurised into denying it themselves, they gain little treatment for their underlying intersex-related issues, but are expected to behave as and receive treatment for a non-intersex man or woman who is transsexual. This can be lethal. My main issue with Bailey's book is that he not only perpetuates this ideology, but he makes out that intersex people who reject their male assignment and don't fuck lots of men are paraphilic. That is abuse. This is discussed in the context of the autogynephile's self-deception, something he says misled gender identity clinics for many years and explains why they had not been noticed nor accounted for: Cheryl Chase told him that transsexuals frequently join intersex groups believing they are intersexual. He states that they are not. They do this (he assumes) because they want to believe that there is a real biological woman inside them as well as a psychological one (p. 175). It would appear that Bailey has not been well informed by those he talks to. Most transsexuals have no interest in joining intersex groups, but there are many people who have been trying to deal with similar issues and have an intersex history who have been rejected by certain intersex groups because they are not the right type of intersex person. This prejudice tends to be based around the sex of assignment (usually male), and rejection of that sex assignment. The advent of the stigmtizing terminology of DSD actually makes statements like this a bit harder to sustain; many of those who have faced exclusion from intersex groups have had what is referred to as a DSD. Mish
    Boo
    "They are a very small minority of autogynephiles (most of whom are transvestites), and a small minority of transsexuals (the support network in the USA only had 200 members max)." Most of that number were lurkers who never posted. Of the people who did post, a majority were critical of the theory. Of those who supported it, some, such as Bailey and Blanchard themselves, were not transsexual. Of transsexuals who were supportive, some claimed to be "homosexuals" instead of "autogynephiles." The actual number of self-identified "autogynephiles" was more in the neighborhood of 12-15 or so, and many of those claimed AG wasn't a paraphilia. Some of those may have been sock puppets. The group's cofounder, Lisanne Anderson, had a history of staging arguments on Usenet between herself and a fake internet persona she created called "Lori Anjou." See above tsroadmap link.
    Hank
    I am betting that those of us interested in this topic ( including the resulting debate and the controversial aspects ) but not emotionally involved or or any particular side would really, really like for the "you are a liar" stuff to be toned down.

    You're also more likely to get the author involved again in making his points if it looks like there are rational people he will be communicating with, right? That should be the point. Insulting each other isn't going to accomplish much.

    This isn't thousands of years of historical animosity or a religious fight. We should be able to be civil with each other.

    EDIT: I don't mean just this instance and certainly not Boo in particular, this latest one is just the catalyst in that 'no snowflake in an avalanche should take the blame' kind of way.

    Of course, the culture is dictated by you, not us, so if that's the way it is, that's the way it is. I just prefer that people insult each other's science and not each other.

    Boo
    I'm sorry, but pretending moral equivalence here doesn't work. I called Bailey a liar because he lied. I documented his lies. They're far from the first I could document for you. Bailey began lying about his critics when he published his first rebuttal on his website. He claimed that his critics were trying to mislead people by tying AG to his own research instead of Blanchard, and yet all three web pages he linked to made quite clear that Bailey was simply regurgitating Blanchard's discredited theory. mbmiller called Ben Barres a liar over and over but never provided any proof that Barres was lying. There is a difference, and pretending there isn't is nothing less than moral cowardice. Bailey has demonstrated over and over that he is not interested in engaging any critic. More to the point, the very idea that I should engage in a debate with someone over my existence is ridiculous on several different levels. My life history is not delineated by the degree to which I can make Bailey pitch a tent. Also to the point, putting some snark in a post does not create a magic barrier that prevents anyone from engaging the points in the post. I put up three valid criticisms of Blanchard's methodology several days ago. Any one of them by itself is enough to invalidate Blanchard's data. I've made those points with Blanchard supporters before. That's always the point where they either stop responding or change the subject. The tactics are basically the same as those used by the Intelligent Design movement: make a bunch of unsupported claims, then whine about conspiracies to paint yourself as a victim when challenged. This is a man who thinks his own words for people like me are dirty and obscene. I agree with him on that point. And you want me to admit the cynical part? Fine: I'm glad Bailey's supporters act the way they do. I could hardly wish for a better example of the prototypical Bailey supporter to point to than mbmiller: a guy who thinks that just shrieking liar over and over (without providing any proof- this is the crucial point) somehow constitutes an actual argument. He's wonderful. He's like a big pinata that just keeps bursting out delicious candy. Who am I to refuse such a gift? I get WPATH, Milton Diamond, John Bancroft, etc. etc., Bailey gets the "Shangri-La Diet" guy. (He wields the power of Shangri-La!) I'm happy to engage with people who are actually willing to engage, like you and Michel or anyone else, but I'm honest. I think Bailey is a disgusting pervert, and I don't really see a point in covering that up with a false veneer of respect that no one with half a functioning brain cell would buy for two seconds anyway. It didn't work when Bailey tried it, so why would it work for me? I'm not the one who needs enagement here. The scientific consensus is already on my side, not his.
    barres
    I sure do agree with Boo. To my knowledge, the only people that are repeatedly calling other people liars are Bailey, Dreger, and Miller. It is obvious that to deserve the designation liar, all you have to do is seriously disagree with their conclusions. Clearly if you disagree with them you either haven't read the book or you are guilty of purposeful distortion. Furthermore, interestingly, without any exception that I am aware of, the only people they have called liars are transgendered people. Pretty much we've all been lumped into that category (liar) with the exception of the one or two transgendered people they can find that agree with them (and I seriously doubt that even those two transgendered people agree with Bailey's many mischaracterizations of transgendered folks except for the existence of AG, which I am not concerned about as per my initial note--there are all sorts of people that get a kick out of cross dressing and most of them are not transgendered). What I just cannot understand is why it is folks like these that get to put me into the DSM. For another great example of arm chair science run amok in evolutionary psychology, see: http://www.badscience.net/?p=51 While it is certainly true that the principle of free speech should apply to even the stupidest of ideas, these are all the sorts of ideas that would be better published in National Enquirer rather than by respected scientific publishers. So where are Milton Diamond, John Bancroft, Eli Coleman, Louis Gooren, etc. in responding to Bailey? Why have they been remaining silent for the past 3 years while Bailey is saying that transgendered people change sex for sexual reasons rather than gender identity, that trans folks are more likely to be shop lifters and especially suited to be prostitutes, etc? If they really care about our welfare why are these good folks remaining silent? Personally I feel deeply betrayed by their silence (I suppose they might be reluctant to be visciously called liars). I hope that they will finally break their silence and respond to Alice Dreger's commentary with their own commentary in the upcoming issue of ASB. Ben Barres
    mbmiller
    But you do lie. That's the problem. It isn't that I disagree with you. I would say that there has been very little substance to disagree with. I did point out that you were lying when you made certain claims about what Bailey had written in his book. The reason I knew that you were lying is that you had made the false claim earlier (when it could have been an error) and you were corrected, in a very definite and memorable way. You then knew that your claims were false, but you got on this list and repeated them. When you repeat false claims that you know are false, you are lying. I don't know of a better word for it. My earlier comments are here: Comment 1 Comment 2 You lie and then you lie about lying, which is at least consistent, I guess. I get very little pleasure from pointing this out and I would have preferred an honest debate about Bailey, his book, the theories in the book, or almost anything other than this. It was very disappointing to see you behaving in this way. I truly am interested to hear what others, even you, have to say. The only reason I have to defend Bailey's ideas (it isn't my area) is that his intellectual opponents have been shockingly dishonest. I don't take that lightly. To me it is a strong indication that the data are not on their side. No matter what you think will be the likely effect of some theory, to attack the theorist or a popularizer using false and misleading claims is still wrong. Worse, it will hurt your cause. You had a chance to show me that Bailey was wrong. I was here reading your messages. You squandered that opportunity. All you've accomplished is to convince me that you are not trustworthy, that you are a very bad spokesman for any cause, and that any negative claims about you or your ideas have a much stronger a priori chance of being true than I otherwise would have thought. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    barres
    Those sound like concluding comments. I'd like to make some too. I am grateful to Hank for the opportunity to have had this discussion. And although for some odd reason Bailey has hidden behind Miller's coat tails, I think that this blog has brought out in a very helpful way what the concerns of the transgendered community are about the book, has brought new evidence to bear on the accuracy of the contents of the book, and has illustrated the kind of character that Bailey and his colleagues have. As I have argued before, when a professor mischaracterizes a whole group of people as lesser than others, with only junk science to support it, he crosses the line from responsible free speech to verbal violence. It is deeply harmful, shows remarkably poor judgement, and is always irresponsible. This irresponsible behavior gives credence to all the other concerns that were raised and brought to the attention of his university administration. Bailey had his free speech, and others had their right to respond freely as they felt appropriate too. No one ever tried to ruin Bailey. All actions in response to his book were taken to protect the welfare of the transgendered community. If any lasting harm was done to Bailey, he fully did it to himself. It is not fair to shoot the messenger. Ben Barres
    Michel
    It is a shame that we end up with much of the same as Dreger's paper - 'he said she said' and 'but he called me a liar first, and he is a liar anyway' and 'but I called you a liar because you are a liar, so...'. Playground stuff. Serious points have been made:- like why people who do not fit the two categories are ignored and omitted, or forced into one in a way that effectively slanders them. like if Bailey has been libeled as his supporters allege, what makes this genuine libel rather than a simple slur alleging libel. There is further point, a legitimate complaint to a university board (any complaint is legitimate, although it may be dismissed - although this one wasn't) is not intimidation. Writing some nasty things on a website is not intimidation. Persistent defamation of a vulnerable minority by a powerful group is intimidation; so it is not trans people who appear to be in the position to intimidate. As has been made clear over DSD in the intersex community, it has been accepted by many because the balance of power is not with the minority group, but with those who implemented the new terminology (including Dreger). Here in the UK, scientists are intimidated in the most appalling ways - they have to check beneath their car with a mirror before going to work, their places of work have been targetted, ancilliary staff at their place of work been threatened; this for the rights of animal research subjects (not the human rights of intersex and transsexual research subjects). So, if Dreger believes that Bailey has been intimidated - does he check under his car every morning with a mirror? I don't think so. To portray this using rhetoric that would imply intimidation does those scientists who have been intimidated no justice at all - it is simply more slander. To speak of the criticism as an attack on free speech totally misleading. The best thing that gay, trans and intersex people can do with these researchers is to boycott them completely, even in blogs like this, and only work with those who are clearly sympathetic. That way they will starve, because they will have no more subjects to feed off for their parasitic research. Michel
    Michel
    When I said 'serious points have been made', I jumped straight to the point and missed the rest of the sentence, so should have read:- Serious points have been made but not responded to, such as... The similarity noted to the method proponents of intelligent design used I also noticed - although I came across it when I administered the Anglican 'Inclusive Church' discussion forum; fundamentalists used the same tactic to force the site to close. It is interesting to observe scientists using similar tactics to fundamentalists, and it makes me wonder if these blogs are more about oppositional research than genuine discussion; I would have expected Bailey and supporters to be closer to the likes of Dawkins, so it is odd to see them resort to these tricks in their defense of 'science' and the 'truth'. LOL! Michel
    Boo
    Comment 1- the "best suited" vs. "especially well suited" schtick. Yes, mbmiller, people really do buy that one. Uh huh. There's a huge, gaping chasm between saying someone is best suited to something, and saying they're especially well suited to something. Since the whole professor thing doesn't seem to suit you very well, have you considered a career in the lucrative field of carnival barking? Comment 2- Sorry, but Northwestern apparently disagreed with you about whether the people in his book were research subjects. You can disagree with them if you choose, but agreeing with the majority position no more makes Ben a liar than agreeing with majority scientific opinion means nobody reads academic journals as Bailey has alleged. And speaking as an actual licensed professional, I wouldn't feel it was appropriate to have sex with someone I had had a counseling relationship with, but then again I'm not a "sexologist." Repeating the same baseless claims over and over ad nauseum does not somehow add base to them, that's another standard ID tactic. If no carnivals are hiring, perhaps you should send a resume to the Discovery Institute. See? More candy. I got some Smarties and a Kit-Kat this time. What'd you get, Ben?
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Michael Oh no not again... "You had a chance to show me that Bailey was wrong. I was here reading your messages." No Ben did not, every post I read of his was met with "liar, you are " (A Tactic) "You squandered that opportunity. All you've accomplished is to convince me that you are not trustworthy, that you are a very bad spokesman for any cause," Yes I I have seen it before "You are damaging, a poor advocate of what you represent" (Another tactic) "and that any negative claims about you or your ideas have a much stronger a priori chance of being true than I otherwise would have thought." Yes I know this one "You are destructive to the whole debate" (Another tactic) Michael I am going to be blunt with you. every single time there is a debate involving Bailey this self same, predictable pattern emerges. Bailey provokes people by talking the "truth" (Plays to the gallery) those reacting to it are branded liars. If the accusation does not stick more than one supporter of Bailey appears to make sure it does. (Here the righteous indignation and martyrdom starts) Then it is "they are bullying Bailey. (Pile on the indignation) Then the "You do not represent what you claim to". If the critic of Bailey ever gets the upper hand, then what they are saying is scrutinized and then used to determine that the critic is somehow mentally ill. (That tactic started in 2006 with Dreger). It was an amusing spectacle to watch the first few times round, But is is now a script. OK the Dreger mutation is amusing at times but it still as script that has been around for some years now. I have posted a few questions, not attacking Professor Bailey, I admit the questions can be awkward (Especially about the Androcentrism) and of three questions there has only been one answer. (I do appreciate the one answer you have given) What is all this trying to acheive? Lets cut through the spin and rhetoric. What are you, Professor Bailey, Dr Dreger, and a few others that spring to mind really about? What do you actually want? I know some of the very unpleasant claims I have read about what people think you want. (Stepford Husbands and Wives basically) But what do you people actually want? how will your science benefit society? Would if it is successeful simply turn the US into a gigantic film set for Stepford Wives? where every man and woman is in thier genetically engineered place all obeying the strict laws of the two sex system. Is that (As others claim) what you really want? The writing and behavior of Proessor Bailey and his supporters points to that. Convince me I am wrong. Blunt and honest question now. What do you people, surrounding Bailey really want? (Please do not mention your critics, I am asking you a straight question about what you want to achieve as a whole) Thanks Sophie
    khogan
    Dear Dr Miller and Dr Bailey - I'm left wondering why there have to be any kinds of mtf transsexuals. Why can't there be continuous variation along multiple axes of gender identity and sexuality, rather than only two categories based only on 'erotic target'? Also, shouldn't a theory that contributes towards a fundamental understanding of transsexuality have something to say about female-to-male trans people? And why can't people be allowed to describe their own experiences in their own terms? If the goal is scientific understanding, don't we lose by not listening to them? respectfully, K Hogan
    Michel
    Hi Hank, It would be nice to hear the author again, I agree. It is unfortunate allegations started to be bandied about earlier on, as that did raise the heat for some people. I would be very interested to hear what he has to say on some of the points raised. Michel
    Jean-Pierre
    The Bailey Smokescreen, Ignoring Science and playing to the Gallery. Guide to debating Bailey and his defenders http://tinyurl.com/yruz3f
    Hfarmer
    There are more than a few things I would like to say. First and foremost I have to admit my biases on this. I am a transsexual, I am from Chicago, and I met Dr. Bailey before he wrote his book and tought he was a nice guy. The contents of the book did not change that. I also knew of and respected Lynn Conway before the book controversey made her infamous. It is quite possible that my place in the world gives me an almost unique perspective on this matter. Dr. Bailey is not Hitler, Stalin or anyone else. He really is just a psychologist who wanted to help transsexual, transgndered and GLB people. As a scientist he made a mistake many scientist often make. He assumed that the factual truth would be good for T people. There is some reason to think that it is not. But only in so far as bigoted people will use Blanchards theory to justify discrimination against transsexuals in this sex-negative society of ours. Some people will read the below and want to rebut it by persoanlly attacking me. Whatever. :roll: If your browser cannot display unicode characters you will see garbage like ??? lksdlk etc. try a different browser like mozilla firefox and it should look right. Mathematical proof that Blanchards theory is at least taxonomically correct. Abstract Every transsexual knows about the findings of Zhou, that the BSTc is a structure in the brain which causes transsexualism. From this comes the idea of brain sex and “HBS”. Most gay people know of the INAH as well as various other studies that point to a brain difference that causes homosexuality in biological males. I have shown that if both of these findings are confirmed true then concepts from quantum theory can be applied to shed light on the question “How is sexual orientation related to gender identity disorder?” A hot button topic. What I will show from neurological data, Hilbert space mathematics, and the first principles of quantum theory that gender identity and sexual orientation are quantum mechanically entangled. This is a abrieviated form of a longer more detailed doccument posted at http://www.geocities.com/hontasfx/Contemplations/INAHBSTc.pdf Background There are two pieces of data that this theory relies on. One is the well known to transsexuals result of Zhou et al that the BSTc is different in transsexuals. I will assume in this compostion that the BSTc is indeed different and furthermore that it controls and directs transsexual behavior. Likewise there is a result best known to homosexual males of LeVay etal Which had a simmilar sounding result for the INAH (1-4). I will assume that the INAH 4 is the controlling center for homosexuality in biological males. From those two pieces of data and those two asumptions I will construct two separate models of homosexuality and transsexuality in biological males. Homosexuality First on the INAH (1-4) The system will have two pure states. The state of being totally, perfectly, androphilic. Represented by the ket |A>. As well as the state of being totally gynephilic which will be represented by the ket |G>. The state of a persons actual sexual orientation will be what is called a mixed state. It will be represented by |S>. |S>=H|A>+(1-H)|G> Where H is between Zero and one. H will represent the strength of the effect that causes the difference in the INAH(1-4) what ever the heck it is, we don't know and all kinds of complex, social and biological systems are being traced over to determine that number. I know it sounds like a stretch but physicist do it all the time and still get reasonable results. To formally describe a Hilbert space there has to be an identity element (usually denoted with a 0). The zero element would be, theoretically someone who is just not attracted to anyone. I will represent this with |0_S>. Which mathematically would be the case when someone is effected, by something, that could cause homosexuality, and something else that would cause them to be heterosexual. It could be social, or biological or some combination there of. |0_S>=|A>-|G> So this is the set of vectors in this Hilbert space {|A>,|H>,|0_S>,|S>=H|A>+(1-H)|G>} With the addition, defined as I have this kind of vector space this is called a Convex vector space. To formally make this a Hilbert space there has to be a definition of what is called the inner product. {I will leave that proof on the longer document I provided the URL for above. } Bissexuals are there as well, for them H=1/2 or there about. Now to do likewise for transsexalism and the BSTc There will also be two pure state. Transsexual |T>, or not transsexual |N>. The general state of most people will as before be a mixed state |F>. With a identity state that will represent those people who feel as if they have no definite gender, not bigendered, but just totally agendered. There are people who say that's how they feel. |0_F> |F>=B|T>+(1-B)|N>. B is a number between zero and one. All together the set of states in the space of gender identities is in this Hilbert space. {|T>,|N>,|0_F>,|F>=B|T>+(1-B)|N>} With the inner product the same as that which I defined for the INAH(1-4). As far as describing the variety of transsexual people in the world this second Hilbert space is sufficient. The strength of the effect which I denoted with B varies from people who are not at all transsexual to those who are totally inverted and everything in between. It includes those who are bigendered (B=1/2) and those who are agendered. That does not mean that the sexual orientation of a given transsexual or transsexuals could not have an influence on their development. {I show a section of the human brain and how close the INAH must be to the BSTc. } Based on that observation I would expect that sexual orientation and gender identity could be rather strongly entangled. Now to show it mathematically by compositing the Hilbert spaces. INAH⊗BSTc ==> {|A>,G>,|0_S>,|S>=H|A>+(1-H)|G>}⊗{|T>,|N>,|0_F >,|F>=B|T>+(1-B)|N>} ==> That the composite Hilbert space will have the following vectors. {|A>⊗|T>,|A>⊗|N>,|A>⊗|0_F>,|A>⊗|F>, |G>⊗|T>,|G>⊗|N>,|G>⊗|0_F>,|G>⊗|F>, |0_S>⊗|T>,|0_S>⊗|N>,|0_S>⊗|0_F>,|0_S>⊗|F>, |S>⊗|T>,|S>⊗|N>,|S>⊗|0_F>,|S>⊗|F>} The question is are any of these states entangled? From the definition of quantum entanglement. Consider two [noninteracting systems A and B, with respective Hilbert spaces H_A and H_B. The Hilbert space of the composite system is the tensor product H_A⊗H_B If the first system is in state |ψ_A> and the second in state |φ_B>, the state of the composite system is |ψ_A>⊗|φ_B>, which is often also written as |ψ_A>φ_B>. States of the composite system which can be represented in this form are called separable states, or product states. Not all states are product states. Fix a basis \{|i_A>} for H_A and a basis \{|j_B>} for H_B. The most general state in H_A⊗H_B is of the form ∑{i,j} c_{ij} |i_A>⊗|j_B>. If a state is not separable, it is called an entangled state. OK so are any states in INAH⊗BSTc unseparable? The tensor products of the pure states are probably separable. How about the mixed states? |S>⊗|F> =(H|A>+(1-H)|G>)⊗(B|T>+(1-B)|N>) =H|A>⊗B|T>+H|A>⊗(1-B)|N>+(1-H)|G>⊗B|T> +(1-H)|G >⊗(1-B)|N> =HB|A>⊗|T>+H(1-B)|A>⊗|N>+(1-H)B|G>⊗|T> +(1-H)(1-B)|G >⊗|N> Which is an unseparable state, therefore an entangled state. Therefore I have shown that based on the axioms of quantum theory and mathematics that gender identity is entangled with sexual orientation. Quod et Demonstratum I also did not choose a specific representation for these vectors (whats called a basis, like coordinates, or functions) that part was left totally abstract and general. Therefore I can say that this entanglement is a fundamental feature of the system and not an artifact of picking a specific basis. The mixed states which are entangled are the most general states of mind that can be. The pure states should be thought of as idealizations that are only used to write the mixed states. Surely there are people who are very , very close to one of the pure states, hardly anyone is 100% anything in real life. The point of all of this? In case you missed it because it was stated in mathematical terms… What I have shown mathematically, and physically is that the sexual orientation of a person and their gender identity MUST be entangled if these states of mind are controlled by the brain in the way that most transsexuals think they are. For this to be disproved one would have to disprove quantum mechanics. The only debateable thing is does autogynephilia cause non-homosexual transsexualism.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Boo
    Wow. If this is the same hfarmer, when we debated this on feministing you seemed like a sincere if somewhat misguided person. From this it seems you're actually kind of a nut. Repeat after me: quantum mechanics is physics, not neurology. The above makes about as much sense as Complex Specified Information, which is to say, none at all.
    Hank
    That's the great thing about quantum mechanics. If you really want, you can prove almost anything. It just depends on your suspension of disbelief.

    I know I'd read a "Quantum Mechanics of Sexuality" article if you want to write it but you'd probably want to make it general and not just about transsexuals* so that everyone would get something out of it.

    *There are so many terms being thrown around here I am always concerned I am using the wrong one in the wrong place, so please just assume I used the right one if I am incorrect in my verbage there.

    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello HFarmer. :) Curious, I must admit, I am not going to attack you (I dont agree with Bailey, but this does not mean people have to attack each other). This looks like fun. What you refer to as entanglement I would probably refer to as being an affine system. In which the "Entangled elements" only appear "entangled" because of thier relative similarities. (Lets just use thier relative symmetry) The sum of these similarities does not really demonstrate a predictable and fixed taxonomy. Because it only describes an "Entanglement" at a given point of reference. (Or two similar sets of properties being linked by that similarity at say a given point in time) I mean A+B does not equal B+A Lets call these A1 and A2 (Affine 1 and Affine 2) They have different sets of properties dictated by their relative symmetry. So A1 := A2 Could be two versions of let's say Σ(A). but what if the internal structure of AI and A2 differ not just in terms of relative symmetry. But has internal structure. (Behaviors are after all complex systems). OK that would take more time to type in via the character map utility. OK apply the methodology you are using you get one set of answers, apply another (Like some sort of very botched matrix mechanics) you get another set of answers. It is interesting but I think there is a Kurt Godel lurking in this somewhere, nothing is provable. And of course a certain physicists uncertainty principle. Just kidding :) I must admit I am intrigued. :) Sophie
    Michel
    I'm not a mathematician, so unclear whether this proves anything, but if it were to, then surely this proves that Bailey is wrong. Because while it shows there are HSTS and AGP (non-TS + SRS), it also indicates a variety of other potentialities outside those two; Bailey's key assertion is that there are only these two types. You say that there are asexual or nonsexual types (which for Bailey are called liars), and there are intersex types (which for Bailey constitutes and empty set). Then there are the androphobes, transsexuals who both fear and hate men, which gives rise to autoandrophobia. Some androphobes have an intersex history, and it is to their experiences of medical practice this androphobia can be traced - where treatment by male doctors effectively acts as a catalyst. Michel.
    Boo
    I'm not enough of a mathematician to know if the math is right or not, but assuming it is, it still doesn't mean anything. There is no reason to grant any of the assumptions on which hfarmer's speculation (calling it a theory does violence to the concept of scientific theory) is based. "Every transsexual knows about the findings of Zhou, that the BSTc is a structure in the brain which causes transsexualism." No, the findings of Zhou don't show this. They show that a sex-reversed brain structure exists, and that it doesn't seem to be caused by taking hormones (as one of the subjects they found it in was known to be trans but had never had hormones). Right now, that's all the findings show. Like astrology or Dembski's CSI, the math itself may work on its own terms, but there is no good reason to believe that it actually applies to anything in the real world. Furthermore, and this was another problem I found when debating this with hfarmer on feministing, it doesn't address Blanchard's model as Blanchard defined it and Bailey defends it. Under Blanchard's model, what he calls "homosexual transsexualism" is not built on two separate axes of transness and homoness. An mtf "homosexual transsexual" is supposedly an extremely effeminate gay man (the effeminacy being a direct outgrowth of their gayness) who decides they'd be more successful at attracting masculine men as a woman than as a gay man. That's it. No gender identity or BSTc stuff or anything else. That's what you find in Blanchard's writings, that's what you find in Bailey's writings. Bailey even claims in his book that the concept of gender identity is nonsensical. Any set of equations or whatever which include gender identity as a separate variable by definition does not support Blanchard's model. Also, in Blanchard's model there exists only heterosexuality and homosexuality, with no other options or in-between states or anything. All mtf trans asexuals are "autogynephiles" who are so overwhelmed by their "autogynephilia" that they have no room left over to be attracted to another person, and all mtf trans bisexuals are "autogynephiles" who find the idea of being penetrated by a penis makes them feel more like a woman and thus feeds their "autogynephilic" arousal, and hence have no actual interest in men beyond as props to feed their self-directed paraphilia. (And nontrans bisexual males are just lying/deluded gay guys or more rarely very confused str8 guys) It's right here under the "What is Blanchard's 'two types of transsexuals' theory?" section: http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversy.htm So, yet again we have an individual who has claimed one of Blanchard's categories as a political identity, but has altered the definition of the category to suit her own interests, just like the "transkids" and the "autogynephilia supporters." Ironically, my guess is that the reality is actually closer to hfarmer's speculations, but to the extent that this is true, it refutes Blanchard's model rather than supporting it (and it'll have to be supported by gathering real data, not talking about quantum mechanics and tossing equations around). Was I overly rude before? Probably so. Sorry, I've been sick all week.
    M Italiano
    No. You are wrong. Neither math NOR physics proves that Blanchard's taxonomies are correct. In fact, they show the opposite. See the following links from my colleague (who is a physicist/engineer)on this. Dr. Waleria Torres shows it better. http://www.gendercare.com/testes/identidade/identidade3.html http://www.gendercare.com/catastrophe2.html Please remember, that in the Swaab transsexual studies, in the transsexual women, the SDN, the SCN, and the PVN, were ALL found to be male typical irregardless of the sexual orientation of the transsexuals, and the BSTc was found to be female typical irregardless of the sexual orientation of the transsexuals.
    torrwad
    HFarmer, Thank you for publishing your PDF paper. I downloaded it and i will read it first, and then i will prepare and put here my comments on it. I, "a priori", reject absolutely two of your statements: 1. The seriousness of Bailey and Blanchard; 2. The quality of INAH related works. So, "a priori" i have some problems with your background. Almost all studies performed about "homosexual brains" probably are biased, due to the lack of sampling criteria - they mixtured homo, bi, TG,TS in the same black box as the same sampling universe. In rats, when an original male looking rat later showed a female behavior, they were classified as "homosexual rats", and almost never as "gender identity modified rat"... so, a lot of sampling bias in all these old "homosexual brain" studies. I also have "a priori" some critics considering Dutch and old "transsexual brain" research... So i believe, possibly you are considering as a background for considering any quantic idea, pure "unconsistent background". As you may see in my papers, also published in the web,i never consider these "etiology studies" as my background. So let me analyse your work first, and then i will comment it. My background is mathematics and sexology - i am also a TS MtF post op one, and i have a Gender Clinic - the first web-based Gender clinic at www.gendercare.com So, give me some time... and i hope we will have a good exchange of ideas soon. Wal Torres Gendercare
    torrwad
    Wal Torres Comments
    Your Abstract Every transsexual knows about the findings of Zhou, that the BSTc is a structure in the brain which causes transsexualism. From this comes the idea of brain sex and "HBS". Most gay people know of the INAH as well as various other studies that point to a brain difference that causes homosexuality in biological males. I have shown that if both of these findings are confirmed true then concepts from quantum theory can be applied to shed light on the question "How is sexual orientation related to gender identity disorder?" A hot button topic. What I will show from neurological data, Hilbert space mathematics, and the first principles of quantum theory that gender identity and sexual orientation are quantum mechanically entangled.
    A priori your abstract show me problems. The INAH studies were very based in biased sampling.
    Introduction The "Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis". From what we have seen in the work done on it so far there is no way to say that sexual orientation or anything else causes the difference Zhou observed in the BSTC.
    I agree!!!!
    Let us also consider sexual orientation separately from this. There was another study one, before Zhou which found a nucleus in the brain that is different in homosexual biological males, and heterosexual biological males. This part of the brain is known as the "Interstitial nucleus of the Anterior Hypothalamus (1-4)" Four different nuclei that were different in homosexual males and heterosexual males.
    Since the late 60’s, Dörner & team in East Germany (Humboldt University in Berlin, Department for Endocrinology) studied the hypothalamus region in rats and human bodies. They discovered since then differences among male and female brains. Using hormones, they studied intensively the relation in rats for hypothalamic structures – and sexual behavior. Later, at UCLA, also Gorski & team and at NY Pfaff & team studied these subjects in rats and other species and human bodies, during 70’s and 80’s. At Oregon Primate Center, Resko & team and at Emory U in Atlanta Michael & Bonsall studied a lot rhesus monkeys brains and hormones… and so on. The central subject was always the male/female differences. Some, including Dorner, started trying to find “male homosexual” relations for brain structures. Then was triggered INAH 4th in UCLA, and then the SDN from Swaab, and so on… and studies trying to consider not only male/female but also “homosexual” brains. All these studies, UNFORTUNATELY were based in bad SAMPLING. No sampling CRITERIA. No differentiation among homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender, transsexuals… all were considered in the same UNIVERSE. So, the value of INAH 1-4 and SDN’s and so on is absolutely NOTHING, from a real scientifical point of view. So, dear friend HFarmer, you may not consider any formal math over BAD DATA. The math value is related to the quality of the data. Bad data, no math – quantic or not – will never arrive to real serious results. I believe, the Duch now – Zhou, Kruijver and so on, are considering better sampling criteria – BUT EVEN THAT WAY, THE SAMPLES ARE TOO SMALL… so the results need to be considered with reserve. WHAT CAN WE DO? I have a suggestion for you and the colleagues here: Do you know a primate species named Pan paniscus? The Paniscus are the primates that are nearer us, humans. They live in Center Africa, in Congo Republic, in the Wamba forest, and are studied by Osaka University by primatologist Takayoshi Kano, PhD. See please the work from Frans de Waal about these primates. ALL THEM ARE BISEXUALS IN NATURE, and all have homosexual relations – male/male and female/female, systematically IN NATURE. No report of ANY GENDER IDENTITY PROBLEM! But systematical homo and bisexuality. THAT IS THE GOOD UNIVERSE TO STUDY HOMOSEXUALITY, its consequences, AND BRAINS! Any special characteristics in their brains would be related to homosexuality – to the way they feel THEIR RELATIONS and not themselves. So I suggest all INAH work was not correctly developed – considering “homosexuals” – they may be good to consider male/female as are the other studies. Your “quantic” conclusion is obvious: gender identity may have a component related to sexual orientation. Surely I agree… gender identity is absolutely complex – and need to be considered – and any studied model need to consider – that absolute complexity. But nothing to do with INAH and SDN, etc please! WHAT IS SURE? 1. The human – as all primate’s brains – have a gender differentiation in its structure – and that UNKNOWN influence in gender identity formation IS NOT LINEAR AND SIMPLISTIC - but exists and is a kernel whre gender identity is formed, and need to be seriously considered in any model; 2. Homosexuality we need – and may study – through non-human primates – mainly Pan paniscus brains – and societies. Surely, gender identity and sexual orientation are not absolutely independent – they are interdependent – but not in a strong way (never among paniscus, a gender identity variation was reported) 3. We may not consider simplistic one cause one effect to study gender identity dynamic development. We need to consider complex systems theory – not quantic theory – to study it. 4. A probable good model for GI formation is SOC-self-organized criticality – because as I showed in Chicago during the WPATH symposium, the power spectrum inside a virtual gender space, is self-similar 1/f. SOC is probable, not sure. So HFarmer, I believe we have a lot of work to do – and these INAH versus Stria terminalis, Homo vs TS, Bailey and Blanchard over estimation of parts of the whole system, and all dogmatism here, only trigger pseudo-science, hate, stupidity, politics and waste of effort and time. Who intend to study HOMOSEXUALITY, study the Pan paniscus please! Who intend to study gender identity, see that that is something complex – that need a many causes – many effects model to be considered – to be seriously considered. All considering good sampling criteria PLEASE!
    It is also reasonable to assume that their is no direct connection between this and gender identity.
    No, no, no! exactly the contrary! INAH studies – later Le Vay studies, and so on, were based in no sampling criteria! SURELY A LOT OF WHICH THEY MEASURED COULD BE FROM GENDER IDENTITY! No, no, no!
    The first things I have to do is construct the Hilbert Spaces of these two systems After that I will combine them using the tensor product formalism.
    No dear! How could you construct probability spaces if you have only bad sampling? No, no, no! You may construct all you would like to with that background! You are erecting an idea only, a pure empty formalism that means nothing dear!!! So I will not consider your tentative math formalism dear… because that is nonsense, DUR TO THE LACK OF GOOD DATA! SO SORRY!
    Which is an unseparable state, therefore an entangled state. Therefore I have shown that based on the axioms of quantum theory and mathematics that gender identity is entangled with sexual orientation.
    Dear friend, you need not to do all that “math formalism” to see the obvious: GI-gender identity formation is a complex effect of a complex system that has many causes – an many effects. Among that mess, also sexual orientation has its part, as sex of rearing, as religion, as profession, as… almost all. I absolutely agree with your conclusion but not the background!
    Quod et Demonstratum
    Hummm…. Here we are not in a math class to write CQD… because here nothing is CQD… we are considering a complex many to many system in Kaneko sense… we need to consider it properly.
    In case you missed it because it was stated in mathematical terms... What I have shown mathematically, and physically is that the sexual orientation of a person and their gender identity MUST be entangled if these states of mind are controlled by the brain in the way that most transsexuals think they are.
    What I do not agree with you here, is the intensity of your assertiveness. Yes, they are related – but surely gender identity formation is also related to at least more 10 variables, and mainly to the brain – it is formed inside the brain, so it is important the brain as a kernel, as a core part of GI formation. Not only THE brain, bau a lot of brain parts… never only stria terminalis, or hypothalamus… but a lot of parts, and so on… and the relation between these parts, and the relation between these parts outside the brain and inside the body… and the environment… and the cultural environment… and etc, etc, etc.. NEVER SIMPLE RELATIONS PLEASE!!!!
    For this to be disproved one would have to disprove quantum mechanics.
    Surely you are joking dear friend… I believe surely you are much more intelligent than thinking that that assertive is a serious one…
    A final comment on this from me. If the INAH and BSTc are shown to be the area's that control sexual orientation and gender identity it will be a mixed bag for the "transgendered" community. On the one hand transsexuals will be validated as really in a limited but physical sense having a female brain. While at the same time it will have been shown that sexual orientation is controlled by a totally different portion of the brain, yet still every bit as physical and "hard wired" as gender identity is supposed to be. What would that mean for the scores of transsexual women who say that their sexual orientation changed due to hormones?
    What is your sampling data here dear? I have evaluated more than 500 gender variants in the last years, and I had NEVER that result. What is your sample and sampling criteria to say that thing? Seriousness dear… please!
    What would this mean for the BBL controversy? Should there have even been a controversy? For the opponents of BBL theory believe strongly in the notion of "brain sex", while the supporters of it believe strongly in the notion of "brain sexual orientation".
    That is a main problem dear. Bailey & Co. are based in the “homosexual brain”, as a background. THAT IS BAD SCIENCE, until someone really study the PANISCUS BRAINS AND FIND THERE EVIDENCES OF A HOMOSEXUAL BRAIN! The problem here is… Bailey & Co believe the brain differences are due to the sexual orientation – based on bad sampling and no serious control and criteria – and the Others believe these differences are due to GENDER IDENTITY… based on BETTER SAMPLING CRITERIA… but not PERFECT SAMPLING CRITERIA. So, in a sense both groups are doing NO SCIENCE – BUT POLITICS AND each one is trying BY FAITH – to believe that or that way. I suggest: 1. Stop that mess please! 2. See that gender identity is different from sexual orientation – absolutely different. 3. They are different and interconnected – as we are different from the air – but we are interconnected with the air to survive! 4. That interconnection is complex – it is NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO CAUSE-EFFECT, but probably as effects from COMPLEX CAUSES. 5. WE MAY STUDY sexual orientation and its relation to brains IN Paniscus. We may NOT study it in human brains without bias! 6. We may study gender identity with its huge variability and complexity – if we consider it a “gender identity perception space” – a VIRTUAL SPACE where gender self-perception evolves. 7. We are doing that study for 6 years now in Gendercare – that way we were able to develop instruments to measure gender identity dynamics to evaluate people through the web! 8. Up until today we had no opportunity to try a global model – a very complex one – to understand gender identity formation. We consider the first step for that model will be the verification of the fractality of that space – we have already evidences that it is fractal. If it is fractal, probably it is critical. If it is a critical system, we may start modeling it considering criticality and so on. 9. Any serious help to develop that model will be very welcome. 10. To study homosexuality, nature provided us an alive model – the Paniscus – we need not a model if we have an alive one. Let’s study it!
    Larry Arnold
    I spy the 'Quantum Mechanics Gambit' can I claim my five pounds now?

    Anything suitably baffling is bound to win the argument. I can recall using an appeal to Hilbert space as a 'Mcguffin' in a sci fi parody I wrote back in the 70's invoking it for the same reason 'warp drive' appears in Star Trek.

    Well going even further back I recall this comic book exchange in Mandrake the Magician 1. where the eponymous hero was confronted by an invisible thief. When challenged for an explanation of how he effected his invisibility the thief  replies  "Only two sub atomic physicists in the world understand that and I am not one of them" (to the best of my knowledge, I lost the comic many years ago)

    In other words if some branch of science is suitably arcane to be beyond the knowledge of most of ones readers one can easily invoke it to baffle them. Your argument may indeed be sound, but who am I a mere mortal to challenge it :)

    1. Mandrake the magician, King Comics 1966-67 edition unknown.
    logicman
    Laurence:  it isn't just the 'quantum gambit', it's the 'a duck looks like a goose, therefore a duck tastes like a goose' fallacy.

    http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo/behav
    Jean-Pierre
    An inquiry into the “Queer Science” and history of the Bailey Controversy on behalf of the Organisation Intersex International Edited by Curtis E. Hinkle Background: Alice Dreger has written an article on the controversy that ensued after J Michael Bailey published a book on transsexualism and male femininity. Alice Dreger is a professor at the same university, Northwestern, which did an investigation that left still unresolved the charges that Anjelica Kieltyka and other women portrayed in the book brought against the author, also a professor at Northwestern University. I, Curtis E. Hinkle, have been working with Anjelica to reveal the truth and expose the obfuscation of facts and continued abuse and neglect of some very vulnerable women used as unprecedented case studies without their expressed informed consent. As a result, I have all the transcripts of Anjelica’s interviews with Dreger and all the documentation on Lynn Conway’s website, two of the main sources for Dreger’s article. After reading Dreger’s article, it is obvious that it is biased and not based on the actual documentation that she cites. Academics who are interested in serious academic discourse and ethical treatment of vulnerable case studies and/or research subjects are negligent by not demanding serious questions concerning this unprecedented abuse which is once again being perpetrated against Anjelica and the other women in the book. If the academic community does not ask serious questions and demand high ethical standards of other academics, the damage that this will do to freedom of speech and ethics in academia could be irreparable. To read the full report, cut and past the following address: http://www.intersexualite.org/Dreger_Bailey.html
    Hank
    Jean-Pierre ( and anyone else who cares ),

    You all have either 'blogging' and/or 'article' functionality so you can just put things like this in your blog here and it will likely get more attention than the bottom of the comments section of an older article.

    If you want people here to see it, add them to your 'friends' list ( outside people see it too, but friends will have it show up in their sidebar and not have to look for it ) and they'll probably add you back and it also opens up the chat functionality, etc. that's built in.

    Hfarmer
    @ BOO whatever @hank. That's not true. For example I and nobody else could "Prove" from the non relativistic quantum theory what is at the center of a black hole or the age of the sun. There are limits I know but I did not cross any of them. What I did is a common practice in the field of Mathematical psychology. There is even at least one well respected journal on the topic (Google : Journal of Mathematical Psychology ). It is a really old field. They work on problems in psychometrics and psychophisics etc. It is really facinating what can be done with a little math and imagineation. I mean really there is no apriori reason to think that stars and planets should obey our petty laws of gravity but the fact is they do. The human mind is no different. All I would do with this is put the PDF of the entier doccument on my blog if I did anyting with it. Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Fluke
    This is not a response to anyone in partcular, just my POV as a transsexual woman to this whole TMWWBQ debarcle. When I was small I used to look up to academics, people of learning, people who had the where-with-all to have letters after their names. People who mangaed to get learned research papers published in peer reviewed journals. They were my heroes. My inspiration. But reading the fallout from the publication of TMWWBQ I feel sad, lost, betrayed. Outside of the who is right who is wrong debate, she said he said, blah blah blah, and of course the liar liar routine that part of every single Bailey discussion and one I almost never see anywhere else. What is the point of TMWWBQ? seems a simple question doesn't it? not really. What really is the point of TMWWBQ? Why write it? for science? since there is little to no science in it that seems doubtful. To make money? AFAIK know it hasn't sold that many copies to have been worth the effort put into it writing it. Certainly not the effort needed trying to defend it. As a trigger for debate? To put down an already repressed group in society. To court fame or infamy for the author through intentional controversy? Nothing adds up here. All is see today is power posturing. By all sides in this. people that I used to hold in high regard by default. Neitherside is without fault IMO. Yes, I am offended by TMWWBQ, offended that I am called a liar in it, that some of my friends are called liars because we do not agree we are either of the two types of Transsexuals described therein. I am also a little offended by the way some of the trans advocates have resonded to this, making personal attacks on Dr Bailey rather that just attacking what he wrote. Dr Bailey is a sexologist I believe, trying to catergorize peoples motiations for transsexualism based on sexuality is a flawed approach. It is no big secret that transsexualism is about gender identity. Sex? , well, it is about sex I suppose. Seems a little like trying to catergorise what sports team people support based on what car they drive. I hate to be the one to break it to a professsional sexologist, but not everything is about sex. Gender identity for the most part isn't, Though I will be the first to admit we are all sexual creatures. Even my asexuality is sexuality of sorts. Surely a responsable author of a book of this nature would have at least listened to the people he is supposed to be portraying when they claim he has got things so wrong? If there are so many people who claim they do not fit homosexual or AGP groups that there perhaps, could be, possibly some truth to their claims? certainly enough of a possability to do a little more research? I have seen no evidence of that. OK, so Dr Bailey accuses me of lying when I claim to be neither AGP nor Homosexual TS, now answer me this, why would I need to lie? I have nothing to proove, I have finished my transition. I know not any of the vocal protagonists on either side, nor am I ever likely to meet them. So why would I need to lie? and why the need to call me a liar? It is time this arguement over TMWWBQ is laid to rest and everyone can get on with more worthwhile things. Fluke
    Michel
    Hi Fluke, the way I look at it is that it makes no sense to describe something that accounts for about 1% of somebody's life as being the motivating factor behind the other 99% - sex being the 1%. It says more about the author than the subjects. I agree that both sides seem to have a thin grasp of honour or truth. Why Dreger had to dredge this up is beyond me. Academic freedom does not wash, because all I have seen recently is any trans academic speaking out finding their credibility challenged, assigned guilt by association with those they are not associated with. With DSD and now this paper, it seems some academics feel it is time their subjects speaking for themselves is put an end to. People cannot even go on Oprah without an academic spokesperson being there to make sure the message is 'on board', the subjects ideologically correct.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hi Michel I think I know the Dreger Message. "When you are born you are a sociomedical emergency, we medically intervene (Which does not exclude surgery) we brainwash (F) or brutalize (M) you when assigned a sex, and if you object to it, we call you Transgender" (Meaning Liar...again)
    Michel
    Hi Sophie, Science? Dreger & Bailey's travelling freak show more like. Michel.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hi Michel I just decide to look around the genetics section, It is the usual rutting season "The genes say so" ethic. There is a mommy gene, and a set of yet undescribed daddy genes that would cause a man to die if he had a "female orgasm". (Men are designed for pain and death it would seem and women are always "Begging for it"). Is any of this I have been reading in the genetics section science, or a bunch of rutters trying to keep the status quo of rutting season and uber dimorphism. The message in the genetic section is women have big orgasms are stupid and like having babies. Men like to fight, endure pain, and then die, (Dying usually during the rut after inseminating the female of course) It is all in the genes we are told, but there is no mention of so much as a base pair or amino acid yet alone sequences (Peptide or nucleotide) Just "life is shit and it's in the genes" Fatalism is not science.
    Michel
    Some of it is bizarre - who we choose as friends is in our genes, and could determine whether we are attracted for friendship to people who will be into substance abuse, so with the right screening they will be able to detect who is at risk from substance abuse by choosing the wrong friends. That's not science, that's wishful thinking. Michel.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    I can just see that being given a nobel prize, "Social affinity genetics". And watching who befreinds who is more efficient at analysing DNA than an ABI 350. Hell you can map the entire genome of someone by looking at how they roll a spliff when in the company of others rolling spliffs. Oh The "great" Seth Roberts has an interesting article here. "The Less-Than-Obvious Value of Evolutionary Explanations"
    Michel
    Hi Sophia, what's a spliff? Michel.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    it's a local term for a joint. You know a roll up of whacky backy.
    Michel
    Hi Sophia, Sounds remarkably similar to the proto-sociobiology stuff I read in Mein Kampf once. Surprised to find that in a scientific forum. Any Dawkinsian atheist fundamentalism? Michel.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hi Michele I know it does. I have not seen any Dawkinsian stuff yet. I like Dawkins, when he comments of protein synthesis, "We have a few bases and that, that is a gene and we have a peptide coded for by these few bases and that is a protein that comes from the gene" apparently the end product (Presumably a tripeptide or therabouts) is "selfish" A chain of a few amino acids (Not a gene but the product of a coding region) has the property of being selfish. I know I should not put it quite like that, he is only using metaphor to represent something bigger. I imagine Bailey's tiny sample sizes and transferred assumptions "They are Autogynephiles or HSTS" in bars serve the same purpose, only this time to represent a larger swathe of people. Comical isnt it.
    Hank
    Michel, Sophia,

    You also get to shape the quality of the community by writing science articles of your own. The news articles you are talking about are provided by a service and the editors look them over, but only correct obvious mistakes.

    We could invite Dawkins to write here but he has his own site so he may not be interested. Would we then have to find a creationist biologist ( a la Francis Collins ) to balance him out and maintain our neutrality?

    I don't know what "proto-sociobiology" means? Again, these are news articles that are also carried by a lot other sites, including the bulk of the mainstream media, so if all science publications are afflicted with whatever this is, I am not sure what to do.

    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Hank I think I wil submit some articles. I have read a few interesting and sensible items as well. So I am probably being a bit unfair about the content, apologies for that. I do need to update my profile, When I intially signed up I was in a bit of a hurry so my details are rather scant. could you tell me how I can do that? Thanks Sophie
    Michel
    Well, what I meant was that the science in Mein Kampf appeared to me very similar to sociobiology - but sociobiology emerged later, so proto-sociobiology would mean a form of sociobiology that predated sociobiology itself. There was more to it than that, such as eugenics (racial in particular) - something that the National Socialists were keen to catch up with the USA on. I would be unable to discuss the merits of sociobiology over what preceded it, or the state of eugenics today, as I am more interested in the philosophy of science and history of ideas than the science itself. As an ideology, I find it highly distasteful. I am involved in social science now - hence my interest in Bailey etc. The point of intersection between the social, the psychological, and science is interesting to me, particularly the interplay between the discourse of experts, the media and that of people involved themselves, but not as a scientist. Discussions about freedom of speech are particularly interesting, because my academic interests started with political theory. I have to give Bailey credit with his blog for allowing access to a diverse range of views and opinions - which on the whole appear to have been good mannered in return. I am not happy that he never acknowledged my request to join 'sexnet' over a year ago, given the nature of my own research. I do know others on 'sexnet', and they don't understand why he would not accept my application. I have tried to find out why, but unsuccessfully. Let us hope that this blog does facilitate a more civil engagement in the future, although little has been heard from the Professor himself since the subject was first opened. I would like to express clearly that failure to engage in discussion with those one speaks about is not the best way to go about a discussion. Michel.
    khogan
    'Sociobiology' as a recognized discipline is often considered to date from E.O. Wilson's book (1975, i think) of that name. The part that really upset people was the one chapter about humans. I think that this chapter was widely misunderstood. Wilson engaged in what he explicitly acknowledged was speculation about the possible heritable influences on some human behavioral traits. All he was really saying there was that humans are social creatures (that much should be pretty obvious) and that some of our social behaviors might be influenced (note: not determined) by genetics, in ways that enhance evolutionary fitness (i.e., relative reproductive success). I don't see what's so upsetting about that. My impression is that a lot of people misunderstood the rest of the chapter. To my reading, what he was really saying is that much of human behavior is far too complex to be passed on from one generation to the next by genetic means. He then went on to speculate how one might discuss cultural transmission of behavioral traits in terms that are analogous to evolution of heritable traits via natural selection. I don't read him as being as deterministic about the genetics of human behavior as many people seemed to think, especially when the book first came out and people were dumping pitchers of icewater on his head at conferences, and otherwise being obnoxious. Perhaps I'm misreading Wilson, but I don't find support for eugenics, racism, or homophobia in his writings and, considering how much he's written about the value of maintaining within-species genetic diversity, I'd guess he feels the same way about human diversity. But based on his past experience, he might be reluctant to say anything about people.
    barres
    I used to think so too until I listened to this Charlie Rose interview with EO Wilson and James Watson http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6927851714963534233 Watson ends the show by saying the real queston is how can you have a just society when genetics is unjust, a view that EO Wilson seemed in agreement with. Rose concluded the show by saying that it was one of the shows he was most proud of... And EO Wilson has been silent while his fellow Harvard professors Larry Summers and Harvey Mansfield have been claiming over the years that women are innately less talented than men.
    Michel
    I found the interview interesting, thanks. I understand the attraction of genetic selecting against violence, but the problem with such election is who decides which traits are socially acceptable, desirable, or not. The point about the reduction in violence in urban society was that this was a natural process. But when Watson says 'genetics is unjust', what does he mean? Justice is not a biological concept, it is a religious one; it is a human concept, and the take put on the outworkings of genetics were teleological, which is again a religious concept. Applying justice to the mechanics of genetics (and not the application of genetics) is nonsensible - any more than talking about a wicked herring or a benevolent hamster. The process is what it is, and we may see the outcome as unjust in human terms, but to ascribe injustice to a non-human process is to ascribe a god-like quality to 'nature'. Humans are subject to this process, and it is only at the point of human intervention in the process that it becomes 'just' or 'unjust'. It could be argued that not intervening when possible might be unjust, or intervening might be just, but not the mechanics or unfettered outworkings of the mechanics. I would be concerned about interventions, such as hypothesised in Bailey's eugenics paper on de-selection of gay foetuses, where such interventions were based on prejudices based on particular moral views (homosexuality is less welcome in children than heterosexuality, intersex variations are disorders, and so on). That is the point where genetics can become unjust, where the application becomes eugenic selection. I do appreciate that there is also great potential for the application of genetics to benefit humanity. I agree that social scientists and philosophers need to be more involved in these discussion - because scientists may be good at answering the 'how do things work' and 'what can we do with this' questions, but may not be best placed to determine the morality and justice of what can be done. I could cite a number of people who illustrate this, of whom John Money was one. When science and the social intersect and science gets it wrong, lawyers get involved, bodies have to be exhumed, hospital departments closed down, and so on. I do not advocate unrestrained freedom in science or medicine, but that there should be monitoring in a similar way to how a number of social institutions are monitored, including the police, lawyers, and so on. There are such watchdogs in these areas, but often they tend to be internal watchdogs rather than independent ombudsmen. The scrutiny of scientific research involving humans has improved enormously in recent years, with internal ethics committees etc. However, where science intersects with the social, including in medicine, there should be independent ethical scrutiny under the office of a parliament approved ombudsman office - so that where science intersects the social becomes publicly accountable. Michel
    Boo
    "I agree that social scientists and philosophers need to be more involved in these discussion - because scientists may be good at answering the 'how do things work' and 'what can we do with this' questions, but may not be best placed to determine the morality and justice of what can be done. I could cite a number of people who illustrate this, of whom John Money was one." I generally agree with you, but I'd say you're only half right here. The thing about scientists like Money is that he wasn't good at answering "how do things work." His failed experiment was an attempt to prove something that doesn't seem to be true, and he was dishonest about it. It's a problem that can infest any area of science but for whatever reason seems to be particularly prevalent in sexology: the scientist assumes a particular scientific proposition must be true simply because it's so basic to their own worldview. From Kinesy's flawed sampling methods, to Money's assumption that gender must be entirely acquired, to McHugh's use of his religious beliefs and heteronormativism to close the John's Hopkins GIC (since 1973 there is no such thing as a "gender appropriate partner" as far as science is concerned, yet this was used as a criteria assessing the results of SRS in the 1979 Meyer paper), to Blanchard and Bailey's antics, this seems to be something of a tradition. If you read enough of Bailey's use of the word "femininity," you'll begin to notice that he doesn't really mean it in the sense of "that which is characteristic of women" but more in the sense of "that which is characteristic of extremely sexist men's views of women." Hence's Angelica using what was essentially an elaborate dildo becomes characteristic of "male sexuality" because as we all know, women can never get freaky in their sexuality. To be truly feminine, one must be having sex in the missionary position, with the lights out, trying to think about flowers as the man crawls over you doing his dirty business. So I would say the other half of the problem is scientists claiming the authority of science for what are really assumptions unsupported by data, and not being able to recognize them as assumptions simply because they're so basic to the scientist's own particular worldview. We're "male transsexuals" so there was never any reason for Blanchard to do studies comparing us to cisgendered women, and the fact that women often get aroused by dressing in sexy clothing can't have any relevance to anything whatsoever.
    Michel
    Hi Boo, I accept what you say, although my reference to Money was precisely the immorality and injustice of his work, not the work itself. I would suggest that he was very good at 'how does this work' - much of todays knowledge about intersex goes back to papers with his name on them, he was a brilliant man. But, it was the 'what can we do with this' that he messed up - forced sex assignments that assumed that a child would just adapt to the correlating gender. What you say about assumptions is absolutely true, and Weber was very clear about this problem in social science - the value we bring to research. What sometimes passes for science can say more about the prejudgements of the scientist about what he researches than the subjects he actually researches. This why there is a need to reflect on one's own research and one's role within that research. As yet, I don't get much sense of reflection while Bailey was cast into the wilderness - it is all about what 'they' did, and no reflection on his part in the saga, nor any humble pie. Whatever Dreger might say, had Bailey not screwed up in some way, none of what followed would have been able to happen. What happened was not just because of what he wrote, but how he went about things. He needs to accept his part in the affair, and learn from it - that is what reflection (and humility) is all about. Michel
    Boo
    "I accept what you say, although my reference to Money was precisely the immorality and injustice of his work, not the work itself. I would suggest that he was very good at 'how does this work' - much of todays knowledge about intersex goes back to papers with his name on them, he was a brilliant man. But, it was the 'what can we do with this' that he messed up - forced sex assignments that assumed that a child would just adapt to the correlating gender." Said assumption based on an incorrect understanding of "how does this work." I know it's kind of a minor point to pick on, but with Bailey trying to push his whole "You can't handle The Truth!" meme, it's important to be clear that many of these ideas are factually incorrect as well as damaging.
    Michel
    Hi Boo, yes, he got the 'how does this work' bit wrong, and what follows in the 'what can we do with this' is unclear (The jury is still out on doling out amputations for amputee fetishes, so I'm not sure how you justify SRS for autogynephilic men as if they were transsexuals) - however, as he got the first bit wrong, whatever might follow from that would probably be wrong as well. Michel.
    Boo
    Assuming you could actually isolate a specific group of "autogynephilic men" who are distinct from transsexuals (I supposed transvestites might qualify) you justify it under the principle that a person's body is their own damn business to do with as they please.
    Michel
    You would think so, wouldn't you? Except that there are limits, legally, to what others can do to our bodies, even with our consent. Having a healthy limb amputated, having one's penis nailed to a plank, being asphyxiated to the point of death, and so on. Let us replace the term 'autogynephile' with 'fetishistic transvestite' - after all, this is the basis of Bailey's explanation of the origin of the term 'autogynephilia' - a male fetish found among transvestites, and in his view to be extended to transssexuals as well I agree that if a transvestite wants to have SRS then they should have the right to pay to have it, and that they may as well be treated as if they were a transsexual - and undergo the 1-2 year RLT with hormone therapy and androgen blockers. It does not mean those transvestites are what we normally understand by the term 'transsexual'. Similarly, just because a few transvestites have done this, it does not mean that transsexuals other than those 'homosexual men' 'especially suited to prostitution' are transvestites either. Michel
    mbmiller
    Reply to Barres: Sorry that I can't understand your point, and I teach courses in genetics. Are you saying that it is not true that genetics is unjust? It's just a bunch of coin tosses determining your fate, so I find it hard to see justice in it. I've read your comments on Summers before and you really seem quite clueless. It bothers me greatly that you get so much attention. Having read your posts on this list, I no longer believe your personal stories about how you were treated by professors or what people said about you after a talk -- you have lost all credibility. You were much more interesting when you were credible. If you didn't try to twist and distort every fact in an obvious attempt to influence your readers' opinions, I would feel differently. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    barres
    I am saying that although there is certainly genetic variation amongst groups of people, as recently reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences there is no evidence that these differences are relevant to cognitive performance or in any way are relevant to why some groups of people are disadvantaged whereas there is a great deal of evidence that social factors are highly relevant. (That young transgendered woman that was thrown out of her house by her parents wasn't thrown out because of her genes but because of the horrendous mischaracterization of transgendered people in Bailey's book.) And, as reviewed by Stephen Jay Gould in his book the Mismeasure of Man, there is also a very long history of highly successful white male scientists that believe, like Watson and Summers, that their great success must be due to their better genes and that if others are less successful then clearly they must be genetically inferior in some way. You should read some of the stuff that Watson has been going around saying (I pasted in one article below). Is it possible that I am someone who simply has a very different point of view than you? I am a developmental neurobiologist and it is my belief that the tremendous plasticity of the human brain more than compensates for any subtle genetic differences, at least when it comes to ability to be a great scientist. I received over 3,000 e-mails from men and women around the world after my Nature commentary came out, the vast majority in strong agreement, and you are the only one who has been so abrasive. There were certainly a few people who disagreed with me but, rather than anyone calling me names, we simply discussed what the data actually was. Also, for the record, my Nature commentary went through a rigorous peer review (and I didn't get to pick my reviewers) to make sure what I was saying was in fact supported by data and balanced. The San Francisco Chronicle NOVEMBER 13, 2000, MONDAY, FINAL EDITION Nobel Winner's Theories Raise Uproar in Berkeley; Geneticist's views strike many as racist, sexist BYLINE: Tom Abate, Chronicle Staff Writer SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1 LENGTH: 1319 words DATELINE: BERKELEY Nobel laureate James Watson, whose co-discovery of DNA revolutionized the field of genetics, has provoked a scientific controversy by suggesting there are biochemical links between skin color and sexual activity and between thinness and ambition. Watson advanced his thesis during a guest lecture at the University of California at Berkeley last month, prompting several faculty members to brand his remarks as racist, sexist and unsupported by any scientific data. Witnesses were flabbergasted when the 72-year-old discoverer of the double helix suggested there was a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and sexual urges. "That's why you have Latin lovers," Watson said. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient." In a lecture hall jammed with more than 200 Berkeley students and faculty members, Watson showed a slide of sad-faced model Kate Moss to support his contention that thin people are unhappy and therefore more ambitious. "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them," Watson said. Even those who chalked up Watson's remarks to his penchant for deliberately stirring things up were concerned that hearing such views expressed by a Nobel laureate would fuel irresponsible speculation about how genes might influence behavior. "Doesn't a guy like Jim Watson have the responsibility to make this not ugly?" asked UC Berkeley biologist Michael Botchan, a Watson protege. "Yes. But I cannot tell Jim Watson to change his ways." Watson, who shared a Nobel Prize for his role in figuring out the structure of DNA in 1953, and who launched the Human Genome Project in 1990, declined to answer questions about his lecture. However, a spokesman at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, a research institute on Long Island where Watson serves as president, confirmed the gist of his remarks and said Watson has voiced similar sentiments at other scientific gatherings. Berkeley biology professor Susan Marqusee walked out about a third of the way through Watson's hourlong lecture, titled "The Pursuit of Happiness: Lessons from pom-C." CLAIMS UNSUPPORTED BY DATA "I was kind of in shock most of the time," Marqusee said. "He took a lot of what I consider sexist and racist stereotypes and claimed a biochemical basis without presenting any data." Botchan, who presided over the session, said Watson was merely trying to call attention to a protein (pom-C) that helps create several different hormones: One determines skin color (melanin); another enhances a sense of well-being (beta endorphins); and the third plays a role in fat metabolism (leptin). Botchan said Watson was wondering out loud why evolution had linked these hormones, and whether the interrelationship of these mood and behavior-influencing compounds might be affected by exposure to sunlight. Unfortunately, said Botchan, Watson advanced his hypothesis with "comments that were crude and sexist and potentially racist." But Botchan, who did post-graduate work under Watson, said he doesn't think the Nobel laureate is racist or sexist, merely insensitive. "Jim says startling things," he said. "He is a person who tends to shock people." For instance, Botchan said, Watson once suggested Japan should be bombed for dragging its feet on supporting the Human Genome Project. Berkeley genetics professor Thomas Cline said Watson's lecture "crossed over the line" from being provocative to being irresponsible because the senior scientist failed to separate fact from conjecture. "If he wants to give a talk like this in his living room, that's his business, but to give it in a setting where it's supposed to be scientific is wrong," Cline said, adding that listening to Watson at the podium was "more embarrassing than having a creation scientist up there." GRADUATE STUDENTS UPSET The controversial talk was profoundly disturbing to some graduate students in Berkeley's molecular biology department, who ultimately brought Watson's comments into the public spotlight. "I found it really offensive," said Sarah Tegen, one of several graduate students who recounted Watson's remarks. She said Watson happened to be in Berkeley when the department needed a speaker for a regular scientific seminar. The lecture hall, which seats around 200 people, filled to overflowing as word spread that Watson, one of the founders of modern biology, would speak. Watson, who has a reputation as an engaging lecturer, started off describing an experiment by scientists at the University of Arizona, who injected male patients with an extract of melanin. They intended to test whether they could chemically darken the men's skin as a skin cancer protection, only to observe an unusual side effect -- the men developed sustained and unprovoked erections. "He said this (melanin injection) is even better than Viagra because you don't even have to think about sex," Tegen recalled. "Then he launched into this whole thing about the sun and sexual drive," added Berkeley graduate student Jill Fuss. She said Watson showed slides of women in bikinis and contrasted them to veiled Muslim women, to suggest that controlling exposure to sun may suppress sexual desire and vice versa. Watson reportedly went on to suggest that people who live in northern climates drink more alcohol to compensate for the unhappiness they suffer because of sunlight deprivation. Then he delved into what he presented as the bad news, good news aspects of being fat, the students said. The bad news, said Watson, is that thin people are more ambitious and therefore make better workers. On the other hand, fat people may be more sexual, Watson told the assembly, because their bloodstreams contain higher levels of leptin, one of the hormones derived from pom-C. He used a slide of a Reubens painting to illustrate the assertion. Tegen was offended by Watson's repeated references to women. "To be a woman in science is difficult enough as it is without one of your own demeaning women," she said. Jeffrey Friedman, a molecular geneticist at Rockefeller University and a leading authority on leptin and obesity, had this reaction when presented with a distilled version of Watson's remarks: "People can speculate about anything they want," he said. "But I know of no data linking differences in weight to any particular set of personality differences." OTHER LAUREATES TARNISHED If Watson's theories are judged as being beyond the scientific pale, he would not be the first Nobel laureate to fall from grace after winning the highest honor in science. Now-deceased Stanford University professor William Shockley, who shared a Nobel for inventing the transistor, was ostracized during his lifetime for calling certain races genetically inferior, and for suggesting that people with IQs under 100 be paid bonuses if they agreed to be sterilized. Former biotech scientist Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel for inventing a process to multiply DNA samples, was marginalized after he lent his name to several dubious causes, including the discredited notion that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. No matter how history judges Watson's emerging views on pom-C, his fame guarantees a broad audience for his views, however politically unsettling or scientifically unsound they may be. Berkeley biology professor Caroline Kane, who did not attend Watson's talk, said she was disappointed that "a figure who looms so large in the science of the late 20th century" would take such a provocative stance in the absence of the precise data that is the hallmark of good science. "Sometimes, Nobel laureates are asked to give their opinions on areas where they should keep their mouths shut," Kane said. "Unfortunately, Jim just likes to talk." E-mail Tom Abate at tabate@sfchronicle.com., Chronicle staff writer Todd Wallack contributed to this report. Copyright 2000 The Chronicle Publishing Co. .
    mbmiller
    What Watson said in the Charlie Rose interview wasn't about race or sex and you have dropped that subject and moved on to something else. I also saw an article about Watson's talk in November 2000 and was unimpressed with the presentation of his ideas: See especially the last article here Regarding your Nature paper -- I'm not surprised that everyone just loved it. If they had seen the other things you've been doing lately, it might have affected their opinions, just as my opinion changed as I learned more about you. Your comments about peer review are entirely irrelevant as the part I question was based only on your word, not on any published research. You are one of the most politically-motivated anti-scientific people I've run across in recent years. It was only a matter of time before you would mention SJ Gould. He was probably even worse than you are. Check out Segerstråle's book... http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/bgnews/2000/msg00252.html ...and read what John Maynard Smith had to say about Gould: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html You can barely write a sentence without adding some kind of misleading phrase. For example, you accuse Watson and Summers of things that haven't done. Regarding your own field, you wrote the following:
    I am a developmental neurobiologist and it is my belief that the tremendous plasticity of the human brain more than compensates for any subtle genetic differences, at least when it comes to ability to be a great scientist.
    I don't know why that "is your belief" and I don't know why you think genetic differences are subtle. For example, we know of many genes that can cause mental retardation -- neural plasticity cannot overcome them even enough to make a person able to read and write, never mind becoming a great scientist. So once again I find your claims very hard to justify. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michel
    Miller wrote: > I've read your comments on Summers before and you really seem quite clueless. It bothers me greatly that you get so much attention. Having read your posts on this list, I no longer believe your personal stories about how you were treated by professors or what people said about you after a talk -- you have lost all credibility. You were much more interesting when you were credible. What an unpleasant little man you are - so vindictive, little rational discourse, all personal attacks and abuse. Some of us were trying to have a civilized discussion. It is this kind of behavior that has brought about the state of affairs under discussion. If you have nothing constructive to say, perhaps you would be advised to remain silent. Michel
    mbmiller
    The pot calls the kettle black. Was that intended as self-parody or are you really that clueless? Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michel
    Ahhh, how cute. Something tells me an IQ about 110, fond of sports, good at following procedures, loyal. M.
    Boo
    I keep telling y'all, he's either secretly on our side, or he's just a lovely present wrapped in a nice big red bow.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Michael "Sorry that I can't understand your point, and I teach courses in genetics. Are you saying that it is not true that genetics is unjust? It's just a bunch of coin tosses determining your fate, so I find it hard to see justice in it." Well it is perfectly "just" and "ok" if the expression of said DNA is acceptable to the rest of the apes. It is a bunch of coin tosses that got you and others welcomed into academia while the likes of me are shut out (With me it was 1994, I refused to stand on a medical school stage naked to be "Examined" as an "oddity") People with 5 alpha are supposed to be stupid, that's the text book, who am I to argue? Michael I will be honest with you, what is missing with regards to genetics is honesty. A lot of what I read about genetics these days is driven by prejudice, But no one wants to be honest about it. Like Professor Bailey says much of what he says is not dicussed honestly, I agree with him, but it cuts both ways, there is not that much honesty in the feild of genetics in my opinion, just a lot of "I am it you are shit, it is in the genes!" This thing is Michael I have had to put up with that for most of my life, being a sociomedical emergency at birth, Not the best cards to be dealt. That is why I went into genetics myself. I would not say that what the science of genetics studies is unfair, but the science itself, Oh that is another matter. Sorry Michael but I have expereinced it often in the past.
    Hfarmer
    Boo said: We're "male transsexuals" so there was never any reason for Blanchard to do studies comparing us to cisgendered women, and the fact that women often get aroused by dressing in sexy clothing can't have any relevance to anything whatsoever. Your comment makes it sound like you think that all transsexuals get aroused by wearing female clothing. Is that what you think? Michael Said: Whatever Dreger might say, had Bailey not screwed up in some way, none of what followed would have been able to happen. What happened was not just because of what he wrote, but how he went about things. He needs to accept his part in the affair, and learn from it - that is what reflection (and humility) is all about. I can actually agree with this. His greatest fault in writing the book was that he did not want to even qualify what he said with the statement..."on average". He did for a while at the beginging of the book when discussing homosexual males...then he stopped. By the time he was writing about transsexuals he made the statements as if they were absolute truth's. If you read the whole book Dr. Bailey states that all such statements should be read as being true "on average". Most of his critics did not..they read the part dealing with transsexuals and missed that part. It was a sloppy thing to do. Probably saved his wrist a little strain to do it. Much of the storm that was to follow comes from that omission. Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Boo
    hfarmer "Your comment makes it sound like you think that all transsexuals get aroused by wearing female clothing. Is that what you think?" Of course not. There is anecdotal evidence that some do to some degree, exactly how prevalent it is we don't really know, not least because Blanchard mixed TSs and TVs in his studies. My point was that Bailey and Blanchard think this is prima facie evidence of a male paraphilia, but if you look at it another way, it's fairly common among cisgendered women. If this is something that isn't readily distinguishable from what's normal for cisgendered women, what's the point of making up a fancy new name and calling it a male paraphilia? Are all women paraphiliacs? "By the time he was writing about transsexuals he made the statements as if they were absolute truth's. If you read the whole book Dr. Bailey states that all such statements should be read as being true "on average". Most of his critics did not..they read the part dealing with transsexuals and missed that part." Again, you're not dealing with their ideas as they convey them. He's said it here, he's said it everywhere. You're either one or the other, and that's it. Blanchard and Bailey do not allow for exceptions to their categories for TSs. If they did, they wouldn't constantly be accusing people of lying. Of course that kind of thinking is ludicrous. That's the whole point.
    Hfarmer
    I asked my mother if she has ever become aroused by wearing her clothes to the point of masturbating. She said no. So did my little sister just now. Boo, you are dealing with their ideas as their critics convey them. Need I remind you that I live in chicago, I am a transsexual. I met Dr. Bailey back when and I know a little better than you how he expresses himself. It does not translate to writing so well. That has more to do with this affair than the content of Blanchards theory. If you want to settle this you need to present convincing counter proof. I can be convinced. Do a study that does not observe the corellations that Blanchard observed and that will prove him wrong. Study a large sample of a cross section of all transsexuals. From Ball walking transsexuals in Queens to race drivers in Indy and Show that the taxonomy does not fit them. Present proof or get off the pot. Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    You present anecdotes as proof, then turn around and demand non anecdotes as the only way to convince you otherwise. Do you see anything illogical about this?
    Michel
    I would like to hear what evidence would be considered as disproving the theory. As far as I can see, any contrary evidence would be re-interpreted as being covered under the theory. That makes it pseudoscience, no? Maybe the theoretician could indicate what would constitute falsifying evidence. Mish
    Michel
    I think I am changing my mind on some aspects of this issue. Autogynephiles who present as transsexuals are seen as paraphiles because they have a misdirected male sex drive onto a fetish object (themselves as women). The concern is that this misdirected sex drive can attach itself to other objects fetishistically. The examples Bailey gives are autoasphyxia, but he also implies indirectly that paedophilia is another type of paraphilia that can result from a misdirected sex drive. Before they stopped chemically castrating sex offendors at Hamburg, they found that only 2% of those who had been castrated went on to re-offend - a 98% success rate. The numbers of autogynephilics who go forward to SRS will be very small out of the total numbers of fetishistic transvestites, and very small compared to transsexuals - but those who do will effectively find that they are castrated in the process. In other words, of that small proportion of autogynephilics who have SRS and are or would go on to develop a paraphilia like paedophilia, only 2% would be likely to act on this after SRS - because the male sex-drive is eradicated in the process. That would represent such a minute possibility that it is very unlikely it would express itself. In fact, SRS might even be the best approach for these people, as a cure for autogynephilia and to ensure that they don't develop such paraphilias, even though they are not transsexuals in the accepted sense of the word. To implement this, one would not need to know if they were autogynephilic or not - simply that they present themselves as transsexuals in order to have SRS. Once they have had SRS they may as well be treated as if they were transsexual women, because they will have been rendered harmless, on the whole. I quite like the irony of it (I have no issues about castration with consent in the situations cited). I still think, though, that the numbers involved are very small compared to what we normally refer to as transsexuals, whatever their sexual orientation and time of transition. Michel.
    Hfarmer
    @ Pathia. I was not "presenting proof" with that comment. I simply was making the point that not all women, (which was how what boo said sounded) are aroused by sexy clothes. One interesting thing worth noting is that just how the question is asked makes a difference. The word Aroused can have many meanings. My mom did mention that if her clothes rub against her...parts in a certain way she can become aroused. Clearly that's not what we are talking about here. Boo asserts that women become aroused, and masturbate, while looking at them selves. That women can have a fetish for their body that is just like Autogynephilia. I would really like to see proof of that. The burden is on the one making the claim. If people like the veneralble Dr's Conway, Barres, Roughgarden etal. want to convince people like me they will have to do some studies of their own. IT WOULD NOT BE VERY SCIENTIFIC FOR ME TO JUST TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT. Bailey and Blanchard have at least minimal peer reviewed studies. I mean heck all the professors I have had in physics tell me to be skeptical and try to prove or test the assertions they make. Why should I hold them to any less of a standard. If they want to settle this matter in their favor people who think like I do, who have a science education in their backgroud are who will need to be convinced. @ Michael No one has ever said that Autogynephiles should be automatically denied SRS hormones or anything else. All that anyone has ever said is that they seem to have a higher rate of post-op regret than anything else. There is another thing to consider. Just as I have been living life here in Chicago I have noticed one hard quantifiable difference among transsexuals that corrleates with age. I call it..."the order of operations". I have noticed that the older a transsexual is the more likely they are to give SRS priority over all other operations and feminizing procedures including facial hair removal and even hormones. Thus you could see a older transsexual who has not done any other feminizeation who is post-SRS but pre everything else. While younger transsexuals are more likely to put emphasis on their outward appearance. Having BAS, electro/laser, hormones, etc as soon as possible. Many after reaching a certain comfortable level of feminine appearance just stop, at least for a while, and live for a time as a female before ever seeking psychological services. If someone goes to get a Tijuana Chop and become post op before being on hormones long if at all then the hormones would never change their sex drive... Until after surgery then they would think they had made a huge mistake. Theses are the people who complain about the SOC's and gatekeeping etc. etc. etc. as if it were the most horrible thing in the world. by the way. I agree with "Alma" for their portion of the general population latina's are a large proportion of the transsexuals in Chicagoland. Perhaps it has to do with having native american influence in their cultural background. (not unlike my own) Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Michel
    It is odd, isn't it, that needing to change the part nobody sees so urgently - instead of the things that everybody sees. Then the sex-drive goes, and 'oops'... My comments were in the context of RLT in line with the SOC, of course. A year of RLT on or off hormone therapy and androgen suppressants (preferrably on) should give people a pretty good idea whether they are autogynephilic or not. Michel.
    The only person to peer redo Blanchard as far as I can tell, is Bailey. All of Blanchard's studies were based on the same data from over 20years ago all from the same clinic. I don't know how that is considered 'peer reviewed'. At the very least the theory needs refinement. I know this thread is a mess, but if you look above, if I take Bailey's 'test' I never once reach -3 or +3. I end up at +1 or -1 depending on whether or not I pass. According to him, I don't exist, but here I am!
    Hfarmer
    Oh darn. I forgot to close the italic tag on my post. Is this going to make every subsequent thing Italic? Let me see if this will fix it? Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Hank
    In the next day ( well, maybe two ) we are going to make a quickie menu for comments so you won't have to do HTML or use the full word processor for the simple stuff.

    It will look something like this:



    Just highlight the text and click the button and it does the html. It will close tags automatically. We have a graphical word processor ( "enable rich text" - below the comment input box ) but people rarely use it for comments so something more obvious should do the trick.

    Also, Sophia Siedlberg wrote a pretty terrific article about fatalism in modern gene studies so you can go show the love.

    Boo
    Hfarmer "Boo asserts that women become aroused, and masturbate, while looking at them selves. That women can have a fetish for their body that is just like Autogynephilia. I would really like to see proof of that. The burden is on the one making the claim." No, I did not assert that women become aroused and masturbate while looking at themselves. As you did on feministing, you persist in reading things into my comments that aren't there. I never mentioned masturbation. I said it's not uncommon for women to get aroused by dressing up sexy. If you look at any collection of women's erotica, they place emphasis on the context of the whole scenario, much more than men do, which includes the clothes. Blanchard and Bailey have anecdotal accounts of TSs being aroused to the point of masturbating by the idea of being women or dressing in women's clothing, but that isn't what was measured in Blanchard's studies, and those accounts are tainted by the subject's need to conform to Blanchard's ideas about TSs to get permission for medical treatment. I have also run across anecdotal accounts of cisgendered women masturbating while looking at themselves, including one I reprinted above. Blanchard's model, however, is based on claims of prevalence. Anecdotes can't tell you anything about prevalence. We don't know how prevalent arousal to the point of masturbating to onesself is among transwomen, but we do know that it is not exclusive to transwomen. Blanchard's conceptual definition of autogynephilia is a fetish, but he did not translate that definition into his studies very well. The definition he used in his actual studies was too overly broad and could encompass both fetishistic and "normal" sexual fantasies. What I also said was that the average woman rating herself on Blanchard's Core Autogynephilia Scale, if she is honest, would easily rate the 5 score that Blanchard claims is average for "nonhomosexual transsexuals." The questions are almost all "Have you ever been aroused while picturing your..." insert breasts or vagina or whatever. It doesn't ask how much you've been aroused, or if the arousal is habitual, or if there's any kind of context to the arousal. It is the norm for women to include their own bodies in their sexual fantasies. Blanchard's study is not inconsistent with the conclusion that transwomen fantasize in a way that is not distinguishable from cisgendered women. It doesn't exactly support that conclusion, or any other conclusion, because it was so poorly constructed, but it's not inconsistent with that conclusion. "If people like the veneralble Dr's Conway, Barres, Roughgarden etal. want to convince people like me they will have to do some studies of their own." The beauty of it is tho, we don't need to convince you. It would be nice, but we've already got majority scientific opinion on our side. I don't think Bailey's claim that any professional who doesn't agree with him is either ignorant or being tricked by their clients is going to be very helpful in his campaign to gain Blanchard's ideas wider acceptance, but I don't really have a problem with transphobes using bad tactics to advance their transphobia. Also, you don't need to do study B to show that study A is invalid. You just have to show how study A is invalid. I'm not trying to present an alternate theory of what TSs really are, I'm only saying Blanchard's model just isn't that good. If you think my criticisms of Blanchard's studies are invalid- a) that he used a bad definition of transsexuals that would have included transvestites and possibly some drag queens, b) that the responses would have been biased by the subjects' need to tell him whatever they thought he wanted to hear to get permission for medical treatment, and c) that he defined "autogynephilia" in the actual studies too broadly to be useful, then tell me why they are invalid. "There is another thing to consider. Just as I have been living life here in Chicago I have noticed one hard quantifiable difference among transsexuals that corrleates with age. I call it..."the order of operations". I have noticed that the older a transsexual is the more likely they are to give SRS priority over all other operations and feminizing procedures including facial hair removal and even hormones. Thus you could see a older transsexual who has not done any other feminizeation who is post-SRS but pre everything else. While younger transsexuals are more likely to put emphasis on their outward appearance. Having BAS, electro/laser, hormones, etc as soon as possible. Many after reaching a certain comfortable level of feminine appearance just stop, at least for a while, and live for a time as a female before ever seeking psychological services." I've noticed that too. My guess is that people who aren't able to socially integrate as women due to appearance become more fixated on surgery as "proof" of their womanhood. From what I've seen, this cuts across all sexual orientations and class backgrounds. A simple one year hormone requirement before surgery should still work fine for the older cohort tho. Admittedly the cynic in me says if someone is dumb enough to rush into major surgery without thinking it through, that's their problem.
    Hfarmer
    @ Boo Admittedly the cynic in me says if someone is dumb enough to rush into major surgery without thinking it through, that's their problem. This will become important latter. It has to do with the idea of someone being willing to lie to their mental health professional to get SRS. The job of the psychologist in that case should be to help you "think it through". No, I did not assert that women become aroused and masturbate while looking at themselves. As you did on feministing, you persist in reading things into my comments that aren't there. I never mentioned masturbation. I said it's not uncommon for women to get aroused by dressing up sexy. If you look at any collection of women's erotica, they place emphasis on the context of the whole scenario, much more than men do, which includes the clothes. Clearly from the way they describe autogynephilia masturbation is what they have in mind. When they talk about "how it starts" with a teenage boy putting on some panties, getting a hard on (there is just no polite way to discuss this) and relieving himself. The way that Dr. Bailey wrote that up was perhaps too broad. If you read, and you probably have read, Blanchards Core Autogynephilia Scale It ask a question like have you at least three times become arounsed by... Then list off specific actions. The word "aroused" used in Bailey's work could be taken the wrong way. I mean, if you are cross dressed and get aroued by someone else...then you are "aroused while crossdressed". He is going for "aroused by being crossdressed". The beauty of it is tho, we don't need to convince you. It would be nice, but we've already got majority scientific opinion on our side. If that were true you would not worry so much about blog postings. The sad fact is that the majority of psychologist are woefully uneducated about any theory of transsexualism other than that we are all just gay and should accept it. It's because psych's like that exist that BBL theory could be dangerous. They could take it the wrong way. In our sex negative, bio deterministic society they will think that a sexual motivation is somehow less organic than some other part of biology. Which is really odd. Any biological explaination will probably say that some part or part of the brain that related to sex, and sexualty formed differently in transsexuals. Bailey writes of how this would apply to the different types in Blancahrds theory. If you think my criticisms of Blanchard's studies are invalid- a) that he used a bad definition of transsexuals that would have included transvestites and possibly some drag queens, b) that the responses would have been biased by the subjects' need to tell him whatever they thought he wanted to hear to get permission for medical treatment, and c) that he defined "autogynephilia" in the actual studies too broadly to be useful, then tell me why they are invalid. a.) How he defined transsexuals. He allowed a person to define themselves. This is from http://www.autogynephilia.org/ColoredParisTalk_files/v3_document.htm Subjects were selected for these studies if they endorsed option (c) of the following questionnaire item: Have you ever felt like a woman? • (a) Only if you were wearing at least one piece of female underwear or clothing • (b) While wearing at least one piece of female underwear or clothing and only occasionally at other times as well • (c) At all times and for at least 1 year • (d) Never felt like a woman Which sounds like a reasonable definition of a transsexual. b.) that the responses would have been biased by the subjects' need to tell him whatever they thought he wanted to hear to get permission for medical treatment I belive that he did do some cross checking. In fact the cross check he did is the source of the whole "lying autogynephile" quote that is repeatedly thrown around. ...He gave the subjects of his original research a questionaire that measured how likely it is that they will give a socially acceptable response. In less polite terms he found that non-homosexual transsexuals care more about what other people think of them and will lie in order to preserve a positive image. That is part of how he filtered for lying subjects. c c) that he defined "autogynephilia" in the actual studies too broadly to be useful This is from the website I referenced above. It is a sample from the "core Autogynephilia scale" Have you ever become sexually aroused while picturing yourself having a nude female body or with certain features of the nude female form? (a) yes, (b) no, (c) have never pictured this Sample item: Have you ever been sexually aroused by the thought of being a woman? (a) yes, (b) no To me that seems pretty narrow. Has the thought or idea of simply being a woman ever aroused me? If it has that's autogynephilia, if it has not then it is not. A simple yes or no question. If yes to these questions the person is an autogynephile. How could it be more concise? As for my mathematical, physical model. What I say it provides support for in Blanchards theory is the following. The genuine existence of correlations (oversimplified and represented by constants in my model) between sexual orientation and gender identity. What Blanchard observed was a corelation between transsexualism and non-homosexual attraction, he named it autogynephilia. That their would be a correlation is expected from Quantum theory. Quantum theory is fundamental to all science which is obvious if you study it at the level that a theoretical physicist would. (It's just usually too burdensome or complex of a way to solve a problem) Where Blanchard is wrong is to say that there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between being a non-homosexual transsexual and being autogynephilic. That has not been proven and I don't think it ever will be. There exist transsexuals who are non-homosexual who are not autogynephilic by any measure. I know what you might say: Ah ha! the existence of such people proves that a two type taxonomy is wrong! Not so. Consider a deck of playing cards. 52 cards all unique. But they have things in common. Some have hearts or clubs... Some have numbers others have faces. Then their are the Jokers. No matter how you sort the cards the Jokers just don't fit. Play solitare and you see that you could separate the cards by color, number, face/noface, suit... but no matter what taxonomy you give them their are always jokers that don't fit it. The existence of the Jokers does not make it invalid to say that cards can be cateogorized as being face/noface or by 4 suits. That is precisely the stucture of this arguement. Barres, Conway etal want to sort the cards by suit... Blanchard and Bailey by faces. No matter what their will always be jokers in the deck that don't quite fit any taxonomy. That does not make them invalid. Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Boo
    "Clearly from the way they describe autogynephilia masturbation is what they have in mind." Yes, but it's not what Blanchard measured in his studies. There are differences between Blanchard's conceptual definition of autogynephilia and his operational definition of autogynephilia used in his studies, rendering the studies useless in calculating the prevalence and/or orientation imbalance of autogynephilia in transsexuals. "If you read, and you probably have read, Blanchards Core Autogynephilia Scale It ask a question like have you at least three times become arounsed by... Then list off specific actions. The word "aroused" used in Bailey's work could be taken the wrong way. I mean, if you are cross dressed and get aroued by someone else...then you are "aroused while crossdressed". He is going for "aroused by being crossdressed"." No, the aroused at least three times by dressing up enough to masturbate is from Bailey's Cosmo quiz at the end of his book, which he admitted has never been validated or used in a study. Blanchard's core Ag scale is here: http://www.genderpsychology.org/autogynephilia/male_gender_dysphoria/autogynephilic_fetishism.html Six of the 8 questions do not ask what you've been aroused by, but only if you've EVER been aroused WHILE thinking about something. Whatever he was going for, he didn't get it in this study. It's just a bad study. It does not measure what it purports to. "He allowed a person to define themselves. Which sounds like a reasonable definition of a transsexual." According to his definition, I am not transsexual, nor is the host of the above site, nor are many other people who have undergone sex change procedures and now live as women. When I first started researching this stuff on the internet, it freaked the s--t out of me coming across all these disgusting fetishy websites of male-bodied individuals who claimed to feel like a woman. Until I realized the vast majority of them were transvestites and not transsexuals (except under Blanchard's definition, where they'd be transsexuals despite never taking steps to actually transition). Not all mtf transsexuals claim to feel like a woman, especially before transition, and many transvestites do. It's a bad definition. "I belive that he did do some cross checking. In fact the cross check he did is the source of the whole "lying autogynephile" quote that is repeatedly thrown around. ...He gave the subjects of his original research a questionaire that measured how likely it is that they will give a socially acceptable response. In less polite terms he found that non-homosexual transsexuals care more about what other people think of them and will lie in order to preserve a positive image. That is part of how he filtered for lying subjects." No, what he found is that people in his clinic who are desparate for his approval for medical treatment which he is under no actual obligation to give them, and can deny them for any length of time he pleases for any reason he pleases, forever if he pleases, and who are not part of the young good looking set who find an easier time passing through his hoops, will try to put on the best face possible when he asks them questions. You've heard of the Hawthorne effect? This is the Hawthorne effect on crack. It's also what C.S. Lewis called "bulverism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism Constructing a psychological explanation for why someone might lie does not answer the question of whether or not they are in fact lying. You claim to be from Chicago. If you weren't from Chicago, you might want to lie about it to add credibility to your claim to know Bailey better than the rest of us. By Bailey/bulverist logic, that means you are lying about being from Chicago. See? When I do it to you it's much easier to see it as crap, isn't it? To the extent that transsexuals at Blanchard's clinic have a motivation to lie, it's in the direction of claiming to fit his typology, so they can get medical treatment. If they lie to try and convince him they don't fit his ideas about what transsexuals are, do you think they'd be more likely to get cleared for hormones and surgery, or less? Do you think they are complete morons who want to make their own lives harder? "To me that seems pretty narrow. Has the thought or idea of simply being a woman ever aroused me? If it has that's autogynephilia, if it has not then it is not. A simple yes or no question. If yes to these questions the person is an autogynephile. How could it be more concise?" That last is only one of 8 questions. According to the results, the "homosexual" group averaged 2-3 while the "nonhomosexual" group averaged 5 or so. But only one of the 8 questions asks what you're aroused "by." The first six are all common components in the sexual fantasies of cisgendered women. Question 8 also doesn't give any context, so we don't know how any given respondent might interpret it. Have you ever been aroused by the thought of being a woman... getting f----d to high heaven by Milo Ventimiglia? "No matter how you sort the cards the Jokers just don't fit. Play solitare and you see that you could separate the cards by color, number, face/noface, suit... but no matter what taxonomy you give them their are always jokers that don't fit it. The existence of the Jokers does not make it invalid to say that cards can be cateogorized as being face/noface or by 4 suits." Except the more transsexuals you get to know, the more you see that the people who fit the categories are really the exception more than the rule, and there doesn't seem to be literally anyone who fits all that well. Anne Lawrence calls herself an autogynephile but says she was effeminate as child. Bailey says that't not possible for autogynephiles. Even if you ignore that inconvenience, what Bailey and Blanchard are doing is the functional equivalent of claiming that all playing cards in a deck are either Jokers or Aces. Some are, but there's a whole lot more that aren't. There is simply no good evidence that the categories are as prevalent as Blanchard and Bailey insist they are. Not least because they don't have a good operational definition of autogynephilia so they can't even test for it. According to Blanchard, at least 98% of ftms are exclusively female-attracted. Look at the real life ftm community, however, and it's crawling with transfags, bi transguys, etc. The other night I had dinner with a couple of effeminate transfag twinks (their term). "No matter what their will always be jokers in the deck that don't quite fit any taxonomy. That does not make them invalid." Then why oh why do Bailey and Blanchard, not to mention all of Blanchard's compatriots at CAMH, insist over and over and over that anyone who doesn't fit must be lying or deluded? Much as you don't seem to want to admit it, if Blanchard's model ever did become the DSM standard (which thank God does not look likely), it wouldn't be your version of Blanchard's model, or the "transkids" version, or anyone else's version except Blanchard's version, where you're either one or the other or a liar. "If that were true you would not worry so much about blog postings." Just so we're clear, this is a political campaign on the part of Bailey, not a scientific one. It's the same tactics as ID or any other psuedoscience movement: they can't convince the scientific community, so they go directly to the public with claims of conspiracies and political correctness and censorship. He's not going to overturn the scientific consensus just by stamping his foot and calling everyone else outside CAMH willfully ignorant, but he can do a fair amount of damage among the uninformed, as attested by pathia. Anyone who goes into counseling work with TSs and had their education informed by Bailey's book is going to find themselves incapable of establishing trust with their clients, because they'll quickly discover that what they hear from their clients mostly doesn't match the book, but they'll have been preconditioned to view it as lies. I think that coming out of therapy more damaged than when you went in is a bad thing. Not to mention I just love a good battle of wits.
    Boo
    The quote for: "He allowed a person to define themselves. Which sounds like a reasonable definition of a transsexual." got snipped in a weird way, but my response is based on the definition of feeling like a woman for a year making you transsexual.
    Hfarmer
    Hello Boo How was your weekend? I have written up that matematical-physical model of mine and sent it to a peer reviewed journal , The Journal of Mathematical Psychology. Science Through Rose Colored Glasses: Agendas in Sexology and How Math Can Shed New Light Finger's crossed it will be published. Neither side will like it. Which does not matter since that is not the business of science. I guess you could write the editors letters saying that math can't be applied to psychology but I don't think they would buy that. (Since doing exactly that is their lives work.) Otherwise to level intelligent criticisms of it you would have to learn the math behind it. So ends what I have to say about this. I hope that we can all move on to other things...like a trans inclusive ENDA. As sallam-ul-lakium Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Boo
    "Hello Boo How was your weekend?" Congresswomen, big glass trophies, line dancing; the usual. "I guess you could write the editors letters saying that math can't be applied to psychology but I don't think they would buy that. (Since doing exactly that is their lives work.) Otherwise to level intelligent criticisms of it you would have to learn the math behind it." Or I could say that in this instance there's no reason to believe that the math applies to the conclusions you assume about how the brain works. "There are two pieces of data that this theory relies on. One is the well known to transsexuals result of Zhou et al that the BSTc is different in transsexuals. I will assume in this compostion that the BSTc is indeed different and furthermore that it controls and directs transsexual behavior. Likewise there is a result best known to homosexual males of LeVay etal Which had a simmilar sounding result for the INAH (1-4). I will assume that the INAH 4 is the controlling center for homosexuality in biological males." We don't really know if that's the case. Admittedly I'm not a neurologist, but with the kind of logic you employ, what's to stop you from declaring "quantum entangled" states of any two random characteristics? How about gender identity and handedness? Then we could have a taxonomy of left handed transsexuals, right handed transsexuals, and ambidextrous transsexuals (who are no doubt all secretly right handed liars). Your mathematical proof of their entanglement seems to rely entirely on the assumption that they are strongly related to begin with.
    Hank
    "Hello Boo How was your weekend?"

    Congresswomen, big glass trophies, line dancing; the usual.

    At least some people are keeping their senses of humor about all this.

    Wait ... you were kidding, right? 'Congresswomen' is way too deviant for a science site.

    Michel
    I just wanna hear more about the Congresswomen. Did he have congress with them, and are there any pictures? M
    Hfarmer

    Boo has said: Admittedly I'm not a neurologist, but with the kind of logic you employ, what's to stop you from declaring "quantum entangled" states of any two random characteristics?

    There is nothing to stop that. Nothing at all. Theoretically there can be correlations between any two or more randomly chosen states of mind. Like you said color preference and gender could be shown to be correlated. To do so I would first have to formulate a model that could represent the preference for colors in a human mind. Write the hilbert space of that model. Then use the tensor product to unite that hilbert space with the hilbert space of gender identity. Then mathematically test that new hilbert space for entanglement

    Your mathematical proof of their entanglement seems to rely entirely on the assumption that they are strongly related to begin with.

    Not at all. As you quoted in your last reply to me the only assumption I used anywhere in the formulation of my model. Let me break it down for you once again. I assumed that the BSTc and INAH respectively control gender identity and sexual orientation independently. Mathematically and quantum physically, that meant that each system has it's own Hilbert space. Building separate models of each system. Using the tensor product to combine the hilbert spaces and obtain a unified description of the states of gender identity and sexual orientation. Checking the basis states of the hilbert space for entanglement. Then (and this is the only part that proves that gender and sexuality are entangled) finding mathematically that the mixed state is in fact entangled. This result is of great importance to a current event as well. Consider the ENDA law. If gender identity and sexual orientation are mathematically correlated what is the use of a law that only protects sexual orientation? Or as another transsexual put it. Homosexual men and women do not generally conform to 100% heteronormal gender roles. Conceivably a really queeny gay male could be fired for his gender non conformity. Which I have proven is as intrinsic as his sexuality. (Boo, you can't seriously think that gender is hard wired and not sexual orientation now can you? Sure free will plays a role but preferences, predispositions are hard things to over come in the long run. ) Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Michel
    If gender is 'hard wired', and sexual orientation towards people of the same gender, how about other sexual attractions? How would this work? For example - sexual attraction across racial lines. Some people seem more attracted to white than black people, and vice-versa - at least, in practice, because there is more intra-racial bonding that inter-racial (in Western cultures at least). Is there a third centre that relates to racial preference? If so, where is it, and doesn't it leave the model inclmplete by only focussing on two of these aspects of gender and sexuality. OK, how about other things. Take men who are sexually attracted to she-males. How would you explain how a man in his mid-forties would find a woman with a large erect penis attractive - when his wiring was cobbled together, and for much of the critical stages of his development, she-males were unknown. How about people who are sexually and emotionally attracted to amputees? Why is gender identity and sexual orientation so critical this way? Sure I know about the reverse lordosis in rats stuff, but I have yet to see a rat in heels and a feather boa - or falling along Canal Street high on E looking for some rough trade. What about other sexual attractions? How does hard-wiring explain bestiality, necrophilia, paedophilia, sexual sadism, or sexual cannibalism? Gender and sexual orientation may only be peripheral to choice of sex object. Which nerve cluster determines somebody's propensity to hang themselves with a plastic bag over their head with an orange in their mouth wearing a pair of fishnets and high heels? Can this mathematic model account for these things? Why would one 'acceptable' type of sexuality be hard wired, and other less acceptable one's not be - or even politically incorrect sexualities (white-white, black-black, black-white sexual attractions, for example)? If these others are not incorporated, how can the model accurately represent one isolated aspect of sexual and gendered behaviour, and not others? It never gets further than the blackboard. How does it account for heterosexual men who enjoy receiving she-males anally, while for many gay-men it is complete turn-off? Or lesbians who enjoy heterosexual sex with a woman with a penis? The problem is one of reducing things to make them appear more simple than they are - which is just like what Bailey has done. It is more complex than two types, whether it is straight/gay or HSTS/AGP or male/female - and the only way you can make the maths work is by assuming that it is all that simple - either/or logical T/F. Life's not like that, and nor is gender variance - to try and reduce it so is dehumanizing. If you dehumanize the subjects you discuss, then you are discussing something other than the subjects - because the subjects are human. In the process you lose your own humanity, and dehumanize yourselves; what you are left discussing is not in the world, but what is in your head - and so says more about you than any subjects you might think you discuss. M
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Hfarmer You said: "Conceivably a really queeny gay male could be fired for his gender non conformity. Which I have proven is as intrinsic as his sexuality. (Boo, you can't seriously think that gender is hard wired and not sexual orientation now can you? Sure free will plays a role but preferences, predispositions are hard things to over come in the long run. )" Well yes but the whole model you have used involves the "entanglement" (Affinity vectors in other models) of two related systems. You have presented a mathematical model to describe something without any proof that the observed actually conforms to that model. It is what you are asserting that makes me think of this with a degree of skepticism, the conclusion is still "biologically pre-determined behaviors rule the mind" How do the two elements of this model you have described work using the same methodology when put in the context of the psycholgy beyond sexual processes? would you like to elaborate further on the model you are using in the broader context?
    Boo
    Sorry, but you didn't prove anything. You made some assumptions and then did some math. What you lack is, coincidentally enough, the same thing Blanchard's model lacks: data. Like I said, pick any two other random characteristics, make some assumptions, and do some math- same difference: no data. "Boo, you can't seriously think that gender is hard wired and not sexual orientation now can you?" I don't know for sure about to which degree either one is, and neither do you, that's the point. I'm as sure as I can be without good data that there's some kind of relationship, but the BBL model depends on there being a specific type of relationship in all instances, for which we simply have... you guessed it... no data.
    Hfarmer

    You made some assumptions and then did some math.

    So did Newton when he derived his law of gravity.  So did Einstein when he formulated Special and general relativity. What I did is the basic kernel of theoretical physics.  What I did is how the principles that govern all of nature are discovered.  

    There is plenty of data. 

    Data does not matter though.  Boo you and people who think like you are full of dogma.  "The cult of the goddess."  HBS and all that.  Which is belived with NO proof by many.  I will not even spend the time anymore.

     I think I will try to convince some "young earth" creationist that the world is more than 6000 years old.  They might just be more reasonable than the transgendered community. 

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello HFarmer. I am non transgendered, but interested in this debate I have asked you and a few others of the "BBL" school of thought a number of questions, I think only MBMiller answered a few of them. (I am grateful for his clarifications) Why do I ask the question. "Why so few answers in general to valid questions, and why do I find posters who are transgendered getting not answers but statements like:
    I think I will try to convince some "young earth" creationist that the world is more than 6000 years old. They might just be more reasonable than the transgendered community.
    From this I gain the impression that non transgendered posters may get answers to questions if they are lucky, transgendered posters get told they are either stupid, lying, are unreasonable or mentally ill. On the issue of the AGP/HSTS theory, I would like to see proof. I would also like to see some questions answered about it. Such as the almost exclusive focus on "Male sexuality" (Why the bias toward male?) for example. Here are a few questions in plain english. 1: Why do the transgendered community consider the AGP/HSTS theory to be an attack on them? there has to be a reason given what happened when Bailey published TMWWBQ. 2: Why the male bias in that theory ? 3: Why do theories that basically say that transgendered folks are "Especially suited for" get touted as "Revolutionary and new" when in truth they can be traced much further back than Blanchard. (Hirschfield and Brandt for example). 4: New question, is the constant "Liar", "Stupid" and "Mentally ill" commentary that seems to be reserved for transgendered acedemics a manifestation of the belief he3ld by the "BBL" school of thought that transgendered people are not suited for acedemic work but especially suited prostitution and hairdressing? As for your using maths, well as a skeptic I tend to read people like Kurt Gödel who said that nothing could be truly proven by mathematics, and put this in the context of finding the flaws that may appear in any mathematical model I come across. Please understand I am not having a go at you, it is the way this debate seems to play out every time Professor Bailey or his advocates appear on some online forum/blog such as this one, it follows the self same pattern every time. OK fine I have no issue with Professor Bailey saying he stands up for what he believes to be the truth, nor do I have any issues with the theories he is presenting, it is not me they are being applied to, so I am not in a position to question them from personal expereince. What gets to me is the tactical stuff. what is the point? If people are slandering Professor Bailey then Professor Bailey could take them to court to clear his name. There is no need for all this tactical rubbish because it is getting in the way of any understanding of what Professor Bailey is saying I want to know what he is saying and why. At the moment I do not find his ideas all that convincing, and that is because now I am still in the dark about a few points simply because the debate is tactical. I am not interested in tactics, I want to better understand this "Truth" I keep hearing about.
    Michel
    "What I did is how the principles that govern all of nature are discovered... There is plenty of data... Data does not matter though." Bizarre - you are discussing stuff that is socially constructed - like gender - and talking about mathematics supporting hypothesis as if these were facts and data. "Boo you and people who think like you are full of dogma. "The cult of the goddess." HBS and all that. Which is belived with NO proof by many." What does this have to with anything - what you are saying is equally dogmatic, and potentially as erronious. "They might just be more reasonable than the transgendered community." I doubt it, but then if you insult people's deeply-held beliefs and their identities, I am not surprised the responses seem unreasonable. If I told a woman who has been through hell to get to where she is that she's really a gay man especially well suited suited to sucking cock, or a straight man who gets off on wanking in his panties, whatever she has to say on the matter - I'd expect a bit of unreasonableness. Science is jammed-full of dogma - and it starts with recruitment. That is why women are so underrepresented - they don't play football with the guys, so aren't the kind of team players department heads look for. If the selection process itself has an inbuilt bias against certain groups of people, this will be reflected in the findings - especially when there is so little reflection involved in the theory-building process. Few locate themselves in their research in the way Einstein, Medawar and Kuhn did; just so much objectifying passing off as objectivity - focusing on the 'other'. But, I am confident you will not respond to this, because like so many who come out with the sort of comments you just have, you only respond to points you can refute, ignore the reasonable points, and fill in the gaps with abuse. Objective and undogmatic? Don't make me laugh - just look at yourself in the mirror. M
    Hfarmer
    Please. Gender is way to complex to be socially constructed. Gendered behavior patterns can be observed even in animals who only interact "socially" in order to reproduce. So don't give me that. Second mathematical laws can be found that underlie any and every phenomena. Probabilistic though they are, as is the model I have advanced. Just because you cannot understand it does not mean that I must be wrong. Just because you cannot see it does not mean that the pattern is not there. Perhaps Michael you just lack the vision to see what I see. Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Hfarmer
    As a scientist I have one thing to say about thisI cannot say that my personal observations are "proof". However my mathematical computations are a model of nature. Had they lead me to no entanglements what so ever. I would just as vehemently argue that the correlations Blanchard reproted must have been due to his bias. That is not what the math showed. It predicts correlations. That's it plain and simple. Here is a little real life perspective. Let me tell you all a true story. I now have a roomate who is a young transsexual woman. She has been on hormones since she was 13. She reminds me of myself at that age. She has worked the streets. She has stolen, cheated, and done whatever it took to get what she needed. She was a girly girl and into men from the get go. In other words she is a living example of the kind of person Blanchard calls a "Homosexual transsexual". I personally would have choosen the phrase "classic transsexual". Her name is Kylie and she is going to be on the Maury Povich show latter this month. You know where they challenge the audience to tell who is a man and who is a woman. That is not the most significant part She is now my roommate because she was thrown out of her apartment. An apartment that was provided by a charitable organization. She was thrown out because she was selling her services on craigslist. How did they find out about this? You may ask. A jerk named Colleen Stewart told on her knowing full well what the consequences would be! This was after Kylie had been really nice to her and friends with her and everything. Kylie swears that she does not know why this happened. My guess would be that Colleen realized that Kylie would not be wanting to be a "transbian" with her. Collene's life Collene was a very fat very masculine Mexican man when she first came out earlier this year. For a short time she did drag shows (that were really more of a joke). Before this she was a married heterosexual male. I found out certain other personal details that would fit the description of Autogynephilia as well. But they were told in confidence, in a supportive environment, so I will not detail them. Bailey wrote of this and I saw & experienced it first hand. Autogynephilic transsexuals are hostile to homosexual transsexuals. Ok so they may not think of it in those terms or have even heard them. I know for a fact that, surprisingly, both Kylie and Collene are unaware of the Bailey controversey, or his book. Screw "The Man Who Would be Queen"! What I have seen with my own eyes is in accord with Blanchards theory. What should I do just stroke some old "transgendered" persons ego? Even if they would do something as despicable as what was done to Kylie? I would have to call myself a liar in order to stroke the ego of some dried up old crossdressers. That will be a cold day in HELL when I do that.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello HFarmer Well I appreciate you taking the time to explain your viewpoint from expereince. I think one reason opponents of Bailey say what they do has a lot to do with Bailey appearening to dismiss thier expereinces by using sceintific dogma. I can tell you of an expereince I had where a transsexual woman was classed as a "Secondary transsexual" by the hospital she was attending. (I understand there are similarities between "Secondary-Primary" and "AGP-HSTS" as presented by Blanchard. It really messed her up. "I am not pretty enough to be human, I am evil and should die" she said when telling me about it. Three days later she commited suicide by getting a meat cleaver to her pelvic region. My conclusion (Aside from being profoundly upset by the expereince) was that the whole clinical approach was way too arbitrary, and based on stereotypes and superficial value judgments. "If you are a pretty young thing people like you, if not you are better off dead" (Quote) You see Professor Bailey and Ray Blanchard never really adress things like that. If they do they parse it off to another "Mental disorder". I just find it hard to deny that this particular death was caused by the prediominant mentality, which Bailey (Whether justifyably or not, I stress) has come to represent, He has become the hate figure partly because of what he actually does say and partly because of his being defined as the embodiment of this arbitrary thinking. On the issue of mathematics, well I am probably worse than you for reducing complex situations into math. As a bio-informaticist/geneticist such an approach can be an advantage, but as a human being it fails me every time. The reason I am skeptical is partly because I have a sort of dogmatism that says not everything can be defined in such terms. And that dogma was formed by the paradoxical situation where a mathematcian (Kurt Gödel) came up about this theory about unprovability, and then Alan Turing (A big advocate of Gödel)took the approach that being human was to be a machine goverend by mathematical rules. In many ways the opposite of what Gödel would have been saying. Discussions about these two becoming in themselves discussions about the unprovable. I am also skeptical because of your discussion about entanglement. It is really down to perception, (This is why I ask rather than confront). To me "Entanglement" in one "Space" is an "Affine Vector" in another. (Hausdorff space where various entities are described in terms relative to the topology of the space and themselves). You use Hilbert Space which (If I get this right, please correct me if I am wrong) is a sort of Euclidian space with "shortcuts", allowing for discreet elements to be "Entangled" rather than "Discreet but related" as with an affine vector. How can we both apply this to psychology? you see you would regard Gender and orientation as being one in the same but manifested two ways. I would regard them as discreet but linked. It is inevitable that applying different mathematical approaches will result in different conclusions. You will see merit in Blanchard's idea I will see merit in Swaab and Zhou's BSTc model. Both our views would really be opinions using math. Nothing more. Both our real life expereinces of transsexual folks are dramitically different. And these also inform our different viewpoints, if anything re-enforcing them. Bailey's approach is something I am skeptical about, not because it is "politically incorrect" but because Bailey (And Blanchard) applied the model in a painfully arbitrary manner. the opinions formed by both Bailey and Blanchard do seem to be based on subjective judgments that include superfical things (Like physical appearence and someone's profession). Swaab's opinions were formed on the other extreme, utterly detatched lab studies. Both Blanchard and Swaab fail in terms of sample sizes. But my skepticism about Bailey/Blanchard is the arbitrary based on subjective outcome of the ideas. That is a scientific skepticism not a socially or politically motivated skepticism. I am thankful you did mention your actual real life expereince on this rather than just quote the math. because it does put what is being said into context. this is why I explain what i have expereinced in the real world and would admit it also puts what I am saying into context.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Well what have we here ? (From one James Mead)
    1. I don't think you're intersex. I think you're an autogynephile in denial. 2. That is b*llshit about someone kiling themselves with a meat cleaver. Have a nice day!
    Well James mead is obviously one of the "We want freedom of speech" brigade who like to bully anyone who questions them. Well I think my private reply will have clarified things somewhat. Autogynephilic transsexuals tend not to feel resentment over being butchered as children. Because as far as I know, they were not. You have slipped up. oops
    Michel
    Hi Hfarmer, I have seen similar things, where young easily 'passable' MtF transsexuals who are attracted to men get given a hard time by older late-tarnsitioners who because of masculine development do not 'pass'. These people can operate in quite nasty ways towards the younger ones. I have seen older women operate in very similar ways towards younger attractive women on the shop floor - it is called 'bitchiness', and it derives from jealousy. But, I have also seen these older transitioners also operate in similar ways to people of a similar age group who transition late, but manage to pass easily and without comment. Some of the people who transition younger are heterosexual in orientation after transition, but were unable to have a sexual orientation beforehand; some are bisexual, some are polyamorous, some are non-sexual. Some older transitioners are heterosexual before transition, married with families; then they transition and become heterosexually attracted to men. People's sex object choice can (and does) change in the process of transition; some become sexually oriented to other transwomen, some to lesbians, some become bisexual, some end up non-sexual. Some are bisexual before transition, and remain so after transition; others shift in their orientation exclusively to men or to women. Some older transitioners can be extremely supportive of younger transitioners - because they feel that had they been that age now they might have done what they are doing themselves, and want to support them. This country is much more supportive of transsexuals than many others, and far more supportive than 30-40 years ago, when a pre-operative transsexual could end up in a male prison following a conviction for 'importuning' for simply looking at a man while out shopping - or for disturbing the piece because she bought something in a clothing store. I would not myself refer to a 'type' of transsexual as 'HSTS' myself - because that makes them out to be homosexual men, and I could never support the idea of castration as a treatment for male homosexuality; I see them as heterosexual women. If they wish to be seen as homosexual men, that is up to them - but I have yet to meet a transsexual who identifies herself as a homosexual man. I am more certain that there are people who fit the autogynephilic category - but must admit the only one I have met who admitted this was American called Anne Lawrence. I have never met anybody in the UK who says they are that type - although I'd be lying if I said I haven't come across at least one person who might fit the stereotype in certain ways. The problem I have is that I am simply not prepared to judge all transsexuals who transition over a certain age on the basis of one or two who might happen to 'fit' this autogynephilic model. That is because I have met far more who are simply different; different not because they are lying, but because they just do not fit the characterization. This is why simplistic binary models do not work - people are not like that. People are more complex. For a start, it assumes a binary genderedness which is simply not supported by the world I see around me. I see men who do men things, but I also see men who do woman things, and they are not doing male femaling when they do that. Similarly, I see women who do women things, but I also see women who do men things, and they are not doing female masculinity. I do see men doing women things who are doing male femaling - but they tend not to be transsexual, they tend to be transvestites and drag queens; I also see women doing men things who are doing female masculinity - and they tend not to be transsexual, but butch dykes and drag kings. That is just a few of the people I see; I see hermaphrodykes, a whole range of expressions of intersexuality and androgyny, and I see so mucvh diversity between transsexuals I wouldn't know where to start lumping them all together. How about somebody who transitions at 19/20, passes really well, but is only attracted to women - is she HSTS or AGP? She does not fit these categories. How about somebody who transitions at 50, in a faithful long-term homosexual relationship with a man, who has never been attracted to woman, and passes well - is she HSTS or AGP? OK, now take these two - how about if they do not pass? Is the answer different? If it is, then that can be the only criteria that makes them any different - and that suggests that the whole thing is about prejudice. These two examples highlight the idiocy of the theory - because they exist in the world, but are not explained in the theory (as do all the others I detailed). The theory is about prejudice, bacause it judges on how shaggable somebody is to the person doing the appraisal. An older unpassable AGP is not something the judge is likely to get to shag or want to shag - a younger passable HSTS is something the judge might get to shag and might want to shag. This is even discussed in a light-hearted way. So, the division of trans people into these two categories is fundamentally sexist - it is about whether they are shaggable or not. But, by projecting this sexist appraisal of people into these two categories (shaggable or not), and insisting all transsexuals fit one of these two categories, the subjects are stripped of their humanity and reduced to sex objects. That is because their own experience and reality becomes subordinated to the psychological framework of the judge in his projecting his appraisal of them as human beings as their 'truth'. I could no more support somebody dehumanising people in this way than I could support somebody dehumanising people through torture. M
    Michel
    Forgot to add - but I am confident that as is your tactic, you won't respond to any substantive point I have made - preferring to try to use mathematics to substantiate your ageist transphobia. M
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Michel Careful, you may get an email calling you a 25 headed autogynephilic uber paraphilic rottwieler from planet zod in denial. It is a serious point, all this tactical stuff. Why if something is scientifically valid do all these these "tactics" have to be involved instead of simply presenting a theory with an attempt at proving it.
    Michel
    It is odd - why would somebody on a science forum send somebody hate-mail? Because they are feeble-minded and ignorant. M
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Michel Because it is easy to sanitize the opposition by calling them a "Transgender" and thus "liar". Same old tactic. Actually I wish I was an Autogynephile, life would be a lot simpler. I would not have had all that surgery as a kid. Hey let it happen, it only proves that if the AGP/HSTS hit squad have to resort to everything they accuse others of doing. Then the theory cannot be up to much. Freedom Of speech I suppose.
    Michel
    Hi Sophie, This statement is itself quite revealing about the poster: "I don't think you're intersex. I think you're an autogynephile in denial" Let's start with the obvious. He thinks this, he doesn't know this, he has no evidence for this, so it is about his internal mental state, not reality. He is on shaky ground, otherwise he woul say 'You are not intersex. You are an AGP in denial'. If he did that, then he would be opening himself to litigation - as in the case of Georgina Somerset many years ago when she successfully got a national newspaper to retract a similar statement about her being transsexual rather than intersex. So, all he can do is say what he thinks - which is unimportant really, because of the anonymity with which he operates. He doesn't have the cochones to speak this way in public. So, my guess is that he would be a man worried about his own virility, possibly underdeveloped testicles, unsure about his sexuality, having an inferiority complex - possibly even a cross-dresser in denial, in the grips of a fundamentalist religious cult. It also illustrates a degree of ignorance. Now, let's be clear I am not talking about you here Sophia - but the assertion that being intersex and autogynephilic are mutually exclusive categories. This is derived from the misinformation put about by some of the later intersex activists, such as Kiira - I say later (10 years ago) in relation to Georgina Somerset (40 years ago) and Margaret (20 years ago) - that intersex people do not get assigned male and do not reject male assignment; this misinformation is enforced by trans academics like Stephen Whittle that people who say they are intersex and reject their assigned sex are transsexuals 'really'. This is stated, and clearly reflected as being the information bailey received from Cheryl Chase, and accepted, despite no evidence for this at that time. The only evidence about this is actually from some secondary research by Ken Zucker which shows that over fifty years about 7% of intersex people do reject their assignment (we cannot know too much about what was going on for those who went insane or committed suicide, but those with any experience might be able to hazard a guess). If you compare the numbers who do reject their assignment with the numbers of people who change their gender in wider society (uncertain, but believed to be 0.1%), it is clear that 7% is not an unsignificant number. However, the 'scientific' approach is to dismiss the significance of this - and the 'political' approach is to pretend it never happens. So, the process of 'changing sex' is seen as being exclusive to transsexuals, and intersex people who reject their assignment become categorised as transsexuals, even though there is not that much in common between the motivation and practice of the different 'types'. From this scientific 'myth', it is just a short step to then take a contested categorisation of transsexuals into two types 'HSTS' and 'AGP' and apply it to intersex people who reject their assignment. Even though they may well have completely different histories and behaviours from transsexuals in all key features. I could argue, however, that even were somebody to be intersex, that might not necessarily mean they would not be autogynephlic, and if they were, that would still not male them an autogynephilic transsexual. If somebody raised male can become autogynephilic, why shouldn't somebody who is intersex and raised as male develop autogynephilia? It might be incredibly rare, but given a similarity in upbringing it could happen. But it would not be the same thing. The reason it would not be the same thing is that aetiology would be completely different. Whatever it is in the 'normal' male sex drive that is supposed to produce autogynephilia - this would not apply to a male assigned intersex autogynephile, because of the undervirilisation involved. This is where the supposition of intersex autogynephilia looks like it would be extremely unlikely - male-assigned intersex often have lower testosterone levels, lower libido, so less succeptible to libido-driven paraphilias. Except... What happens when intersex people assigned male get their gender reinforced? (I am aware that with AIS this is not so straightforward) They are given testosterone boosters at critcal stages of development, including puberty, this is done primarily to boost their masculine development, and it also has the effect of increasing libido. In a situation where those male-assigned intersex people are not consulted about their wishes regarding assignment (which is the case for at least the past 50 years), it is entirely possible with those who express a preference would have experienced behaviour modification along with other surgical and hormonal male gender reinforcement. Not only possible - we know it happened. So, if you take somebody assigned male, unhappy with that assignment, having a preference for female, force them to be male, and give them androgens that will boost their libido - what might well happen? Bingo, not only is there a good chance of this person displaying autogynephilic behaviour - it will be a completely different type of autogynephilia from transsexual autogynephilia, because it will be iatrogenic autogynephilia. That is, it will be autogynephilia produced directly through the medical intervention in that intersex person's life. How often this might have happened is impossible to say - it is an entirely theoretical chain or argument. But anybody who has even had a whiff of a fart in this field of study can see that it is an entirely feasable scenario. They also ought to appreciate that in manipulating people's libidos in the way they do through unconsented gender reinforcement could produce far more serious paraphilias. I am lucky, my attitude to authority derived directly from my hatred of the interference of medical people in childhood - it never became pathological in itself, but I could see how such a hatred could itself become tangled up with the libido in a way that it developed into a paraphilia focussed on the embodiment of medicine - or internalised as a need for repeated surgeries. It is important for experts in this area to appreciate what the possible effects of their interventions can be - such as intervening in a way that produces autogynephilic behaviour in those they have subjected to gender reinforcement. It is important because that might be only a mild iatrogenic disorder compared with what could result from having one's genitals surgically interfered with in childhood and libido enhanced with androgens. Mish
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Michel Well the way I see it in terms of the medical intervention, for me that did get pathological, there is no point in denying it. (I think a certain person has just read how pathological it gets). The problem is it is not a sort of pathology they are comfortable with. I mean to call someone a transsexual motivated by haywire sex drives is easier than saying someone endures "surgery" during chldhood, and was driven almost insane by the relentless "Socialization" and the real motivation is being "rid of the contamination of human vivisection". Well it sort of obvious where "medical opinion" will swing, they will lie to cover thier own backs after the gross insult they originally inflicted on a child. (How much would that amuount to in compensation?). As the US in particular is a litigant society and all this stuff is coming from the US, you put two and two together and see that potential payouts in compensation for mutilating and brutalizing a child in the name of conformity are probably going to be astronomical. This is why the Intersex Society of Norh america dodged issues like "Male assignemnt" and focussed on on victims of feminizing surgery. "It is harder to make a pole than a whole" but that does not mean they didn't try it. I think Professor Bailey and all his transsexual stuff plays a part, you see come up with a "This is someone with a male sexuality" and call them transsexual it lets the original surgeons off the hook by default. Lets be honest here, it is driven by money. And if after having tried to discuss this all I get is an off forum troll trying to dictate how I think, Then the way the whole edifice of this gender industry looks is pretty damning. I just find it interesting that according to the thought police I have to accept being described as an "Autogynephilic Transsexual in denaial" because the moment that one sticks another surgeon avoids being sued. Like I mention a suicide and it's "it didn't happen" Well yes if the reason for them killing themselves was recorded clearly (Actually I think it may have been) and made more public. The entire two tier "Pretty and be nice to, ugly and be nasty to science" would be really challenged. So it must never be said, uttered, or spoken of, People must have the freedom of speech to lie about it. Let's face it that is what this debate has always been about. Since Bailey put pen to paper in 2002-2003, it is not some noble persuit of the truth" it is some Sexologist laying down the limits and making it clear that of someone does not fit they are suitable only for prostitution or suicide. and if all this extends to intersex people then, oh how convenient, we can have Alice Dreger come along and be a party to denying years of abusive medical malpractice on children. By saying the surviving adults are "Transgendered" and "liars". Well I asked the questions reasonably and this was what I got for it. And the one thing the whole row about the Book has done is very conveniently distract people from reading Bailey's chapters on intersex. "The boy who will be a boy (or else)". This is not about freedom of speech or noble theories, it is about state sanctioned human rights violations and making sure the violators are never made to face what they have done. Every thread on this forum is about science, there are between two to ten posts on average. Then we come across this one. And it consists of lots of posts from desperate doctors and their allies trying to cover their backs and some very angry people wanting something resembling dignity. This debate that Bailey started in 2003 is a smokescreen. A smokescreen to cover a lot of backs and keep them from getting sued. And the science has been well and truly ignored. that is the conclusion I have drawn after trying to figure it out after a month or so discussing it. I still do not know what motivates transsexual folks to change sex. I just know that now the net is cast a little wider and the silly peewee theories are being applied to other people. The penny will drop and the compensation claims will run into billions. It does not make medical, human or economic sense. They will keep digging themselves into a deeper hole and then the compensation claims will start. And it all could have been avoided if people really did try to be a bit more ethical and less greedy. And since when did real science cause a cyber war? Where if you dont say the right things in the right way, the thought police will be knocking on your inbox, this is really insane.
    Michel
    Hi Sophia, >>> The penny will drop and the compensation claims will run into billions. It does not make medical, human or economic sense. I have felt for some time that Thalydamide, DES, Alder Hay, Bristol Royal Infirmary and Shipman all put together would leave the medical profession extremely vulnerable if the intersex scandal that ran unchallenged for over 40 years up till ten years ago were clearly exposed, yet even then it continued to run for another ten years; in a sense, Money was only the fall-guy who wouldn't fall over. Alder Hay & BRI made serious dents in people's confidence and respect for the medical profession here in the UK. I now have documentary evidence that in the UK nearly 50 years ago there was a policy of not informing parents about their children's intersex conditions, nor what their treatments were for, and that those children were never to be told about their conditions. Yet where are the headline breaking litigations? The medical profession cannot afford to be crippled by the fall-out of a scandal that tens of thousand in this country were systematically mutilated and lied to in the name of maintaining a perception of sexual normality. Somehow, a lid has been managed to be put on the whole thing. But for those subjected to this medical abuse, it is like keeping the lid on a pressure cooker - if the lid is not taken off in time, it will blow up in people's faces in a very ugly way. Calling intersex people autogynephiles is just one way of raising the pressure beneath the lid constructed out of medical science's lies and deceit, making matters even more volatile. The historical revisionists of intersex - whether academics like Dreger, spokespeople for ISNA, psychologists like Zucker - have to understand that this problem will not simply go away by using threats, calling people nasty names, and further abuses. They need to back down, and face up to the damage the medical profession has done, start taking responsibility for it, instead of lying and trying to blame the effects of earlier (mis)interventions on the victims of an inadequate approach. M
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hi Michel
    have felt for some time that Thalydamide, DES, Alder Hay, Bristol Royal Infirmary and Shipman all put together would leave the medical profession extremely vulnerable if the intersex scandal that ran unchallenged for over 40 years up till ten years ago were clearly exposed, yet even then it continued to run for another ten years; in a sense, Money was only the fall-guy who wouldn't fall over.
    I think the difference with intersex would be what I describe as "Paradoxical Stigma" It is like yesterday I was magically this Autogynephile. I did point out that I am something a "lot worse" because when it goes wrong (As it often did) It is like exposing a child to the very things (Socially) Transsexual folks really only begin to endure when they change over. Enter the Paradoxical Stigma, Transsexual folks were either fed or somehow made to feel that they were somehow "Less acceptable" than intersex folks. (when in truth both are equally mistreated, just in different ways), I know Chase did all that sort of stuff when hobnobbing with the sexnet crowd. This whole air of stigma, cross comparison, and the resulting "We will call you a trannie if you do not comply" Is something I have not seen used between other patient groups. But then it is the wobbly bits the likes of Sexnet get all exited about. The problem is there is no regulatory system or body who would dare to question the ever more bizarre practices, theories and antics of the holy sexologists. Of Course I will probably get an email this evening saying I am wrong. But then why Dreger's interest in all this? and her "If they do not conform to thier assigned sex they are transgendered" comment on that Operah Show. It is a huge stitch up for the sake of profit. And Profit speaks a lot louder than regulators.
    Michel
    Hi Hfarmer, This isn't exactly scientific proof, is it? "I would have to call myself a liar in order to stroke the ego of some dried up old crossdressers." What precedes it might be a reasonable explanation as to why you have developed this clearly stated prejudice. In fact, the way you seem to be applying the theory in relation to this anecdote is exactly what some commentators have said is the flaw - it gives ammunition to bigots, and potentially hatred. M.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hi Michel Well it is almost a literal witch hunt, Bailey speaks the truth, anyone who is over 22 and is "transgendered" (By the defintions of the Bailuit Priests) be a "Witch" (Ageing crossdresser). Before long Next nearly everyone are witches and liars. In the days of witch-hunting it was to prop up the Authority and wealth of the church. The scapegoats were older women. It is interesting to note the number of men and younger women who were burned because "They were witches who had transformed themselves". Today it is the Authority and Government funding of a small clique of scientists who decide who is human and who is not, (Bailey Greenberg 2001) and if they deem them not human (Even other scientists) they are "AGP" or "Witches". Bailey is right to talk about Mc Carthyism, his.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello HFarmer
    I would have to call myself a liar in order to stroke the ego of some dried up old crossdressers. That will be a cold day in HELL when I do that.
    So you go under a pseudonym which was a well known transsexual's former name and send people polite emails. Would that be right? Where is the science in this? `
    Michel
    Hi, My last dog was a male lurcher which people thought was a bitch - but other dogs knew he was a dog. My current dog is a female Jack Russell which people think is a dog - but other dogs know she is a bitch. So, where is the gender? She isn't doing gender, nor was he - he was doing dog, she is doing bitch; humans do gender, so they see a dog they think is a bitch, and a bitch they think is a dog. The dog sniffing her pussy is not about gender - it is about sex. Explain how animals do gender - instead of coming out with crass statements like 'gender is way too complex to be socially constructed'. I was not aware that society was less complex than natural phenomena - if anything, it is harder to predict social phenomena than natural phenomena. That is why scientists are scientists, isn't it? They can do the math and get the answer - society has too many variables to say why one kid will become a brain surgeon and another from the same street a crack addicted mugger. I am sure some scientists wished that the social was simple. I would say that only something as complex as society could produce the complexity of gendered behaviour that we are discussing. But, that goes beyond simple either/or explanations true/false - and maybe that kind of complexity leads some scientists to deal with phenomena as if it is like that, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. M
    torrwad
    HFarmer, I read your paper and posted an answer to it. I would like to have an answer from you HFarmer if possible. Thank you. I wouldlike also the comments from others about my comments there please. Wal Torres Gendercare
    Michel
    Hi Wal, I think we are all agreed that there was no justification for these attacks, but they have proven very useful as a smokescreen for Bailey's supporters. The transsexual smokescreen is actually all about the unbalanced emphasis on a few comments by one individual - and this has been used to obscure the problems that provoked them. I recall that every time a research lab got attacked by animal rights terrorists, somebody would drag in animal rights activists and ask if the denounce these tactics - it is a propaganda technique where you associate a group of protesters with an extremist over and over again, and in so doing undermine the legitimate group's credibility, and making extremism increasingly attractive to those who only want to speak out on something. The same tactic was used in Northern Ireland with Sinn Fein and the IRA - where Loyalists in organisations with unofficial links to paramilitary groups would try to blocj discussions with the legitimate political representatives because of some putative link with the extremism of IRA terrorism. The result was 30 years of bloodshed instead of negotiation. So, whatever somebody else thinks, said or did, it has little to do with this discussion - because nobody here supports what she did. If some people want to be identified as post-operative fetishistic transvestites, that is fine by me, and they can call themselves with a fancy name like 'autogynephilia' too as well. I still don't get that this makes them transsexual by the normal understanding of what that means - because the way it is 'set up', they have a male paraphilia, and therefore must be men, not women. Were autogynephilia to be accepted, it would only be a matter of time before more people like McHugh start asking whether transsexual reassignments were a viable approach to male autogynephilia. Likewise, I am sure many including the gay community would not see any sense in transsexual reassignment for homosexual men, so that would be out as well. If the theory were true, that would be the consequence - and I agree that Bailey is right that if that were true it should not be suppressed because of the consequences. Unfortunately, it is the belief that it is the consequences that motivates the opposition, rather than the problems with the theory, data, and over-characterization that means he is unable to see what it is about what he has written that is so deeply offensive to some people. Namely, they are not as he stereotypes them. A theory like this that is wrong might well plunge thousands of people into the sort of misery people endured fifty years ago with these issues, regardless of whether Bailey himself seems supportive of reassignment surgery for people he characterises as a types of homosexual and transvestite-fetishist men. We've been around the block on this one a couple of times already Wal, have you reviewed the previous posts? You will notice that the posts here have been civil, apart from a couple of Bailey's supporters (who ending up calling people liars, or just saying something quite bigotted, and giving up). It shows that they don't really have the argument, however much Dreger likes to dress it up in a cute little fluffy dress with a bow on top. Mish
    torrwad
    Mish dear, I believe really all that "autho-something" mess is pseudo-science. I loose not my time arguing about that stupid thing. But i would like to profit of that space - surely all people access that space - Bailey's & Co and their Adversaries - to try a new movement - a real movement towards real science. The best science to study gender identity, and its development , is the many causes - many effects systemic study. So, almost all may have some contributions for gender identity development, since genes and pre-natal hormones acting over tissues - genital tissues, brain tissues and so on - until the stress of the mothers that trigger disturbs in the phetus hormones, and so on... and later the womb environment, and later rearing, family relations, culture... affection circunstances, and so on. So, that system is very complex. A lot of known and unknown causes that triggers a lot of effects - a principal effect as gender identity and possible subsidiary effects... as some aspects of sexual orientation, of sexual action desire, and so on. That way, HFarmer may be right - in its conclusions not its background. A lot of causes triggers gender identity formation - and not only gender identity formation but also other perceptions... that could be influent on sexual orientation... as many causes triggering many effects. That I believe is the core question about these matters. Up until today, all theories, points of principle and approaches were based on one cause one effect. See Money and sex of rearing... see our Law and the genital conformation... now brain in a simple way triggering gender identity... and so on. We neew to renew our scientific approach. That is my point. I believe all that "autogyne - quelque chose" mess is stupidity... more one ideological pseudo-scientific theory, i intend not consider. I consider HFarmer idea of gender identity and sexual orientation possible interconnection as possible effects of that complex system. Only that i believe may be consider as good science. Another very important point is the study of homosexuality and bisexuality. To study it among humans - mainly human brains - is almost impossible without bias. But there is a species - the Paniscus - and also other primate species as the Japanise Monkey - that show systematic homosexuality. These would be the best universe for study homosexuality - causes and effects - in Nature. But due to religion - and the fear of religious criticisms - the academy study not the best models to know about causes and consequences of systematic homosexualism. Hugs, Wal Gendercare
    Michel
    Hi Wal, I was corrected by somebody that researches apes that same-sex genital contact in primates is not homosexual. It is social and peer bonding. So. even homosexual behaviour in apes can be dismissed by those who do not see homosexual sex among animals as being possible. How can you study animals to find out about humans when the same behaviour is seen as having different meanings across the two species? Homosexuality as a concept, pathology and identity is relatively modern (unlike the practice) - 150 years - before men had sex with other men, sometimes playing the role of women, and would get punished for it because buggery and so on was seen as against the moral order. People were not gay, although there were similar groups, like the Mollies, but not a homosexual identity as such. To try and match the modern cultural construction and practices with primates - what is the point? What do some apes have to do with some guys in a leather bar with their Harley's parked outside - how do you get from apes to that? M M
    torrwad
    Wal Torres Comments
    Your Abstract Every transsexual knows about the findings of Zhou, that the BSTc is a structure in the brain which causes transsexualism. From this comes the idea of brain sex and "HBS". Most gay people know of the INAH as well as various other studies that point to a brain difference that causes homosexuality in biological males. I have shown that if both of these findings are confirmed true then concepts from quantum theory can be applied to shed light on the question "How is sexual orientation related to gender identity disorder?" A hot button topic. What I will show from neurological data, Hilbert space mathematics, and the first principles of quantum theory that gender identity and sexual orientation are quantum mechanically entangled.
    A priori your abstract shows me problems. The INAH studies were very based in biased sampling.
    Introduction The "Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis". From what we have seen in the work done on it so far there is no way to say that sexual orientation or anything else causes the difference Zhou observed in the BSTC.
    I agree!!!!
    Let us also consider sexual orientation separately from this.
    I also agree
    There was another study one, before Zhou which found a nucleus in the brain that is different in homosexual biological males, and heterosexual biological males. This part of the brain is known as the "Interstitial nucleus of the Anterior Hypothalamus (1-4)" Four different nuclei that were different in homosexual males and heterosexual males.
    Since the late 60’s, Dörner & team in East Germany (Humboldt University in Berlin, Department of Endocrinology) studied the hypothalamus region in rats and human corpses. They discovered since then differences among male and female brains. Using hormones pre and peri-natally, they studied intensively the relation in rats for hypothalamic structures – and sexual behavior. Later, at UCLA, also Gorski & team and at NY at Rockfeller U Pfaff & team studied these subjects in rats and other species and human corpses, during the 70’s and the 80’s. At Oregon Primate Center, Resko & team and at Emory U in Atlanta Michael & Bonsall studied a lot rhesus monkeys brains and hormones… and so on, in the 80's. The central subject was always the male/female differences. Gorski & team at UCLA in the 70's defined some hypothalamic nucleus in the hypothalamic region - the INAH nucleus - that were: Very different between males and females rats. Not so different among male and female humans. No differences recognized in rhesus among males and females. Some, including Dorner, started trying to find “male homosexual” relations for brain structures. Then was triggered INAH 4th in UCLA, and then the SDN from Swaab, and so on… and studies trying to consider not only male/female but also “homosexual” brains. All these studies, UNFORTUNATELY were based in bad SAMPLING. No sampling CRITERIA. No differentiation among homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender, transsexuals… all were considered in the same UNIVERSE. So, the value of INAH 1-4 and SDN’s and so on is absolutely NOTHING, from a real scientifical point of view. So, dear friend HFarmer, you may not consider any formal math over BAD DATA. The math value is related to the quality of the data. Bad data, no math – quantic or not – will never arrive to real serious results. I believe, the Dutch now – Swaab, Zhou, Kruijver and so on, are considering better sampling criteria – BUT EVEN THAT WAY, THE SAMPLES ARE TOO SMALL… so the results need to be considered with some caution when we intend to trigger generalizations. WHAT CAN WE DO? I have a suggestion for you and the colleagues here: Do you know a primate species named Pan paniscus? The Paniscus are the primates that are nearer us, humans. They live in Center Africa, in Congo Republic, in the Wamba forest, and are studied by Osaka University by primatologist Takayoshi Kano, PhD. See please the work from Frans de Waal about these primates - his last book is absolutely clear and conclusive. ALL THEM ARE BISEXUALS IN NATURE, and all have homosexual relations – male/male and female/female, systematically IN NATURE. No report of ANY GENDER IDENTITY PROBLEM! But systematical homo and bisexuality.No report a Paniscus male would react as a Paniscus MtF female, or vice versa. THAT IS THE GOOD UNIVERSE TO STUDY HOMOSEXUALITY, its consequences, AND BRAINS! Any special characteristics in their brains would be related to homosexuality – to the way they feel THEIR RELATIONS and not themselves - the way they feel and see OTHERS. So I suggest all INAH work was not correctly developed considering “homosexuals” – they may be good to consider male/female as are the other studies. Your “quantic” conclusion is obvious: gender identity MAY HAVE a component related to sexual orientation. Surely I agree… gender identity is absolutely complex – and need to be considered – and any studied model need to consider – that absolute complexity. But nothing to do with INAH and SDN, etc please! WHAT IS SURE? 1. The human – as all primate’s brains – have a gender differentiation in its structure – and that gender differentiation has an UNKNOWN influence in gender identity formation. IT IS NOT LINEAR AND SIMPLISTIC - but exists and probably is a kernel where gender identity is formed, and that network structure need to be seriously considered in any gender identity formation model; 2. Homosexuality we need – and may study – through non-human primates – mainly Pan paniscus brains – and societies. Surely, gender identity and sexual orientation are not absolutely independent – they are possibly interdependent – but not in a strong way (never among paniscus, a gender identity variation was reported)! 3. We may not consider simplistic one cause one effect to study gender identity dynamic development. We need to consider complex systems theory – not quantic theory – to study it. 4. A probable good model for GI formation is SOC-self-organized criticality – because as I showed in Chicago during the WPATH symposium, the power spectrum inside a virtual gender space, is self-similar 1/f. SOC is probable, not sure. So HFarmer, I believe we have a lot of work to do – and these INAH nucleus versus Stria terminalis nucleus, Homosexuality vs TS, Bailey and Blanchard over estimation of parts of the whole system and their distortions, and all dogmatism, only trigger pseudo-science, hate, stupidity, politics and waste of effort and time. Who intend to study HOMOSEXUALITY, study the Pan paniscus please! Who intend to study gender identity, see that is something complex – that need a many causes – many effects model to be considered – to be seriously considered. All considering good sampling criteria PLEASE!
    It is also reasonable to assume that their is no direct connection between this and gender identity.
    No, no, no! exactly the contrary! INAH studies – later Le Vay studies, and so on, were based in no sampling criteria! "homosexual corpses". Even when alive would be difficult then to be sure if they had an anusual sexual orientation only or if they also had a gender variation...only corpses! Levay took some dozens of corpses - you never knew who they were! SURELY A LOT OF POSSIBLE EFFECTS THEY MEASURED as INAH COULD BE something derived from GENDER IDENTITY! No, no, no!
    The first things I have to do is construct the Hilbert Spaces of these two systems After that I will combine them using the tensor product formalism.
    No dear! How could you construct probability space models if you have only bad sampling? No, no, no! You may construct all you would like to with that background! You are erecting an idea only, a pure empty formalism that means nothing dear!!! So I will not consider your tentative math formalism dear… because that is nonsense, DUR TO THE LACK OF GOOD DATA! SO SORRY!
    Which is an unseparable state, therefore an entangled state. Therefore I have shown that based on the axioms of quantum theory and mathematics that gender identity is entangled with sexual orientation.
    Dear friend, you need not to do all that “math formalism” to see the obvious: GI-gender identity formation is a complex effect of a complex system that has many causes – an many effects. Among that mess, also sexual orientation possibly has its part, as sex of rearing also may have, as religion also may have, as profession also, as family, as a lot of life circunstances … as almost all may have. Surely the brain has a central part on it - but also the brain is not the only cause - it is a kernel part, a central part of the cause among other influences. I absolutely agree with your conclusion but not with your background!
    Quod et Demonstratum
    Hummm…. Here we are not in a math class to write CQD… because here nothing is CQD… we are considering a complex many to many system in Prof.Kunihiko Kaneko's sense… we need to consider it properly.
    In case you missed it because it was stated in mathematical terms... What I have shown mathematically, and physically is that the sexual orientation of a person and their gender identity MUST be entangled if these states of mind are controlled by the brain in the way that most transsexuals think they are.
    What I do not agree with you here, is the intensity of your assertiveness. Yes, they possibly are related – but surely gender identity formation is also related to at least more 10 variables, and mainly to the brain – it is formed inside the brain, so it is important the brain as a kernel, as a core part of GI formation. But never only THE brain. Even inside the brain a lot of brain parts… never only stria terminalis, or hypothalamus… but a lot of basal parts, and so on… and the relation between these parts, and the relation between these parts outside the brain and inside the body… and with the physical environment… and with the cultural environment ... and the affective environment… and etc, etc, etc.. NEVER SIMPLE RELATIONS PLEASE!!!!
    For this to be disproved one would have to disprove quantum mechanics.
    Surely you are joking dear friend… I believe surely you are much more intelligent than thinking that that assertive is a serious one…
    A final comment on this from me. If the INAH and BSTc are shown to be the area's that control sexual orientation and gender identity it will be a mixed bag for the "transgendered" community. On the one hand transsexuals will be validated as really in a limited but physical sense having a female brain. While at the same time it will have been shown that sexual orientation is controlled by a totally different portion of the brain, yet still every bit as physical and "hard wired" as gender identity is supposed to be. What would that mean for the scores of transsexual women who say that their sexual orientation changed due to hormones?
    What is your sampling data here dear? I have evaluated more than 500 gender variants in the last years, and I had NEVER that result. What is your sample and sampling criteria to say that thing? Seriousness dear… please!
    What would this mean for the BBL controversy? Should there have even been a controversy? For the opponents of BBL theory believe strongly in the notion of "brain sex", while the supporters of it believe strongly in the notion of "brain sexual orientation".
    That is a main problem dear. Bailey & Co. are based in the “homosexual brain”, as a background. THAT IS BAD SCIENCE, until someone really study the PANISCUS BRAINS AND FIND THERE EVIDENCES OF A HOMOSEXUAL BRAIN! The problem here is… Bailey & Co believe the brain differences are due to the sexual orientation – based on bad sampling and no serious control and criteria – and the Others believe these differences are due to GENDER IDENTITY… based on BETTER SAMPLING CRITERIA… but not PERFECT SAMPLING CRITERIA. So, in a sense both groups are doing NO SCIENCE – BUT POLITICS AND each one is trying BY FAITH – to believe that or that way. I suggest: 1. Stop that mess please! 2. See that gender identity is different from sexual orientation – absolutely different. 3. They are different and interconnected – as we are different from the air – but we are interconnected with the air to survive! 4. That interconnection is complex – it is NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO CAUSE-EFFECT, but probably as effects from COMPLEX CAUSES. 5. WE MAY STUDY sexual orientation and its relation to brains IN Paniscus. We may NOT study it in human brains without bias! 6. We may study gender identity with its huge variability and complexity – if we consider it a “gender identity perception space” – a VIRTUAL SPACE where gender self-perception evolves. 7. We are doing that study for 6 years now in Gendercare – that way we were able to develop instruments to measure gender identity dynamics to evaluate people through the web! 8. Up until today we had no opportunity to try a global model – a very complex one – to understand gender identity formation. We consider the first step for that model will be the verification of the fractality of that space – we have already evidences that it is fractal. If it is fractal, probably it is critical. If it is a critical system, we may start modeling it considering criticality and so on. 9. Any serious help to develop that model will be very welcome. 10. To study homosexuality, nature provided us an alive model – the Paniscus – we need not a model if we have an alive one. Let’s study it!
    Hfarmer
    Torrwad. Thankyou for actually reading my paper. I think you have the same misconception that others who have read it have. You wrote: It is also reasonable to assume that their is no direct connection between this and gender I showed that the states of mind we call gender identity and sexual orientation are entangled. That does not mean the same as "interconnected", functionally related (as in gender=sex+3 or something :-/ ) or anything like that. Entanglement is a fully quantum mechanical phenomena which will have no real counterpart in the classical worldview of most people. The closest meaning is that those two states of mind are correlated. (i.e. statistically speaking one can say most men are masculine and sexually attracted to women. Being male, being masculine, and being attracted to women are correlated. Does not mean that one is interconnected to the other. The fact that some men are not 100% described as masculine and/or homosexual... that would not make the statement false.) I don't mean that as a slight. It took me some years to get really comfortable with how wierd quantum mechanics can be and how applicable it can be to many things....if we have the imagination to see it. As for trying to play down the INAH studies and still keep the BSTc studies as valid. The studies on the INAH were done in the exact same way as the studies that looked at the BSTc. In fact LeVay's studies of the INAH and homosexuality were the inspiration for lookng at the BSTc. If one is invalid so is the other. @Michael You don't seem to get it. Your points while valid are all based on emotional reactions. In science mathematics, logic, and facts are all that matters. Where would biology be if we let creationist who feel strongly that the bible is literally true dictate to science? Oh and try not to take this crap personally. Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello HFarmer
    Where would biology be if we let creationist who feel strongly that the bible is literally true dictate to science?
    Same place we would be when we have witchfinder generals telling people what they can and cannot think.
    torrwad
    HFarmer dear, Entangled in the quantic mean the same as correlated in statistics - quantum is statistics - and both are the same as INTERCONNECTED considering networks - as coupled lattices or any other network model. So what i said is i accepted your conclusion - there are relations - COMPLEX ONES - most interconnections are complex ones in nacroscale (even if simple in microscale) - not necessarily quantic but complex - between gender identity and sexual orientation, as with other aspects of self perception. About the differences among INAH and SDN studies performed by Gorski team in rats... later with analogies in human corpses - they had a good control for comparying men and women. Later the same for the SDN from Swaab, for men and women. But as you know, later, in the 80's, even for male and female comparisons, when the INAH's were destroied in rats brains - when Gorski hypothesis would be the behaviors would change - they changed not. So, soon, the INAH showed it was not so important, even to differentiate males and females. For "homosexuals", all studies were always very biased. With rats, considering that when an original male rat after modified the rat showed a lordosis female position, that would always mean a change in sexual orientation "a priori" and not gender identity - what is a terrible bias. A lot of homosexual rat brains, or human "homosexual" brains (considerations a priori always), could surely be "gender variation" brains. For human corpses, because due to the lack of sampling CRITERIA - surely in the samples there were homosexual men, MtF TS and MtF TG, all mixed up. So, the INAH and related work has some value for men and women - and no value to consider "homosexuality". The BnST tests were performed later. AS I ALSO SAID THEY HAVE ALSO PROBLEMS... no generalizations are reasonable completely.... BUT AT LEAST THEy HAD A SAMPLING CRITERIA. The samples were small - unfortunately, but they had better sampling criteria - so they have more value. What i suggest is to study homosexual brains minimizing bias, we would need to study the brains of Japanese Macaques, or Pan Paniscus - and never humans. About Bailey & Co, their problem is they are wrong, based on bad data, biased concepts, and are manipulating data, and trying to limit the existence of gender variant people,disrespecting them. They are still trying to conform people to them - to their a priori points of view - ideological ones - the concept that TS, CD, TG are all gay people necessarily - or have a disorder. Again as did Money & Co, now so does Bailey & Co - not respecting people as they are. That is not science, but pseudoscience and bad ideology. I answered you hoping we could develop that matter more - not considering Bailey's nonsense - and developing a good idea to study properly homosexual brains where we may study them - and gender identity the way we need to study it, considering the appropriate background. For me there are not pros and cons, no parties ... there are correct background and fake background only. Wal Torres Gendercare
    Hfarmer
    I'm not telling you what to think. In fact it is you, here, and now who are telling me what to think. In fact based solely on your emotions you are trying to dictate what the medical and scientific community ought to record as facts about transsexuality. What anyone simply thinks does not make science. What I have done is theorize based on peer reviewed published data, and mathematical logic. All your emotional barbs mean nothing in this forum. PROVE me wrong, point out where the math is wrong if it is wrong. So far only Torrwad has a correct idea of where a possible weakness could be. However even they attack it the wrong way. (I can find places where people are just as convinced the BSTc data is faulty.). :-/ :-\ :-( I think you all are victims of our society. In my own column I write about how science and scientist are demonized here in USA. Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello HFarmer "I'm not telling you what to think" Well telling someone that verifyable history didn't happen and that they are something they are not, despite what veryfiable history says, is telling people what to think in my book.
    In fact it is you, here, and now who are telling me what to think
    Change the record. the "We are telling the truth stop picking on us" and "Liar liar liar!" wears thin after a while.
    In fact based solely on your emotions you are trying to dictate what the medical and scientific community ought to record as facts about transsexuality.
    Well you could not get more primitive emotionally than some of the stuff Bailey comes out with. "One of my students, and avowed heterosexual said he would have sex with them knowing they had a penis". And that thinking has gone beyond transsexuality now hasn't it. It has extended to every "undesirable" (in the literal as well as social sense)
    PROVE me wrong, point out where the math is wrong if it is wrong. So far only Torrwad has a correct idea of where a possible weakness could be. However even they attack it the wrong way. (I can find places where people are just as convinced the BSTc data is faulty.).
    I did, and recieved the following in my Inbox:
    1. I don't think you're intersex. I think you're an autogynephile in denial. 2. That is b*llshit about someone kiling themselves with a meat cleaver. Have a nice day!
    Which illustrates perfectly what happens when someone does not agree with the great and holy father J. Michael Bailey, Looks like the followers of Bailey dictating what people think to me. If they do not think as Bailey wants, or even remember verifyable history as Bailey would prefer it, they are "LIARS!!!" No debate, just "LIAR!!!"
    I think you all are victims of our society. In my own column I write about how science and scientist are demonized here in USA.
    Well belive it or not I agree with you on that one, you should be a geneticist and see how you get treated when GM foods come up into the conversation. But Bailey is hiding behind that with this ever elusive "Truth". to me it looks like bigotry plain and simple, why paint it as anything else. Oh I know "blind people with quantum mechanics and they may accept it". Well no it does not wash, I started looking at Bailey's work with an open mind a few years ago. I obviously did not come the the same conclusion as Dreger, so I dont get the brownie points, I get the hit squad on my back. You talk of how creationists and religious dogmatists carry on. Well I have painfully found out who the witchfinders are. so please spare me all the gibberish about "Emotional" thinking, it is a put down tactic. I am not surprised that a lot of transsexual folks are really mad at Bailey.
    Michel
    "The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside." (Allan Bloom, Closing of the American Mind, 249)
    Boo
    Wow. I go away for a little while, and look what y'all get into. Hfarmer- "You made some assumptions and then did some math. So did Newton when he derived his law of gravity. So did Einstein when he formulated Special and general relativity. What I did is the basic kernel of theoretical physics. What I did is how the principles that govern all of nature are discovered. There is plenty of data. Data does not matter though. Boo you and people who think like you are full of dogma. "The cult of the goddess." HBS and all that. Which is belived with NO proof by many. I will not even spend the time anymore." Newton and Einstein had data. If there is plenty of data for your model, please show me some. Without data you're just spinning numbers. Also, for (what I'm sure won't be) the last time, would you please stop putting words in my mouth? I specifically said on multiple occasions that I think the "HBS" people are just as full of it as Bailey is, yet here you go ascribing that viewpoint to me. If you're not going to bother to read what I write, then please do not respond to it. It just causes needless confusion and clutters things up. "Let me tell you all a true story. I now have a roomate who is a young transsexual woman. She has been on hormones since she was 13. She reminds me of myself at that age. She has worked the streets. She has stolen, cheated, and done whatever it took to get what she needed. She was a girly girl and into men from the get go. In other words she is a living example of the kind of person Blanchard calls a "Homosexual transsexual". I personally would have choosen the phrase "classic transsexual". Her name is Kylie and she is going to be on the Maury Povich show latter this month. You know where they challenge the audience to tell who is a man and who is a woman. That is not the most significant part She is now my roommate because she was thrown out of her apartment. An apartment that was provided by a charitable organization. She was thrown out because she was selling her services on craigslist. How did they find out about this? You may ask. A jerk named Colleen Stewart told on her knowing full well what the consequences would be! This was after Kylie had been really nice to her and friends with her and everything. Kylie swears that she does not know why this happened. My guess would be that Colleen realized that Kylie would not be wanting to be a "transbian" with her. Collene's life Collene was a very fat very masculine Mexican man when she first came out earlier this year. For a short time she did drag shows (that were really more of a joke). Before this she was a married heterosexual male. I found out certain other personal details that would fit the description of Autogynephilia as well. But they were told in confidence, in a supportive environment, so I will not detail them. Bailey wrote of this and I saw & experienced it first hand. Autogynephilic transsexuals are hostile to homosexual transsexuals. Ok so they may not think of it in those terms or have even heard them. I know for a fact that, surprisingly, both Kylie and Collene are unaware of the Bailey controversey, or his book. Screw "The Man Who Would be Queen"! What I have seen with my own eyes is in accord with Blanchards theory. What should I do just stroke some old "transgendered" persons ego? Even if they would do something as despicable as what was done to Kylie? I would have to call myself a liar in order to stroke the ego of some dried up old crossdressers. That will be a cold day in HELL when I do that." What you have seen with your own eyes is anecdotes. Blanchard's theory of transsexual typology is based on claims of prevalence. Anecdotes by their very nature cannot tell you anything about prevalence. And if I may clue you in on something, the kind of phenomena you're describing has nothing to do with sexual orientation, it's the age old young transitioner/older transitioner gap that's always existed in the trans population. You don't have to be str8 to get hit on or be the object of jealousy or assorted other predatory behavior from the occasional creepy older weirdo. Believe me, I know. No one has ever denied that there are transwomen who fit varying aspects of Blanchard's model to varying degrees. It simply happens to be the case that there seems to be few if any who totally fit and there are many, many of us who don't fit at all. No one is asking you to deny anything you have seen with your eyes. You see, people who are skeptical of Blanchard's model do not need to call supporters of the model liars the way that supporters of the model need to call skeptics of the model liars. T'ain't my fault, we just have a built-in advantage there. (Of course, the reason you're not calling everyone a liar is cause it's not truly Blanchard's model you're defending, but your own version of it.) And criticizing your ideas does not equate to telling you what to think, so take a few deep breaths and relax. The html tags don't seem to be coming up when I preview, so I'll put quotes around the parts I quoted and sorry if that makes it hard to read. But maybe they'll come up when it's actually posted.
    Michel
    Hi Wal, I do agree when you say that it is way more complex that an on/off switch. And Hfarmer, my points are all substantive points made within the context of my discipline. Not about telling you what to think. You seem to be overly emotive - negotiating truth through argument, and finding yourself becoming susceptible to that reason may feel like being told what to think, but it is nothing to be frightened about, it is about being convinced - that is what discussion is all about. It is perfectly fine to change your mind if you want to, it is not betrayal of yourself or anybody else. It is why we continue with the discussion, rather than storming off when the weaknesses in argument are exposed, as some have done. :-) Mish
    torrwad
    Hi HFarmer, I would like to add to my comments about HFarmer published work, that I believe the Self- the self-perception, and among its possibilities gender identity self-perception may really be modelled as a quantum system - as a possibility. As i work with gender variance evaluations, to evaluate people properly even through the web as we do - we need not that kind of approach - but surely that kind of model i believe is possible. The entanglement between the Hilbert spaces for "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" (and a lot of other possible related ones - that subject has unknown dimensions), possibly is possible, if we consider a model as Penrose's for Self-perception - BUT NOT BASED ON INAH or any other "homosexual brain" theories like these...these bias are not good data for serious work. As i said, Stria Terminallis data has a better quality, but i believe not sufficient to dogmatic generalizations too. More work with stria terminallis and transsexuals - and with Pan Paniscus and Japanese Macaques for homosexuality, would be absolutely necessary for your conclusions HFarmer - in my opinion. But i believe you are in one possible good road to try to develop a good model for gender identity self-perception. Only please, send to the waste INAH... and Bailey & Co... until you have good data! I like your Math point of view... i consider it a good possible way to follow... BUT WITH GOOD DATA! Wal Gendercare
    torrwad
    Hi HFarmer, What brain-mind model do you consider? Penrose?... directly considerations from Von Neumann? The same model as Henry Stapp? I believe the Von Neumann/Stapp model a really promising one. I would like to know your ideas about these models, if possible. Also would be very interesting, in my opinion, a brain-mind model that would consider the Von Neumann/Stapp model AND Prigogine's superoperators for the inner quantum irreversibility. I believe Von Neumann and Prigogine are not incompatible - the compatibility is not simple, but it is possible! Wal Gendercare
    vsynth
    Dear Dr. Michael B. Miller, thank you,thank you,thank you, for staying in this forum and defending yourself and Michael Bailey so eloquently and thoroughly. I have been reading everything I can find on AGP because it describes my life to a T. (no punn intended!) All my life I have felt uncomfortable with my sexuality,I was never quite transgender enough or bi/gay enough, and although one book and a few papers did not "cure" me, it is a relief to know that someone in academia is doing some kind of research into the field of GID that has some bearing and further explains what the heck I am. (somewhere between TV and TG/TS, i love shoes, so sue me!) There are alot of us who wish to remain pre-op, but feminine in every other way. And we (imho) seem to be looked down on by the SRS transgender population. I am glad that somebody has had the courage and insight to bring into the discussion the aspect of prostitution. I know that not all TG/TS/TV/CD etc people choose this way of life. But far to many of us have. Myself for one, and many friends of mine as well. And it would really be nice to come out of the shadows and shame around this and be included in the transgendered discussion as people instead of mistakes or embarassments, or worse, not mentioned at all. I do not take the comments made in Dr Baileys book to be bigoted at all. From my experience they are too true. And they need to be said so other sex therapists can recognize these issues and begin to deal with them with their patients who have these issues. Maybe you rubbed some people the wrong way and thats to bad, but i doubt those people have ever sold their bodies for money. And maybe some people think your book has painted them in a corner or does not describe them, but I don't see it that way. I'm begining to think that there is not just one kind of GID, that there's not just gay,straight or bi, AGP or or not AGP,but that it's all over the road, human sexuality is messy. And there are many truths, and for once somebody is talking about mine. Thanks,
    mbmiller
    Thanks for sharing your story, Vsynth. I am glad that you appreciated my comments. It is good to hear from someone who appreciates Bailey's book and ideas. When the book first came out, it was well-liked and it was praised by many reviewers. Things soured after a small group of transgendered professors went after Bailey with everything they had. To me they have seemed very emotional and unreasonable, and worst of all, highly inaccurate. They have been intimidating Bailey, attacking him personally, threatening him and lying about him. When they learned about this forum, they used it to continue their hateful campaign. A legitimate debate would have been nice. Anyway, thanks again. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michel
    I for one would not deny that there are autogynephiles, that there are she-males, that there are people on the game, etc. That is a world of difference from suggesting that they are all transsexuals - and that all transsexuals are either like this, or homosexuals who change sex. M
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Michel I was on a different website this morning reading reviews of Microsoft Windows Vista, this caught my eye: "I think Vista is awesome, it has made my life a lot better it has revolutionised my working practices" And it was on a page of less than positive comments. OK so there is someone who likes Windows Vista. They made me think of trying it to see for myself to look at the possible merits of it. Until about three posts down when readng what someone from MSFT wrote: "Thankyou Is it nice to see that there are not only linux zealots out there, zealots who wish to undermine the success of Windows Vista, which is an operating system everyone should adopt, As Gartner recently said "Buy Vista or Die" Which proves that businesses are only going to survive is they adopt windows vista, and avoid those Linux Zealots who cannot ever hope to match the success of Microsoft" When I came to this site an hour later, it was like reading the same thing, a satisfied customer followed by the "hard sell and trash the competition". Totally different subject and debate, but the wording is almost the same. Call me a cynic, but surely a scientific theory if it is valid does not need such a sales pitch? But as you say, there is no one size fits all definition, like in I.T. there is no one size fits all platform. Thing is Microsoft have a reputation for being both aggressive and predictable on such blogging sites, could the same be said here of the Bailey Corporation? Sophie
    mbmiller
    Michel-- I think you're right. What sort of research could be done to answer this question? (The question of whether there are only two types of transgendered women.) Was there something wrong with Blanchard's study? Is it possible that Blanchard was essentially correct, but that the 100% figure is a little bit off and the true proportion that are either "homosexual" or "autogynephilic" is more like 94% or something like that? My point is that the questions have to be addressed by systematic research studies. We have to be willing to accept that our views might be contradicted by the data. I think that is exactly what Bailey has been trying to do. His detractors claim to know the answers, but where are their systematic studies? Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Michael That is interesting. Does this mean that you accept the possibility that there may be exceptions to this AGP/HSTS rule among transsexual people. (Which I understand was the main objection coming from the transsexual folks). Let's put the arguments Between Bailey and the Transgendered academics for a moment, this is more interesting, because this is about clarity not argument. And what would the remaining 6% be defined as? Androgynous? Autandrophobic? Asexual? Also does this now clarified taxonomy apply to transsexual people specifically or is it being applied to other groups? All the best Sophie
    mbmiller
    Of course it is possible that there can be exceptions. It is not possible to prove that there are no exceptions. A good theory would be that there are no exceptions, but then you would need a way to test that theory through systematic ascertainment of cases and some sort of screening interview. The theory would be corroborated by a failure to identify clear exceptions. The tricky thing is to distinguish non-AGP/HSTS cases from AGP/HSTS cases who wish to deceive the interviewer. This problem seems to me to be one of the core dilemmas that has pitted some transgendered academics against Bailey. As some have pointed out, we cannot simply dismiss every apparent exception as a liar. But as others have pointed out, people sometimes lie. What is the solution? I can't answer the question, but I do believe that future research is likely to lead to discoveries that will enhance greatly our understanding of all of these issues. Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Michael B. Miller, PhD, MS, MPE University of Minnesota
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Michael
    Of course it is possible that there can be exceptions. It is not possible to prove that there are no exceptions. A good theory would be that there are no exceptions, but then you would need a way to test that theory through systematic ascertainment of cases and some sort of screening interview. The theory would be corroborated by a failure to identify clear exceptions. The tricky thing is to distinguish non-AGP/HSTS cases from AGP/HSTS cases who wish to deceive the interviewer. This problem seems to me to be one of the core dilemmas that has pitted some transgendered academics against Bailey. As some have pointed out, we cannot simply dismiss every apparent exception as a liar. But as others have pointed out, people sometimes lie. What is the solution?
    This is a valid point about noting that people are sometimes not being truthful with an interviewer, and at the same time being careful not to assume that all exceptions to the rule are liars. I have an interesting comparison with similar discussions about my own condition (5 alpha). Julienne Imperatio Mc Ginley claimed that all people with 5 alpha identified as "Male 100% of the time". A close reading of her own paper on this (Dominican Republic case studies 1995) does bring her assertion into question, partly because of the small sample sizes and partly because she excluded two individuals from the study who do not identify as male. However this is not really about the flaws in her work rather anthropologists pointing out that locally it was a tradition for people with 5 alpha to just become men after being raised as girls. And with there being a local patriarchal society those who did not identify as male were often shunned or looked down on in some way. Could the "Male bias" in this example as interprested as "Bological" really be an artifact of of social expectations influencing the data? I suppose if we looked at it in that way, that is forgetting the arguments about the flaws or percieved flaws in Bailey's actual work and looked at it in the wider context, this may shed some light on the debate. With 5 alpha Mc Ginley reported a male bias, that could well have been social. (I do not identify as male, but I live in a totally different social setting while still being someone with 5 alpha) It is the same way that Bailey reports a given taxonomy for transsexual folks that could be there for social reasons. Like the possibility that transsexual folks are somehow expected to follow a specific path and hold a particular self perception, (This AGP/HSTS model as presented as "Secondary and Primary") which may well be in partial conflict with what is happening in reality. The thing Is Like Mc Ginley, Prof. Bailey and Blanchard can only go on what data is available to them. Even if you account for a personal bias towards a specific interpretation, people still have to focus on the data available. But the data may contain artifacs. I suspect the solution may be to look at things critically in the broader context. Are there artifacts in the data that arise because of the interviewing protocols? Would different question and answer forms or interviewing techniques provide a different set of conclusions? It is worth looking into.
    I can't answer the question, but I do believe that future research is likely to lead to discoveries that will enhance greatly our understanding of all of these issues.
    I appreciate your answer, I do have a lot of questions on this but will ask them when it is more appropriate to do so. Despite all the argument that has gone on, I still want to get to the truth on this. Anfry words between people are not going to get anywhere, I think everyone is agreed on this. Here you have raised a legitimate point to which I can see a clear analogy. Do you think putting the data in a wider cultural and social context may help resolve the question of the ratio of non HSTS/AGP and HSTS/AGP people? All the best Sophie
    M Italiano
    Dear Dr. Miller, Well fine examples of those systematic studies are those by Gizewski. One shows that while viewing sexually explicit videos, homosexual men showed significantly less activation on fMRI in the region of the hypothalamus when compared to heterosexual men. (Human Brain Mapping online-Thomas Paul lead author). It (the results) matched that of heterosexual women and differed only from heterosexual men. In the German publication ArzteZeitung, 12 m to f transsexuals were studied, and these transsexuals showed hypothalamic activation which was that of heterosexual women and gay men, but unlike that of heterosexual men, whom again, had significantly higher hypothlamic region activation on fMRI when viewing erotic visual stimuli. Interesting that gay men, straight men and transsexuals (see below for info. on sexual orientation) had all differed from heterosexual women, but were alike in their hypothalamic region activation patterns. BUT, when m to f transsexuals were compared to homosexual and heterosexual men, they showed significantly less activation in the insular cortex and the amygdala, but responded as do heterosexual women. This was presented in a congress in Germany and written in German in ArzteZeitung. BUT, it is also going to be published soon. Importantly, in the group of 12 transsexuals studied, although most were oriented toward women as romantic/sexual partners, at least 2 were described as being totally male oriented without any romantic/sexual interest or expression of such in women, but always men and men only. Thus, no matter what the sexual orientation of the transsexuals is, they do not respond as do gay men or straight men, but instead respond as do women in activation of the amygdala and insular cortex (ie., significantly less activation in these two areas-amygdala and insular cortex). Interestingly, Bailey found using fMRI, that his gay men responded with at least equal activation in the amygdala (and perhaps even greater) than heterosexual control men when viewing erotic visual stimuli. Gay men and straight men, therefore are unlike either transsexuals of gynephillic or androphillic sexual orientation, but transsexuals of gynephillic or androphillic sexual orientation are instead like women in the response of the amygdala and insular cortex, adding further evidence for the female essence theory (brain sex) of transsexualism, while plainly refuting the theory of ....... Mike Bailey's and Blanchard's of transsexualism being either a heterosexual man with a paraphilia or a feminine gay man. Regards, M. Italiano
    M Italiano
    Dear Dr. Miller, Well fine examples of those systematic studies are those by Gizewski. One shows that while viewing sexually explicit videos, homosexual men showed significantly less activation on fMRI in the region of the hypothalamus when compared to heterosexual men. (Human Brain Mapping online-Thomas Paul lead author). It (the results) matched that of heterosexual women and differed only from heterosexual men. In the German publication ArzteZeitung, 12 m to f transsexuals were studied, and these transsexuals showed hypothalamic activation which was that of heterosexual women and gay men, but unlike that of heterosexual men, whom again, had significantly higher hypothlamic region activation on fMRI when viewing erotic visual stimuli. Interesting that gay men, straight men and transsexuals (see below for info. on sexual orientation) had all differed from heterosexual women, but were alike in their hypothalamic region activation patterns. BUT, when m to f transsexuals were compared to homosexual and heterosexual men, they showed significantly less activation in the insular cortex and the amygdala, but responded as do heterosexual women. This was presented in a congress in Germany and written in German in ArzteZeitung. BUT, it is also going to be published soon. Importantly, in the group of 12 transsexuals studied, although most were oriented toward women as romantic/sexual partners, at least 2 were described as being totally male oriented without any romantic/sexual interest or expression of such in women, but always men and men only. Thus, no matter what the sexual orientation of the transsexuals is, they do not respond as do gay men or straight men, but instead respond as do women in activation of the amygdala and insular cortex (ie., significantly less activation in these two areas-amygdala and insular cortex). Interestingly, Bailey found using fMRI, that his gay men responded with at least equal activation in the amygdala (and perhaps even greater) than heterosexual control men when viewing erotic visual stimuli. Gay men and straight men, therefore are unlike either transsexuals of gynephillic or androphillic sexual orientation, but transsexuals of gynephillic or androphillic sexual orientation are instead like women in the response of the amygdala and insular cortex, adding further evidence for the female essence theory (brain sex) of transsexualism, while plainly refuting the theory of ....... Mike Bailey's and Blanchard's of transsexualism being either a heterosexual man with a paraphilia or a feminine gay man. Regards, M. Italiano
    torrwad
    Prof. Italiano, It is surely necessary that the brain - mainly basal brain - as hypothalamus, lymbic system, etc.. - are important for gender identity formation. Gender identity is something that is formed in MIND, and MIND is formed in relation to the body as a whole - and to the brain and CNS surely (so, good brain-Mind relation studies as performed by Stapp-von Neumann-Penrose and also Bohm-De Brooglie are so important for us). So, any serious study of gender identity formation NECESSARILY will need to consider the basal brain as a core part - and its operation in MIND (quantum) formation. Blanchard and Co studies are related more to the entanglement (quantum entanglement as proposed HFramer at that blog) between gender identity and sexual orientation. That entanglement - if it is real - happens also THROUGH THE BRAIN, necessarily. There are realities that points NOT to a gender identity developent and sexual orientation "entanglement": The Pan Paniscus apes - the more human like apes - show a systematic homosexual & bisexual sexual orientation IN NATURE, and show NO GENDER IDENTITY PROBLEMS... which in my opinion points to a NOT HARD WIRED ENTANGLEMENT between gender identity and sexual orientation. The same happens with JAPANESE MACAQUES in nature. So, when we try to INTEGRATE all information about gender identity formation we see some sure things: 1. The brain is the core part for that study; 2. Inside the brain, the core part is the basal "reptilian" brain - as hypothalamus, amygdalas, stria terminalis, all lymbic system, etc.; 3. There is not an obvious entanglement between gender identity and sexual orientation - on the contrary - probably they are fairly independent; 4. To study and compare Chimp's basal brains and Japanese macaques and mainly Pan Paniscus (Bonobos) brains, surely could help to discover why Chimps are so heterosexuals and why Bonobos and Japanese Macaques are so homo and bisexuals, NATURALLY - showing no GENDER PROBLEMS; 5. We need to consider all brain studies, that started with Dr.Gunther Dorner in Germany in the 60's, when we study the basal brain sexual differentiation - in the last 40 or 50 years there are lots of information about humans, Rhesus and a lot of species; 6. That way, we will be in the good way! Trying to know and integrate all we know, about CAUSALITY - something complex and related to the MIND - that is related to the BRAIN. 7. Also considering other related primate and mammal species - their brains, their behavior in nature - and their surely LACK OF gender identity and sexual orientation ENTANGLEMENT. Wal Torrwad Gendercare
    Boo
    Was there something wrong with Blanchard's study?
    Why yes, there were many things wrong with Blanchard's study: He used a bad definition of "transsexual" which would have excluded many transsexuals and included many transvestites. He sampled among clients at his own clinic who were trying to obtain medical treatment from him which he was under no obligation to actually provide, so any transsexuals who did get in his samples would have an extremely strong incentive to tell him whatever they thought he wanted to hear. The actual working definition of autogynephilia that he used in the study was broad enough to encompass "normal" sexuality as well as paraphillic sexuality. Now if you'd like to be the first to actually respond to the flaws in his study, that'd be great. I'll just be here waiting... and waiting... and waiting...
    We have to be willing to accept that our views might be contradicted by the data. I think that is exactly what Bailey has been trying to do.
    Really?
    ...it is impossible to understand nonhomosexual transsexualism without autogynephilia.
    http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/autodenial.htm If you're willing to accept that your views might be contradicted by data, stating that such would be impossible is a bit... odd.
    His detractors claim to know the answers, but where are their systematic studies?
    But that's the beauty of it. Many of his critics don't claim to know the answers. We don't need to. You don't have to know how to design a working airplane to be able to point out that someone who jumps off a building flapping their arms won't be able to fly.
    torrwad
    Siedberg and Miller, The first step for a good model - all our theories are always imperfect models - is to be aware that models is a rough tentative explanation of reality. The fact that Siedberg knows - and also Miller perceives - that theory have "exceptions" is a good stating point for debate and healthy discussion. Wal Torrwad Gendercare
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Torrwad
    The fact that Siedberg knows - and also Miller perceives - that theory have "exceptions" is a good stating point for debate and healthy discussion.
    I agree, there really needs to be be a means of returning to healthy and constructive discussion. Perhaps this is it. All the best Sophie
    Hank
    I think this is it. The fact that Bailey, Seth Roberts, Joan Roughgarden and all of you are writing here and, aside from some initial barrages that read more like baggage based on past history than anything in this article, the debate has been pretty balanced, at least to outsiders.

    torrwad
    I would like to suggest for you both: 1. There are for gender identity formation and variance, a lot of theories - surely all are incomplete. 2. Some are based on causality - almost all are surely biased because no simple cause triggers a so complex and chaotic effect as the absolute discord of gender between self-perception and genital tissues, starting from an egg with genes that triggers "normal" genital tissues. So, we need to develop new models to understand better "CAUSALITY". 3. Blanchard and Co consider more a survey considering the entanglement of gender identity development and sexual orientation development. That is a point of view for a survey and not a causality theory. Surely, we may not quantify all possible cathegories that may exist - and we may also have a lot of different classification's criterias - exceptions surely will happens, and perhaps these exceptions are the more important situations to understand the system as a whole. 4. The brain - and other parts of the central nervous system - surely are absolutely important for gender identity development and formation - because gender identity is something that happens in the mind - and mind and brain are not independent, but surely dependent. 5. So we have a lot of work to do - good work, and not ideological war - war is always bad work, in my point of view. What is the good work? INTEGRATE. Integrate brain studies with quantum mind studies. Integrate brain studies with gender identity dynamic development studies. Integrate surveys and causality - and mainly intensity versus incidence (power spectrum analysis). We have a lot of work to do. Scientifical work. Wal Torrwad Gendercare
    Michel
    Hi MB Miller. Systematic study? Good idea, independent phenomenological research into the subjects experience would definitely produce good results. Who would fund it? Mish
    Hfarmer
    @ Wal Torrwad Your response is interesting. Answer me this...Just how would a chimp show us that it has gender identity concerns? Gender roles are socially constructed by different societies in different ways. In a society like that of the chimps where there is nothing like clothing or different kinds of work how can one tell what gender role a chimp is in. The only work done by females exclusively in wild chimps is child rearing. Which is because only they have what it takes to feed a baby. That is one set of problems with your reply. The other is that you don't understand quantum theory well enough to understand entanglement. You did say this... "The Pan Paniscus apes - the more human like apes - show a systematic homosexual & bisexual sexual orientation IN NATURE, and show NO GENDER IDENTITY PROBLEMS... which in my opinion points to a NOT HARD WIRED ENTANGLEMENT between gender identity and sexual orientation." So once again I have to explain this. In quantum theory whatever system is under study, atoms, molecules, electrons, or the human mind, or even the whole universe is described as a "state space. These state spaces are called "Hilbert Space". Suppose you have two systems. H1 and H2. Two totally independent Hilbert spaces. Let them be separated such that one is on one side of the universe and the other is on the other side of the universe. So classical transmission of information or andy "HARD WIRED" connection is impossible. The systems are quite independent. However these two systems can still have entangled states. To find them all one needs is to construct the composite Hilbert space of both systems. H=H1 \Otimes H2 \Otimes denotes what is called a tensor product of Hilbert Spaces. When this is done there could be states which cannot be written in the form. h1\Otimesh2 Instead they are some linear combination of such terms. The point which so many miss is that there is no need for any "hard" connection for one system to be entangled to the other. This work has been written up and submitted to the Journal of Mathematical Psychology. It's status message when I check on line says "with editors". It has said this since September. I have received no information on when/if it will be published. If anyone wants to prove that my theory is wrong they will have no choice but to hunker down and actually learn quantum Theory like I did. Otherwise it may just be beyond reckoning with at all. (I am trying to say that with no sense of grandiose ness. I just recognize how hard to fathom Quantum Theory can be.) (Upon previewing I see that they still haven't got Latex working right...or I am just unfamiliar with how it is set up on this site) Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    torrwad
    HFarmer, 1. Among Apes - Gorillas, Chimps, Orangotangos - it is very clear. Fear. No agressiveness - not the same level as males. Almost all female among these Apes show their femininity through fear and being less aggressive. Among Bonobos, also. When two groups of bonobos meet in the forest - males start some aggressive mood, and females not - they start making homosexual sex. Obviously it is more difficult for us to understand them than among ourselves. But there are evident signs of femininity and masculinity. But surely yours is a good and important question. A good start - studying the gender identity signs among apes and other macaques. 2. About QM, I studied it some 20 years ago dear, I am also a physicist. Your approach is try to simplify. That is not correct. So I asked you - what quantum mind model do you study? Because we are talking here not about quantum physics and particles - but quantum mind. There are some possibilities for quantum mind. The model from Henry Stapp - which i agree - which is based on the collapse of the quantum state when we measure - when we observe. So, when we observe - ourselves or the environment, there is the collapse of what we observe. From the Shrodinger wave of possibilities in a Hilbert space to the collapse inside the Hilbert space (projection in the "Real" or "classical" space). So, we have no evidence that the collapse of the self-perception of gender is "entangled" with the sexual orientation NECESSARILY, as you suppose "a priori". You suppose that entanglement of the collapse "a priori" based on the tests on the hypothalamus (le Vay and so on... ) that I showed already were biased from bad sampling... So we need new ideas and something new... 3. About what i said as hard connection... Spin are surely entangled... but not all is entangled the same way. In quantum mind we do not know how perceptions, etc are entangled... so... I what i am trying to say is... not all is entangled... or perhaps all may be entangled! David Bohm believes all is entangled... De Brooglie also believes perhaps all may be entangled... but we are not sure. So, that entanglement is something we need to be open to discuss about, not dogmatically. 4. I hope your paper will be accepted, because you are a pioneer teing to see and develop something new in that area. I am not sure if what you developed is absolutely correct - mainly when you are based on 3 very difficult points of principle: 1. I do not know in what mind-brain quantum model you are based - because gender identity and sexual orientation ARE QUANTUM MIND dimensions .... and that model is not so easy... 2. The idea of entanglement, and decoherence and so on, admits a lot of different controversies... that is also a difficult matter... 3. Your background is bad sampling work others did some years ago, with a lot of critics against them... so... Good luck with your ideas. But please, only be not dogmatic about it... and you know not me and others here to say who knows or knows not about something... Torrwad, PhD My PhD is in Chemical engineering, not in Physics. Bit I have a BS in Physics too, and also in Psychology and Philosophy. And a MSc...
    torrwad
    Another comment HFarmer Bonobo women shows their femininity showing no aggressive mood in a typical way, and they love naturally women, in a way the men may not love. Surely would be grat a good study about gender identity signs among Apes, and Bonobos and Japanese macaques. Others here could try to trigger that idea... Also about brains and homosexuality... About QM, I know perfectly non-locality, entanglement, decoherence and so on. They are surely real and important to quantum formation of the mind - the observer. But that means not that necessarily all is entangled. Torrwad
    Hfarmer
    Well professor if you are a physicist then theory may not be your strong suit. Perhaps an experiment will clarify this for you. Read the following. I copied it from here. Perhaps their less mathematical explanation will get through to you. "This subtle kind of information, also called "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlation" or "entanglement", has been at least partly understood since the 1930s when it was discussed in a famous paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen. In the 1960s John Bell showed that a pair of entangled particles, which were once in contact but later move too far apart to interact directly, can exhibit individually random behavior that is too strongly correlated to be explained by classical statistics. Experiments on photons and other particles have repeatedly confirmed these correlations, thereby providing strong evidence for the validity of quantum mechanics, which neatly explains them. Another well-known fact about EPR correlations is that they cannot by themselves deliver a meaningful and controllable message. It was thought that their only usefulness was in proving the validity of quantum mechanics. But now it is known that, through the phenomenon of quantum teleportation, they can deliver exactly that part of the information in an object which is too delicate to be scanned out and delivered by conventional methods." The highlighted parts show just what I am talking about. This is not classical stastistics. There is no "connection needed"*. Do you understand now, OR are you going to keep trying to talk to me as if I did not have an education? As for your "not all is entangled comment". Quite true not every state is entangled with every other state. However if one wants to write down the Hilbert space of the universe one way would be to take the tensor product of all the Hilbert spaces of all the particles and fields in the universe. You had better believe that allot of those states will be hopelessly entangled. (*although in that one experiment the way the states were entangled was by having two particles collide first to make them entangled... they no longer where "connected" in an sense after that.) Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    torrwad
    Hahaha! HFarmer, young and dear friend, you are really angry. That is not good dear. Surely your are not the only to know something inside that Universe! hahaha! Dear friend, for me that discussion is much more hard, mainly due to the language - English is your language, not mine. I know all EPR controversy from Einstein & Co. and also Bell theorem, and so on. Non-locality is a reality for particles. Obviously, I am not saying the reality is not entangled. Also, obviously if you consider a bunch of related particles, they are surely entangled. Probably all the Universe (material universe) may be entangled. But your idea that surely Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation are entangled necessarily in MIND - may be or may be not - there is no real evidence that they are necessarily entangled inside MIND. GI (gender identity) and SO (sexual orientation) are not particles - they are erections in the mind. GI is self-perception and SO is partly a self-perception and partly the perception of the other - really the perception of the relation or the entanglement of two different bodies (and minds). So, the first question is: How mind is formed? There are models. I like very much Henry Stapp based on von Neumann quantum collapse model. Basicly, he considers mind as THE CAPACITY TO OBSERVE. I believe that is a good way. Roger Penrose also thinks in a similar way, not identical. What is important from my point of view is: we have a good mind quantum model - that relates Mind with Live matter. And inside live matter, the central nervous system. So, if that is a good model - I believe it is - than, self-perception is something based on quantum collapses. When someone make a quantum measurement (observes), the quantum wave (in infinite dimensions in Hilbert space), collapses in a yes or no way. (if SO and GI were entangled, when one collapses, the other would also necessarily collapse). That way mind - from the alive matter - forms. All observer has attention. Attention collapses reality (in the human - or any organism - world). Nowadays we know a tree develops MIND in its own way - also a bacteria - because as organisms they have the capacity to observe - to feel - to look for food, reproduction, life, etc.. A "normal" person - with no gender dysphoria - never will fix the attention on the own gender. A "normal" woman needs not to think about the own femininity and vice versa a "normal" man. So the attention never is fixed, is tunned in gender identity. A gender dysphoric - will have the attention - the conscious mind - tunned in self-gender perception - because the problems triggers the attention. And the SO? SO tunne the attention of almost all for some time in life - since childhood, youth and only in maturity will be not so important. Reproduction, pleasure, etc.. If both - SO and GI were entangled, when one would be important, the other also would be too - but that entanglement happen not in "normals". So, I believe we have not enough evidence to say SO and GI are necessarily entangled. Obviously I am not saying they are absolutely independent - as you said probably all the Universe in a way may be entangled - but SO and GI are not "specially" entangled (as Aspect experiments showed fotons could be entangled). I am not against you dear HFarmer. I believe you studied a lot, because I also studied a lot about QM - and surely you studied more and better than I dear - but you need to develop your ideas over good evidences and solid background. I am not questioning your math and physics knowledge dear - I am questioning the way you intend to consider your knowledge. And I know how difficult it is to understand non-locality, collapses and projections, and so on. Only that. I suggested you some months ago we could cooperate. It is very difficult to find someone that knows something about GI and also math and QM, and physics. When we find someone, let's not fight please, but cooperate! Thank you, Just relax please! Dr.Torres Torrwad
    Hfarmer
    I'm not so young. I am 27 just old enough to know when and how age and wisdom are relevant. Then there are other times when age and being set in a certain way of thinking are an impediment. This is one of those times when age and being mentally wedded to one explanation for transsexualism is an impediment. That and the generally sex negative mores of the past (the reason "free love" was so revolutionary in the 60's was because of those mores which are still with us today). It's not your fault. I just wish that while pointing out Dr. Bailey's biases some of you would question your own. Further at this address it was written in reference to this blog:
    This "James Mead" is we are led to understand most probably a certain student studying physics who is very inconsistent about their own personal history. And we will name names if they continue. Does this matter, well yes because we are talking about another one of "Bailey's HSTS ladyboys" (A member of his little "Harem" let's say) policing who says what and deciding to bully people who do not tow Bailey's "Truth" well yes, but if it is such a truth, why would Bailey need to resort to these increasingly surreal tactics to ensure that "truth" is accepted?
    And I will conclude with this blunt warning, when people were asking "Why" over the Vtech massacre, no one ever looked at the video the killer posted beforehand. That was someone describing a list of very deep seated grievances. (This is something that "James Mead" needs to consider carefully considering). It was driven by resentment. Bailey and his pretty little things are constantly feeding that sort of resentment. Bailey may as well be walking around with a huge target painted on his back. I would say that Bailey, his pretty things and his supporters are not just deluded but totally blind to the dangers they are exposing themselves and potentially exposing innocent people to as well. If history records "Columbine, Vtech, Northwestern" don't say that I didn't warn you. And while I know of no one planning it and I am certainly not planning that myself, I know it will happen, and as it stands it is when not if. All because of some stupid people who simply do not realize the anger they are messing with. And yes it is wise for "James Meade" to remain anonymous. (I have avoided naming names). Because I know someone will be out to get them if I do.
    First of all I am not this "James Mead" you have spoken of. My name is Hontas Farmer and I attend the University of Illinois at Chicago. Second my life story is quite clear. I can prove or document all of it. In brief (0,13)years life as a feminine boy,(13,21.5) life as a young transsexual woman,(21.5,25.5) reversion to life as a gay male,(25.5, present] life as a transsexual woman. In the interval (21.5,25.5)years I was at NIU in dekalb. After about a year trying to live there as a woman I gave up. NIU was then and is now a good place to go if you are gay and a horrible place to be if you are trans. My best witness to my life story it my body. I have a shape and proportions that is impossible unless one took hormones before puberty or in early adolescence. For me that was part of the price of a B.S. Third don't threaten me with violence. As a old transsexual lady used to say in this situation "peel". Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Hontas Farmer Well to begin with your name does not appear once in that blog and some of the details could apply to anyone, I know a number of people who are studying physics, who have a bit of a Machiavellian streak. As for threats of Violence, Well you are not this "James Mead" character are you? so how am I threatening you with violence? I make a clear point in the part you have quoted that I am not mentioning names. And you have read here how nasty this "James mead" can get. (I quoted them earleir in this discussion). Putting this aside for a moment (This was over three months ago). And on a more serious point I do think that Bailey may be missing a potential problem with his focus on masculinity. It is clear that some of those he discusses rejected it. If someone appears who has a very serious dissociative problem with "masculinity" and he plays on it, what then? I will be truthful about that I think Bailey could well end up with the wrong patient turning on him. If the past reactions towards him are anything to go by I thought and still think there is cause for concern. Putting illustrative posts in other blogs aside people do need to discuss this sensibly instead of the "liar liar liar " flaming that I have seen on other blogs, such as the Huffington Post Blog. As for my writing my semi sarcastic articles on the OII blogs, well that is after all freedom of speech. I think the whole debate surrounding TMWWBQ is both surreal and comical. I think Bailey's writing in that book was surreal and comical, (That he does admit hmself) I take issues with another chapter, about the Reimer case, and would prefer to discuss that sensibly without "James mead" or any other of Bailey's self appointed "defenders of the faith" making theats via email and claiming I am things I am not to keep me from asking questions. It is all rather silly really. Does this clarify things for you now Hontas? On the issue medical history. Which incidentally, Mead was mainly interested in. As you have now taken the time to explain your background and history I will breifly explain mine here, if it helps. I was born in 1963, and was misdiagnosed with PAIS. They attempted a "Severe Hypospadias repair" (Which it turned out was something more radical than an actual Hypospadias repair.) by about the age of five I was suffering from repeated kidney infections and bladder damage due to the near permanent catheterization. I had no particular gender identity issues either, (Except for an increasing hatred of being defined as "male" and made to endure more pain via surgery) I just wanted the surgeons to stop it. By about the age of 16 I rejected everything they intended and the surgery they had already conducted. They tried "Androgen therapy" which just turned me into psycho. That was stopped very quickly when things were clearly not working out. And I ended up female, had the scar tissue and the mess removed and yes that was personally to spite them. And to avoid yet more complications. I actually have 5 alpha reductase Defieciency. And all the documentation to that effect is available if (As "Mead" Claims) it has to be made public domain. I simply do not want the same nightmare to be inflicted on another child. And this is what I am about Hontas, plain and simple. All the best Sophie
    Michel
    Hi Hontas, "I'm not so young. I am 27 just old enough to know when and how age and wisdom are relevant. Then there are other times when age and being set in a certain way of thinking are an impediment... This is one of those times when age and being mentally wedded to one explanation for transsexualism is an impediment." In other words: being old and agreeing with me = wisdom being old and disagreeing with me = impediment Interesting. You subscribe to an outmoded paradigm and see this as astute, because you have been deceived into thinking it is a 'new idea'. In fact, it is a reinvention of a 50 year-old mode of thought that went out alongside with the aversion therapies and the criminalisation of homosexuality that went along with it. You occupy the position of a counter-activist, using ad hominem arguments rather than engaging in genuine discussion, because you have been duped by flim-flam medicine men into thinking they are the revolutionary thinkers. In reality, theirs is a reactionary position. Age and wisdom do not enter into it - knowledge, wisdom and understanding places the ideas in their socio-political context, and blows away the smoke to reveal that the smokescreen is not of transsexuals' making, but those who created and sustain the controversy in the first place. I have had a look at your web site - and the last photo on the page is very telling. It is a very autogynephillic pose; I am sure that it is not the only correlation. This simply confirms what I say, that you cannot segregate trans people into two neat categories based on sexual orientation. What are described as being stereotypical to transvestites will be present to some degree in different 'types' of transsexuals - just as they are manifested in some women to certain degrees. The same is true of HSTS. These two categories are constructed by one researcher to explain something about his observations, but another researcher has forgotten that they are constructed and treated them as if they are real categories rather than constructions. Those who are thus described often do not see things in the same terms - I prefer to understand people from their own understanding, rather than from the understanding of another who has limited experience of the phenomenon. A researcher will always have less experience of a phenomenon than the person who experiences it. My own view is that stigma is what drives people to collude with and maintain a segregation as HSTS. The stigma of being taken to be autogynephillic otherwise. I have not met a single person in the UK who claims to be HSTS - just as I have not met anybody who claims to be autogynephillic. That is because the issue is not taken seriously here, because we are not subject to the same kinds of mores as people in USA. Not sure what 'free love' and the 60's have to do with this. People were screwing around long before the 1960's, and changing sex too. M
    torrwad
    HFarmer, We all have biases in our ideas. We all are far from perfect. QM - considering Copenhagen "ontology" - with which ontology I absolutely agree (i completely agree with Heisemberg/von Neumann/Stapp "QM ontology")- shows we may not know really nothing about "objective physical reality" - science is to know "How we know/perceive physical reality". QM is really a very "Kantian" theory - we may know what we perceive - the way we perceive. Numenical Reality "as is" we may never know. So, we may directly consider - as did von Neumann and later Penrose and mainly Stapp - QM a kind of "psychology of physics" - the good place to study mind/matter/nervous system. To study GI and SO that way - is something very interesting - as you are trying to do and also I - so we could eventually cooperate - through QM concepts and ideas - is absolutely scientific and understandable. What I believe is not understandable - as science - is to say you are doing science when really ideologically you are doing a way to increase gossip inside a community of suffering people as are the gender dysphorias community - as did Blanchard, and Bailey and Co. What they did in my opinion is a kind of "art" - bad taste art - but never science dear HFarmer. So, what they did "is a bias", by definition - because is not science, and is a way to see - a biased way to see something with no control. You are in the good scientific road - trying to study GI and SO through QM. They (Blanchard, Bailey & Co.), they are not. We all have our bias. Bias on data, bias on sampling, bias on scientific background... But gossip, is a bias that hurts others... as they did, so the reaction from a lot of people. I do not know what is that thing you posted about violence, menaces and so on... more of that "gossip" I am trying to talk about that Blanchard and Bailey and Co triggered dear... they are not scientists but artists... of very bad taste. Thank you, study QM, apply it to mind and alive matter, including GI and SO... that is the good way. In my opinion. Torrwad
    torrwad
    Thank you Michael, You posted a good analysis of some mislead concepts from HFarmer, but I really consider HFarmer has good intentions and is in the good scientific road - if she will be able to free herself from Blanchard, Bailey "et caterva". So I intend not to fight her ideas so hard with its inconsistencies - because she is a good scientist in my opinion - or will be, at least. Blanchard, Bailey "et caterva" are artists, not scientists. They do a kind of bad taste art. I love art - I play violin, my family is full of good art. I really reject bad art - distasteful art - art that triggers animosities based on aggressions against poor people, or at least people that is fragile in a difficult society as ours. I see Blanchard and Bailey et caterva as I saw and published about John Money et caterva - Money was a kind of sorcerer - bad art sorcerer - which could transform no science in science and bad ideas in absolute truth in a way the academy considered him as a kind of "authority" about gender matters - when he was only a bad artist. David Reimer's suicide, and terrible life, was one of the evidences that children "learn not to be a boy or a girl as they learn to speak a language". That never was science, but bad art. Science needs control - as Popper suggests, all scientific idea/theory needs to be "falsifiable", so we may control science. Art is not controllable. Art is an uncontrolable point of view, only. If the taste is good, art is very welcome, but bad art is something patetic. HFarmer, i hope, is looking for doing science - considering QM to model GI and SO inside mind - a good model, the best one. I am not so sure, as she is, that GI and SO are entangled in QM sense - they are not "a priori" as she considers, i believe. And also I believe not in her sampling about some brain studies (about SO brain differences in hypothalamus and so on) she considers as hard rock - when I consider these results as a moisty clay, very dangerous one. But i believe HFarmer is a good scientist, she will develop science - not bad taste art as did Blanchard, Bailey et caterva, as also did John Money et caterva, so... I understand - even being an old stupid MtF woman - her efforts. Torrwad
    Hfarmer
    @ Sophia Sidelberg You should not be threatening me or "james Mead" or anyone else. Second you implied that I was and said some pretty ominous things. Talk of randomly shooting up my school. I should report you to the authorities for writing such a thing. @ Michael What are you talking about? Do you not see that so many "transgendered" women have married themselves to one explanation based on one and only one study that has never been repeated. All because it makes for a pleasant thought. I have never used ad hominem arguments. My arguments are all based on mathematical physics. Which by it's nature is not personal. As for the rest of what you wrote. First of all you forget I live in Chicago. I met Dr. Bailey back in late 1999 and 2000. I know this situation better than 99.5% of the people who are talking about it. Second for the sake of your argument suppose I was autogynephilic. What would that change? Would that make my statements less valid? Would that make the laws of physics and the logic of math stop working? NO! ("autogynephilic pose" what does that even mean? Honey I used that picture for months to make money advertising on the Eros Guide.) So that argument is a total waste of time. Speak to the facts at hand and not the ones you made up. @ Torrwad. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said you were stupid. I just said it's evident that theoretical physics is not your specialty. You say you studied quantum mechanics years and years ago. It may be time for a refresher course. We have learned allot of new things since then. I commend you for having read what I wrote. You seem to be getting it. In particular you realize that I did not start out with or ever use an assumption that GI and SO MUST be entangled, corrleated, or connected in any way. I derived it from applying the laws of physics as we know them to two very simple models for SO and GI. Those models are the weakest thing in my paper SO and GI are probably much more complex than just a "spectrum" in SO and a "spectrum" in GI. However that is just the type of model GLB and T activist like. Models where some brain difference makes us the way we are and some people are more effected than others. Perhaps it is such a simplistic notion of gender identity or sexualorientation that needs to be questioned. Because if those types of explainations are valid...then quantum theory implies that SO and GI must be entangled. I only followed where mathematics led me. Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello Hontas
    You should not be threatening me or "james Mead" or anyone else. Second you implied that I was and said some pretty ominous things. Talk of randomly shooting up my school. I should report you to the authorities for writing such a thing.
    . Well believe it or not I actually think you are much more intelligent than a Bailey Troll. I think some of your ideas in Physics are interesting and have merit. Unlike some of Bailey's "Advocates" who are bullies and who don't like it when someone bullies them back. I use a bit of "Social engineering" to see who takes the bait, and while you are most probably not "James Mead" you appear to have taken the bait. Have I threatened you? no! Feel free to report me to the authorities there is a lot worse written in some blogs, some from the Bailey camp and his enemies as it happens. Hopefully you may get the point of the exercise. Which Bailey is claiming he wants, no smokescreen but clear science. Well all I can see is a smokescreen on both sides. And I have just illustrated it. Thanks for your help :) All the best sophie
    Boo
    Do you not see that so many "transgendered" women have married themselves to one explanation based on one and only one study that has never been repeated. All because it makes for a pleasant thought.
    I assume you're referring to the self proclaimed "HSTS" and "autogynephiles" who have married themselves to Blanchard's one highly flawed study. It obviously couldn't be the BSTc studies you're referring to, since even though people make too much of them they do have the virtue of having been replicated: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034
    As for the rest of what you wrote. First of all you forget I live in Chicago. I met Dr. Bailey back in late 1999 and 2000. I know this situation better than 99.5% of the people who are talking about it.
    I'm sure he's very polite to your face. You're horrendously naive however if you don't realize that behind your back, he has nothing but contempt for you.
    torrwad
    Sorry HFarmer, but what leads you to your conclusions is not QM nor mathmatics - but your "a priori" points of principle. Torrwad From now on, i believe, any discussion will be sterile about these matters here, from my point of view. Unfortunately. Torrwad I think it is very interesting you believe Heisemberg/von Neumann/Penrose/Stapp are so old. Their QM concepts and ontology, up until today are not well understood by most physicists! And it is very interesting you never consider a mind/alive body model... Publish your paper - and perhaps then we could talk about it something more.
    Hfarmer
    My paper is nothing but pure QM and mathematics. The math lead me. That will be obvious to any scientist who reads it. The only people being lead by ideology are Bailey's critics. I think you should all go and "identify" with those people who think that we never landed on the Moon and that Earth is only 6000 years old. Those people feel just as strongly yet they are pure crackpot's. So are you. I have submitted my work to a Journal. I'll let them be the judge. As for this discussion as far as I am concerned it has outlived it's natural lifetime. Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    torrwad
    Hontas dear, QM is mathematics but with a background. My problem is not the mathematics - really up until now I saw not your mathematics - I am absolutely able to evaluate it but my problem with your point of view is not the mathematics now - it is the background. After the background is clear I will see your mathematics - but the background is not clear. I will say you again: What is the mind-brain model do you use? That is absolutely important dear - to agree with the model before any mathematics. There are different models: Bohm/De Broglie model; Penrose/Hausdorff model; Heisemberg/von Neumann/Stapp model. For example Zeh considers for mind there is no good model! Neuroscientists as Krick and so on believe the QM models for mind are not good ones. So before any mathematics - we need to define what is the model for mind we are talking about. You may not use QM mathematics only without defining the background you are considering - the math will be cold nonsense! Surely that will NOT BE OBVIOUS, if you define not and discuss not the background dear. After we define the background, the math will not be so difficult - possibly. See the work from Stapp about it please. It is free at Citebase.org for example. Also in Gendercare.com, download section. Forget the Blanchard etc.. mess please! Torrwad
    Michel
    Hi Pokohontas, please stop calling me Michael. > @ Michael > What are you talking about? > Do you not see that so many "transgendered" women have married themselves to one explanation based on one and only one study that has never been repeated. All because it makes for a pleasant thought. No this is not born out in my research. The discourse you refer to is insignificant in people's narratives, just as is the discourse of Bailey etc. People talk about things in far more nuanced ways than you like to have it appear. > I have never used ad hominem arguments. My arguments are all based on mathematical physics. Which by it's nature is not personal. Well, here you do used ad hominem arguments - just because you are a physicist does not mean you are impartial. Your arguments here are based on your views, and your reasons for creating a mathematical system to justify them just as biased. > As for the rest of what you wrote. First of all you forget I live in Chicago. I met Dr. Bailey back in late 1999 and 2000. I know this situation better than 99.5% of the people who are talking about it. Shows you know about Chicago and Bailey - so what? The rest of the world is more than the lab rats in Chicago. If Bailey had published a rider limiting the significance of his research to a group of street-hustlers from a minority group in Chicago, that would be one thing - but he used it to speak about the truth of people way beyond his or your experience. That is invalid. I doubt it would be valid for trans people based in Chicago - but I have no evidence for that. Why do you seek to transpose the knowledge derived from your limited experience beyond the limits of your competence? > Second for the sake of your argument suppose I was autogynephilic. What would that change? Would that make my statements less valid? Would that make the laws of physics and the logic of math stop working? NO! ("autogynephilic pose" what does that even mean? Honey I used that picture for months to make money advertising on the Eros Guide.) So that argument is a total waste of time. Speak to the facts at hand and not the ones you made up. No, but it would challenge this idea that people are either one or the other - because it demonstrates that someone claiming an HSTS history can have autogynephilic tendencies. I don't often across many pictures of people in posing horizontally in bikini's on people's blogs and personal sites - whether trans or not - although I am aware they are a feature of adult dating sites. If not autogynephilic, then I am not clear what the purpose of posting such a picture would be; maybe to substantiate somebody is really female? Only you can really answer that. I am aware of what my motivations for what I do are, but not yours. It does appear more consistent with Bailey's discussion of autogynephiles, that was my point. Whether you see yourself or not is not my point - I merely pointed out the inconsistency it highlights in his approach. The fact you choose to take the comment personally, and allowed my comment to wind you up, only really reinforces this. Dr. Mengele was a scientist, and applied himself scientifically. That did not mean he was not influenced by a certain ideology. The idea that science in itself is ethically, politically, or ideologically neutral is absurd. The work of Oppenheimer only makes sense in its political context. The same is true for somebody like Bailey. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Michel
    Hfarmer
    "Lab rats in Chicago" Ignoring your red herring about the limitedness of expierience and your insulting of women who I have met. Women who are not "street hustlers" as you have tried to deride them as. ... You know what I would love to have explained to me is why is it ok in so many peoples books to deride the so called "homosexual transsexuals" who Bailey named in his book? I mean taking the anti-Bailey lobby's pov they are victims more than anyone else. Sir they do not deserve your derision. As for my picture I call it the obligatory cheese cake shot because it is kind of obligtory. For a transsexual woman ones transsexual body is their qualification. w/o changing the body by some means all a transsexual is is a very strange man. That and without pictures surely someone would say that I wasn't real or whatever. As for comparing me to that Nazi doctor. :-/ I think the holocaust was way worse than saying to a subgroup of transsexuals they get a sexual kick out of dressing up. I mean all that hurts is their pride. Gain a little perspective.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Sophia S Siedlberg
    Hello HFarmer Michel did not compare you to a Nazi Doctor, And I wouldn't either. However you do say
    As for comparing me to that Nazi doctor. :-/ I think the holocaust was way worse than saying to a subgroup of transsexuals they get a sexual kick out of dressing up. I mean all that hurts is their pride. Gain a little perspective.
    I agree the Holocaust was a something really nasty, I am still trying to trace information about victims of it who were in the community my family came from. Researching the holocaust is bleak I can tell you. As for Bailey, well him calling transsexual folks people who like to dress up, yes it upsets a few transsexual folks. It is not a problem just a point of disagreement. But may I cast your mind back to a paper that does bother me as someone who knows the history of things like the holocaust very well. That little Greenberg-Bailey publication in 2001. (Sorry to have to mention it yet again) OK Bailey is not a Nazi or anything like that, but he knew he was crossing the line in some parts of that paper. Not a P.C. line but an annoying line. He admitted it himself, in that paper. If he wants to play to the gallery and approach a subject with his "dedication to the truth" And spend almost an entire paper as good as saying: "Its eugenics, well not really, look I am not a Nazi but here's an example, what if we forced people to have Jewish Children as a metaphor of course only a metaphor really. Actually we don't want people spawinig gays they are also evolutionary mistakes, oh oops I am a nice doctor really, trust me.". Well if someone compares him to Dr Mengele after all that, well it is not like he didn't provoke it. Like he walked into it like Schumaker-Levi 9 "walking" into the planet Jupiter. He loves his controversy and then complains when it gets too heated. If he does not like such comparisons he should not go out of his way to provoke them.
    Michel
    Hi Hontas Farmer I did not insult women you have met, I was talking about Bailey's sampling. Limited sampling is not the same as limited experience, however, the limitations of experience was relating to him, not you. You, on the other hand, are an interested party who has not undretaken any research in this area - that is social scientific research (rather than projecting theories from physics onto social phenomena). I agree that the treatment of feminine males and transsexuals is appalling in so much writing in this area - and I find Bailey's writing on so-called homosexual male MtF transsexuals as a form of patholgising feminine homosexual men by the back door. It is every bit as problematic as applying transvestic pathology onto transsexuals in the notion of autogynephilia, because it applies homosexual behaviour as pathological onto a group of transsexuals. I can see why some might want 'pick on' self-identified HSTS for colluding with this - but I see it as tragic and just as problematic as the other side of this coin. I need no such pictures myself - see no need for them, and actively resist those voyeuristic souls who seem to think that they are required. I have nothing to prove - and my body is between me and my sexual partner, unless I am at the beach. Your last point is one I have come across on so many transsexual discussion fora. Rather than stick to the point, divert by making out somthing was said that was not said - deliberately trying to enflame debate. I did not compare you to a Nazi Doctor - nor did I compare you to the father of the atomic bomb (you missed that out). My point was that science is not necessarily an ideologically neutral exercise. For example, US Scientists are limited in carrying out stem cell research, because they work in a political climate which is uncomfortable with the abortions that provide tissue for this research. Instead, research is directed into producing stem cells without using foetal stem cells. This can be projected onto many developments - the space race of the 60's, cruise missiles, GPS, microwave technology, etc. Science is linked to ideology and poltics whether we like it or not, even if scientists claim neutrality - my point was that this whole debate about transsexuality does not take place in a political vacuum - and that applies to Bailey as much as anybody. The political underpinnings are totally different to the two examples I cited - but they still exist; I simply pointed to two examples. I certainly never suggested that misrepresenting lots of transsexuals as panty-wankers was on a par with the holocaust - I am not sure where you got that idea from. You either have a very vivid imagination if you can read that in what I have written - or are seeking to be deliberately inflammatory. Instead, as is usual for Bailey's groupies, you have avoided any substantive points - something we see time and time again in the smokescreen politics surrounding this debate. As Sophie pointed out, I did not compare you (or anybody) to a Nazi doctor. My point was that all sorts of people can be scientists, and not all scientists are ideologically neutral. I cited as examples two scientists, but you latched on to the 'nasty' one. Maybe you should read what is said in posts, rather than projecting what you think they say, before going off half-cocked. M
    Hfarmer
    You insulted them. @Sophie and Michael. You called them a bunch of "street hustlers" and such. You have no right to do that and not excuse for doing that. It's wrong to call the ladies he wrote about that and it is incorrect to think that the ladies he wrote about were all the one he saw. I know for a fact that was not the case. You say that you did to compare me to Dr. Mengele? All one needs to do is scroll up and read what you effing wrote. :roll: I have nothing more to say about this to you ideologues. Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Michel
    Hi, If we were misled - who did the misleading? Who described a group of people he was studying as being well suited to work as prostitutes simply because they were promiscuous homosexual men who changed sex? Not me. I don't know how you got to do physics at university - because if you read what I wrote as comparing you (or anybody) to Mengele, then you clearly have poor comprehension of language. I know that there is a trend amongst undergraduates to dispense with the formalities of being able to read and write, but this just shows the problems that illiteracy amongst university students can lead to. Of course I have an ideology - I have yet to meet anybody who does not have some for of ideology that drives them, informs their morals, and so on. Christianity, atheism, capitalism, pragmatism - all are ideologies. Michel
    Joann Prinzivalli
    Quid quæritis? I have learned over the years that the same underlying factual phenomena can be understood and interpreted in different ways that become the subject of controversy. And then there is the situation where underlying factual phenomena that are inconvenient get tossed because they don’t fit the hypothesis. We find both situations in Professor Bailey’s Book, The Man Who Would Be Queen (TMWWBQ). In Professor Alice Dreger’s 2007 article summarizing the controversy about TMWWBQ, she writes:
    “He would blast past the feminine essence narrative to the core truth of transsexualism: “[W]riters have been either too shallow or too squeamish to give transsexual sexuality the attention it deserves. No longer” (p. xii). So where MTF transsexualism was concerned, Bailey would happily play Galileo to Blanchard’s Copernicus, spreading, supporting, and fiercely defending a truth too often denied and suppressed because of self-serving identity politics.”
    To this I ask, Quid quæritis? The truth is that the Blanchard hypothesis championed by Professor Bailey is only an interpretation of phenomena, an interpretation that is based primarily in a cissexual view of “normal” humanity. Ina addition, it’s one that throws away inconvenient facts. The trans community has for a very long time resented the stigmatization and pathologization of the members of the community by cissexual scientists writing from a cissexual perspective, writing in language that refers to the underlying facts of our existence as “disordered” or “paraphilic.” It was one thing to have things published in obscure scientific journals, and quite another to have a popularization of this particular kind of disorder model published – published with a title and cover art that was designed to provoke a negative reaction, and contents that pretty much refer to all transsexual people as liars. In the preface to TMWWBQ at page xii (also quoted in the Dreger article), Professor Bailey writes:
    “Supposedly, male-to-female transsexuals are motivated solely by the deep-seated feeling that they have women’s souls. Furthermore, the fact that some transsexuals are sexually attracted to men and others to women allegedly means that sex has nothing to do with it. However, in this case the exception proves the rule. Heterosexual men who want to be women are not naturally feminine; there is no sense in which they have women’s souls. What they do have is fascinating, but even they have rarely discussed it openly.”
    From a purely cissexual perspective, Professor Bailey writes at page 22 of his book:
    “most of us rarely, if ever, think about our gender identities”
    and the truth is that is quite true if one is referring to cissexual people like Professor Bailey. But when one’s inner sense of self is in conflict with one’s body and the sex-based expectations everyone is making on the basis of the assignment one is given at birth, one does start thinking about “gender identity” some time around the age of four or so. It is this sort of dismissive denial of the inconvenient truths of transsexual narratives that allows Professor Bailey to blindly continue along his particular interpretive path. From a scientific perspective, it might be one thing to discard an occasional “wild” data bit, but the experience dismissed here is nearly universal. There is one truth in the Blanchard hypothesis, and that is that there is a difference between early transitioners and late transitioners, that appears to correlate with sexual orientation. The explanations that get cobbled up, though, don’t really relate to transsexual experience, but make sense only from a cissexual perspective. I will share my own narrative here – sure to be dismissed in some way by those with their heads in the sand or some other dark place – I knew at age four that there was some mistake, that I should have been a girl. Not knowing very much about anatomy, I didn’t know of the physiological differences, but in the 1950’s, I knew I should have been one of the long-haired-dress-wearing ones and not the short-haired-pants-wearing ones. I got in trouble playing with my mother’s makeup and wearing her shoes and jewelry. I wanted to grow up to be like mommy. But I learned that this wasn’t supposed to be me, and that I would be punished if I continued to do things like other little girls. So I tried to make myself fit in. Then puberty came along, and I couldn’t keep fitting in. I knew I was different from everyone else in the world. Then in my late teens, I read a paperback copy of Christine Jorgensen’s autobiography. I finally found someone in this world who was something like me. I managed to convince my parents that I needed to see a psychiatrist. After six months of weekly sessions, he concluded that I couldn’t be transsexual, solely because I did not profess to be sexually attracted to boys. He explained that they wouldn’t cure me of one disorder (transsexuality) to give me another (i.e., make me a lesbian, this was 1970 and homosexuality was still classified as a disorder in the DSM). So I once again tried to assimilate into society as a man. I got married, had essentially good lesbian sex with my wife (but also managed to take the last couple of minutes to close my eyes and imagine that I was her and she was me, enough to make things work). We had four kids; I had four sympathetic pregnancies at the same time. At the age of 45 (just about the “right time” for a secondary emergence TS to come out), my suppression began to break down and it was becoming harder to deny my inner reality. I tried compromising, but it didn’t work. After losing family, home and job, I realized that there was nothing left to bar me from being the real me for the first time in my life, except for the period from 4-6 and 16-17. That’s the essence of my “narrative.” If I read the theory right, I should be, in this Bailey/Blanchard world-view, an “autogynephilic transsexual.” And as a result I must be lying about sex somewhere. Professor Bailey seizes on any evidence that a person assigned male at birth has ever masturbated (or had sex) while having positive feelings about being a woman in the circumstance, and claims that this is evidence of a sad little disorder of paraphilic autogynephilia. That really is not a supportable assertion. Perhaps one might be led to believe that cissexual people never masturbate while feeling positive about themselves in accordance with their own identities? But I forget, since Professor Bailey asserts on page 22 (quoted above) that “
    most of us rarely, if ever, think about our gender identities
    ,” when cissexual people masturbate or have sex, they don’t bother to think about gender identities at all, they just experience theirs consistently with their original sex assignment. Not all, and indeed not many, mid-life transitioners exhibit anything like the very odd behaviors described in TMWWBQ. Extending a pathology to the entire population of transsexual people based on the behaviors of a few isn’t really good science either. Professor Dreger writes in her article:
    “One gets the clear sense from the book that all transsexual narratives are deeply suspect—or just plain false—unless they fit Blanchard’s theory and Bailey’s reading.”
    Indeed, I concur. Discarding inconvenient facts isn’t science. In the current blog entry, Professor Bailey claims that:
    “Members of this subtype, whom Blanchard has called both "nonhomosexual" and "autogynephilic" male-to-female transsexuals, are best conceived as a type of heterosexual male. In their unusual heterosexuality, their primary erotic target, or sex object, is not an actual, external woman, but rather, a woman that is fantasized, and ultimately created inside the self. That is, the primary sexual orientation of autogynephilic males is toward themselves as women. The inward focus of autogynephilic eroticism is usually incomplete, and so most autogynephilic individuals have some sexual attraction for actual women as well. A male-to-female transsexual with a clear history of attraction to women, such as heterosexual marriage, is almost certainly autogynephilic.”
    That has some fact content and a lot of misleading interpretation. Still, looking at things through a cissexual lens, this whole idea of “primary orientation toward themselves as women” might make some sort of weird sense if one is dealing with someone who is “really” a man in the first place. This relates back to the first denial of inconvenient fact – throw away the idea of a sex identity (or gender identity), and this sort of thing becomes more plausible. If autogynephilia is reduced to its roots, it means “liking self as a woman.” I can buy that part. When I was trying to perform sexually with my then wife and I imagined I was the woman in the situation in order to make things feel better, that would be a matter of “liking myself as a woman.” So far, so good. I could have just as well imagined some sort of dangerous situation being the case, like making love in her parents’ living room while they are sleeping upstairs (quite an exercise after several years of marriage, but always possible in the imagination) as creating the same sort of enhancement. But rather than describing this as normal behavior for a transsexual woman stuck in a male body, it gets pathologized as a paraphilia (like some sort of fetish behavior). The underlying assumption is that people like me must merely be men with a mental disorder. To an extent, this underlying assumption is a cissexual paradigm that does not make sense in a discussion of transsexual people. We do not fit inside the cissexual paradigm, even if we want to fit in within the “other” assignment. Technically speaking, those of us who are MTF are not “men” in the first place, even if we spend time pre-transition trying to assimilate in accordance with societal expectations as part of our self denial and self-suppression. A better term might be “Woman Born Transsexual” which acknowledges that the initial sex assignment was wrong and that despite genitals shaped for one sex, we really belong to the other one. (Vice versa for the Men Born Transsexual or MBTs) – as a result, any analysis that begins with the assumption that we are "men" who want to become "women” is going to be inaccurate. Still, Professor Bailey in his blog entry here makes light of Professor Joan Roughgarden’s criticisms of the Blanchard hypothesis because she points to a powerpoint slide of his and not the entire paper on which it is based. The thing is, there is a much better explanation of the difference between early transitioners and late transitioners that takes cognizance of the different sexual orientations in the two groups: Essentially, early transitioners who identify as heterosexual women transition early because it isn’t that much more marginalizing to be a transsexual woman than it is to try to assimilate as a gay man. The pool of available heterosexual men is much bigger than the pool of available gay men – and there is no reason to delay transition – the alternative to being marginalized as transsexual is not so different from being marginalized as a gay man. Late transitioners usually identify as lesbian. Being attracted to women makes it possible to spend a longer period in denial of the essential inner identity – and the pool of available straight women (for someone trying to assimilate as a straight man) is a lot larger than the pool of lesbians – and add to that the fact that the pool of lesbians attracted to lesbian transsexual women is much smaller than the available lesbian population . . . All that does is delay transition, not eliminate it. There are a few late transitioners who assimilated as gay men, and some lesbian early transitioners who don’t try to assimilate and transition early. If it was not for my failed experience with the psychiatrist in 1970 I might well have been able to transition early – but at the time, hat wasn’t the prevailing “science.” Popularizing the pathologization of marginal human minorities for profit isn’t science. It’s one thing to make a mistake, As Blanchard and Bailey and others have, by looking at transsxuality from a cissexual perspective and throwing out inconvenient facts. And it is quit another to persist in that mistake after learning about the problem with using the cissexual perspective as the base. Professor Bailey should be able to overcome the limitations of not being aware of his own “gender identity” being transparent and invisible to him, but actually existing. While the attacks on TMWWBQ might be seen as extreme, they don’t improve the book’s relatively poor merits. Unfortunately, it would be more accurate to characterize Professor Bailey in solar system cosmological terms as merely adding more spheres to a bad Ptolemaic explanation of the facts (ignoring lots of other inconvenient evidence) rather than as being some sort of beleaguered and persecuted Galileo. Maybe we should abandon the cissexual Skinner Box perspective altogether and start taking a closer and more serious look at whether there is a physiological explanation for transsexuality. There have been a couple of studies that seem to indicate a physiological basis for “gender identity” – all one really need do to find references is to google “BSTc” and “transsexual” for quite a few references. Of course, if we throw away the evidence and assume that there’s no such thing, we can conveniently stay in the dark ages. And this is directed to Professor Bailey: if you haven’t read Professor Roughgarden’s Evolution’s Rainbow, I suggest you read it soon – especially the first section, where Professor Roughgarden explains fairly well the limitations of heteronormative interpretations of animal studies related to sexual selection and puts forth alternative explanations that better fit the phenomena described – like TMWWBQ, ER is a “popularization.” You should also consider taking another, harder, look at the evidence and the discarded data, and try to overcome the cissexual limitations to the thought processes that went into TMWWBQ, when explaining those people who don’t fit into the cissexual paradigm. I am sure the result would be interesting. Joann Prinzivalli
    Hfarmer

    @Joann

    What was done to you really sucks. What sucks more is that it was done in the name of the theories of Dr Benjamin. Which sucks because so many want to name the transsexual condition after him etc. People seem to forget that it was Benjamin's scale that codified that a transsexual be exclusively or perdominantly homosexual to be a "true transsexual" (benjamin's words). He and the HB SOC's really screwed over many transsexuals of your time.  

    Can you, finally, without attacking me expllain why that is Dr. Blanchard, or Dr. Bailey's fault? 


    Dont tase me bro

    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Joann Prinzivalli
    My first thought is to ask why you might assume that I would necessarily engage in attacking you on the basis of your questions. My second thought is to thank you for your "What was done to you really sucks." - I am going to assume (unless you indicate otherwise) that was primarily an expression of sympathy for (quoted from my narrative, above):
    After six months of weekly sessions, he concluded that I couldn’t be transsexual, solely because I did not profess to be sexually attracted to boys. He explained that they wouldn’t cure me of one disorder (transsexuality) to give me another (i.e., make me a lesbian, this was 1970 and homosexuality was still classified as a disorder in the DSM).
    After these initial pleasantries, let me get to your questions. You seem to be blaming Dr. Harry Benjamin and perhaps his oft-cited and sometimes adapted "scale" of transsexuality for "what was done to me." I don't. I also don't blame Dr. Blanchard or Professor Bailey for "what was done to me." What I do tend to blame for that was the imperfect knowledge of the times under which homosexuality was still very much a part of the DSM (not having been removed until 1973). Had the psychiatrist from whom I sought assistance in my teens not been confronted with the dilemma of Scylla (allowing me to "succumb" to the Sirens of my inner nature, and have my transsexuality treated, but then remaining "disordered" as a lesbian) v. Charybdis (leaving me in the whirlpool with my transsexuality untreated, trying to cope in a society where I had to try to live a lie to fit in), he chose the latter course to tell me I couldn't really be transsexual and left me with that whirlpool near Stromboli. I can't blame Dr. Benjamin for that. In that scale of his, he did indicate that the various classifications were only approximations based on the numerous patients he had treated over the years. If you were to look at the scale, the Type 6 transseuxal is somewhat similar to Dr. Blanchard's primary, while the type 5 is similar to Dr. Blanchard's secondary. Both type 5 and type 6 are referred to as "true transsexual" and are benefitted by HRT and SRS. Here is the scale, as it relates to the types 5 and 6:
    Type Five: True Transsexual (moderate intensity)Gender Feeling: Feminine (trapped in male body) Dressing Habits and Social Life: Lives and works as woman if possible. Insufficient relief from dressing. Sex Object Choice and Sex Life: Libido low. Asexual auto-erotic, or passive homosexual activity. May have been married and have children. Kinsey Scale: 4-6 Conversion Operation: Requested and usually indicated. Estrogen Medication: Needed as substitute for or preliminary to operation. Psychotherapy: Rejected. Useless as to cure. Permissive psychological guidance. Remarks: Operation hoped for and worked for. Often attained. Type Six: True Transsexual (high intensity) Gender Feeling: Feminine. Total psycho-sexual inversion. Dressing Habits and Social Life: May live and work as a woman. Dressing gives insufficient relief. Gender discomfort intense. Sex Object Choice and Sex Life: Intensely desires relations with normal male as female if young. May have been married and have children, by using fantasies in intercourse. Kinsey Scale: 6 Conversion Operation: Urgently requested and usually attained. Indicated. Estrogen Medication: Required for partial relief. Psychotherapy: Psychological guidance or psychotherapy for symptomatic relief only. Remarks: Despises his male sex organs. Danger of suicide or self-mutilation, if too long frustrated.
    - Source: http://www.genderpsychology.org/transsexual/benjamin_gd.html The key is not so much in the observations themselves, but in the interpretations sometimes given to those observations. Dr, Benjamin indicated that the scale was only intended as an approximation, and if he used the term "homosexual transsexual," I am sure he did so because that was the prevailing understanding of transsexuality at the time. (After all, we don't criticize Lord Kelvin for estimating the age of the earth as 100 million years, a hundred years ago. Instead, we admire his interpretation of his observations and measurements as being the best he could do with the limited knowledge he had available.) On the one hand, one should look at Dr. Benjamin's work in its historical perspective, and to consider how much understanding has advanced since his time. On the other hand, Dr. Blanchard and Professor Bailey are current contemporaries, and shouldn't be entitled to the benefit of such an historical perspective. They know, or should know, that the world does not have to be seen through a purely heteronormative cissexual lens, yet they choose to color their interpretations through that particular lens. One should acknowledge so much of Dr. Blanchard's work as involved the observation of the differences between primary emergence and secondary emergence transsexuals. As I previously indicated in my initial message in this thread, the observation of a correlation is not the problem. But the critical problems come in the interpretation from a purely cissexual perspective. The term "homosexual transsexual" is archaic and confusing. This term makes sense as it is used in older research, only from a purely cissexual point of view, pursuant to which the societally imposed sex/gender binary is assumed to be accurately expressed using the status of the external genitalia as observed at the time of birth. That is sometimes referred to as "gender essentialism," and the usage of the term requires the assumption that the individual's "real" sex is always the same as it was first assigned, even if the initial assignment would be erroneous if "sex identity" (something not ascertainable at birth, because one just can't ask newborn babies which color blanket they feel they should have for a wrap). Gender essentialism requires a heteronormative cissexual perspective - and the assumption is that society's division of all human beings into "male" or "female" at birth reflects the whole of reality and has no exception. (The gender essentialists would make sure that all visibly intersexed babies are Procrusteanly altered to fit into whichever colored blanket the surgeon can alter them into. Transsexuality, not being a visible to the naked eye intersex state of being, isn't picked up until later.) The sex and gender binary doesn't acknowledge the existence of a small number of individuals who just do not fit into the binary, except to treat us as having a mental disorder that makes us delusional as to what sex to which we should be assigned. While you use the term "homosexual transsexual" in your own September 28, 2007 article here at , "Science Through Rose Colored Glasses" you do make a disclaimer as to what you mean by it. Perhaps it would have been better to use less demeaning and polarizing terminology, but you didn't, and that's that. All I have to do is make sure I translate the terminology in my head into something less demeaning, and ignore the damage the use of the term does. In that same article, you state:
    The model known as Harry Benjamin syndrome or "Brain Sex" does better. It can explain and model a variety of transsexuals it has a well defined hilbert space...but it fails to account for the factually observed corelates between sexual orientation and gender identity. In fact it just asserts with no proof that they are not just separate but uncorrelated, and not entangled. Which is rubbish from a bio-physical, mathematical-psychological point of view. Such a model does not acknowledge the realites...
    I would question your conclusion that the definition of HBS precludes any correlation between sexual orientation and "types" of transsexual – about the only thing that Blanchard/Bailey do establish is that there is a correlation between age at time of transition and sexual orientation. The problem lies in their conclusions based on the observations. Because they base their interpretations on a heteronormative cissexual point of view, it presupposes that WBT transsexual women must either be homosexual men who want to transition to hoodwink straight men into sex, or heterosexual men with some sort of internal narcissism by which a feminized version of themselves becomes their primary love object. Of course, this approach results in the conclusion that makes transsexuality into a mental disorder, rather than a "set" consisting of (persons with a non-heteronormative non-cissexual sex assignment that falls outside the traditional cissexual binary based on birth-genital-shape). Members of this "set" who are "women born transsexual" (WBT) are never really male in the first place, even if society places them in that assignment based on a standard that really does work very well better than 99% of the time. (And conversely, even with all the HRT and surgery we can have, we never do get to become "cissexual" females, either. In some ways, we are eternally "other" and don't really fit into that cissexual binary.) In your article, your observation:
    What one get's is that the conroversey really is not about science it is all about different views of the same exact world. Thus different colored glasses. The root cause of this contorversey is like that. One side's dark glasses filter out everything but sex and basic instincts, the other sides rose colored glasses filter out everything but high minded notions of "identity" and "brain wiring".
    is not all that different from the way I describe the situation. The *data* in Blanchard's observations isn't suspect - it's the interpretation from a purely cissexual POV. There is a fundamental philosophical difference in approach between the obverse and the reverse of this coin - even to the extent of which isde of the coin is which. The data, addressed neutrally (and limited to WBT/MTF), indicate that some persons assigned male at birth identify as female and feel a deep-seated need to be female socially and physically. There is a correlation between sexual orientation and the age at which the individual feels that this identity feeling must be addressed. That's it. The rest of the Blanchard explanation as popularized in the Bailey book is based on applying a purely heteronormative cissexual point of view onto the data. As I previously indicated, I much prefer my explanation of the correlation - quoted from my earlier message in this thread:
    Essentially, early transitioners who identify as heterosexual women transition early because it isn’t that much more marginalizing to be a transsexual woman than it is to try to assimilate as a gay man. The pool of available heterosexual men is much bigger than the pool of available gay men – and there is no reason to delay transition – the alternative to being marginalized as transsexual is not so different from being marginalized as a gay man. Late transitioners usually identify as lesbian. Being attracted to women makes it possible to spend a longer period in denial of the essential inner identity – and the pool of available straight women (for someone trying to assimilate as a straight man) is a lot larger than the pool of lesbians – and add to that the fact that the pool of lesbians attracted to lesbian transsexual women is much smaller than the available lesbian population . . . All that does is delay transition, not eliminate it.
    I am sorry that I can't begin to discuss your mathematical model - what I do understand, though is that the differing pholosophical underpinnings of those on each side of the discussion make the transsexual community seem a lot like Schrödinger's cat. The state supposed by Blanchard/Bailey, of course, is that the cat is dead (and I must be a lying narcissistic mentally-disordered delusional heterosexual male in love with myself in some weird way instead of being in love with my sweetie), while the state supposed by people like me is that the cat is alive (and who and what I am is "normal" for a somewhat compos mentis late-transitioning transsexual woman). There, that little paradigmatic discussion didn't hurt a bit, did it?
    M Italiano
    There is a relatively new article out (epub, Feb. 28, 2008)) in Archives of Sexual Behavior by Veale JF et al entitled Sexuality of Male-to-Female Transsexuals. The study included 234 transsexuals. A substantial portion of these transsexuals, were classified as autogynephilic. Of significance, is their finding, that none of these autogynephilic transsexuals reported that they were asexual. It is significant, because if you read the Blanchard studies VERY carefully, it is so glaring, that Blanchard clearly didn't have much evidence to back up his claim that asexuality should be classified as a form of so-called autogynephillic/non-homosexual transsexualism. In fact, look for a report to come out soon (not in ASB) about how Blanchard erroneously applied data from Person & Ovesey and also Bentler (1976), to come to his faulty conclusion, when Bentler's report, for instance, has evidence, which supports its non-inclusion in the so-called non-homosexual/autogynephilic group. If one reads carefully other reports, we find that asexuality actually is a seperate category from either homosexual or autogynephilic transsexualism, but represents the more accurate view of Person & Ovesey, that autogynephilic (transvestic) and homosexual transsexualism are SECONDARY transsexuals, and that asexual transsexuals are PRIMARY transsexuals.
    Michel
    What is the evidence that links what is asserted to be a paraphilia with another paraphilia? In other words, the allusion has been made that transsexuals recategorised as paraphiles can gravitate towards other paraphilias, and paedophilia is included in the list. How is that science? What are the figures? How many transsexuals are convicted of paedophile offences? How many paedophiles are found to be transsexuals? What are the statistics, where is the correlation? Without this, such comments amount to gossip and innuendo - not science. M
    Hfarmer
    Wow This is still going on huh? Lets see what google says about this. I searched the term paraphilia cluster. This is what I found: Stephen J. Hucker, MB, BS, FRCP(C), FRCPsych Consulting Forensic Psychiatrist, Professor, Law & Mental Health Program, University of Toronto. Hypoxyphilia/Auto-erotic Asphyxia
    There is no relationship between hypoxyphilia and mental or personality disorder but there is clearly an association with other paraphilias, which have a tendency to cluster in other circumstances as well. Living patients confirm the presence of wide range of concurrent paraphilias including other forms of masochism, sadism, transvestic fetishism and fetishism. More typically masochistic behaviours are frequently noted among the hypoxyphilic fatalities.
    Who also makes this claim in a topic unrelated to transsexuality. Now how about say a study which confirms this observation/belief? Closest I find which is not coauthored by Blanchard is this. Juvenile Sex Offenders: a Complex Population * Joel T. AndradeM.S.W., LIC.S.W.1,21University of Massachusetts Medical School Correctional Mental Health Program, Bridgewater State Hospital, Bridgewater, MA.2Boston College Graduate School of Social Work, Chestnut Hill, MA., * Gina M. VincentPh.D.33Department of Psychiatry, Center for Mental Health Services Research, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA. and * Fabian M. SalehM.D.
    ABSTRACT: Individuals who engage in sexual offending behavior represent a heterogeneous population. Recent research has found some success in categorizing sexual offenders based on a number of variables, particularly the type of victim. For example, differences have been found between those offenders who victimize adults when compared with those who victimize children. However, the research in this area has been conducted predominantly with adult samples. As the adult sex offender literature has progressed, it has become evident that risk assessment, treatment effectiveness, and risk management are dependent on such offender characteristics. Unfortunately, the relevance to juveniles of characteristics deemed to be important with adult sex offenders is limited due to the complexity of developmental processes, particularly with respect to mental disorders and personality formation. As such, the formulation and implementation of treatment and risk management strategies that will be effective with juvenile sex offenders are challenging. The goal of this paper is to review some of the complexities inherent in the juvenile sex offender population by focusing on specific areas of complication, including: classification systems, comorbid paraphilias and other mental illnesses, and maladaptive personality traits.
    So as you can see their are plenty of psychologist who classify people based on comorbid "paraphilia's". What I find troubling about that approach is that the definition of what is a paraphilia has shown great variance over time and across cultures. Take homosexuality. Many would classify it as a paraphilia. At one time it was in the DSM as a psychological disorder. Now it is not. Why is it that "homosexual transsexuality" is not a paraphilia then. Just who decides what is and is not a paraphilia? That is a weak point. Dont tase me bro
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Bailey is a quack, his "research" was done with atypical transexuals. Not much different from studyiny black prisoners, and then claiming all blacks are the same.

    I believe that this behaviour isn't the right one. Who is she to judge this guy and try to interdict his book because she simply doesn't like the topic the writing is about. Anyway, I hope that the situation will get better as soon as possible and she will realize that she should let him alone .

    This is a example why psychology and in some extent sociology are weak sciences!
    Most of you instead of refuting evidence with evidence start a insult war like adolescent kids.
    People should read the book and decide for themselves whether its valid or not.

    You (this means all the people that fits in this senseless war) are a complete waste of resources and a shame to the scientific community!

    Dr Bailey quotes his book as saying "the homosexual transsexuals and drag queens we studied" and at the same time insists that his work in this area was not "research." He's trying to open a loophole through which he would escape charges of ethical violations in human subject research.

    These charges were investigated by his university, and the results of that investigation were not made public. A reasonable person might conclude that if Bailey were absolved of all charges, both he and the university would make a clear statement to that effect.

    Dr Bailey demonstrates either an ignorance of, or blatant disregard for, fundamental concepts of statistical sampling. His information on this topic is as if someone had told me that Elvis was still alive and, to confirm that claim, I went back and asked that same person. I suggest that Dr Bailey might want to read up on post hoc hypothesis testing.

    He seems not to understand that a significant reason why he has offended so many people is because of his insistence that all trans people fit one or the other of his speculative descriptions. It's as if someone were insisting that all psychology professors are either paranoid psychotics, or are convinced that everyone wants to have sex with them.

    Having already callously disregarded any ethical standards for human subjects research, and any scientific standards for collection, analysis, and presentation of data, it's not surprising that he's digging in his heels.

    Would you really like to clear this thing up, Mike? Then release the findings and transcripts of all of the proceedings of the university's investigation into your behavior. And it would also help if you could recognize that not all trans people (including no transmen) fit into your binary scheme.

    logicman
    "I think it's a tremendous credit to Professors Roberts, Roughgarden and Bailey, and to science in general, that they're tackling this on a neutral science site" I agree with Hank on this. I hesitate to contribute to this rather heated debate. Not for fear of anything that might be said against myself. It sometimes happens that well-meaning people, intending only to stand up for the rights of others, cause harm by speaking outside of their knowledge. I will make my comments brief. Firstly, in the matter of an internal investigation of any charge in any school, hospital, university or whatever, it is common practise not to publish findings if no action is to be taken. It is, I believe, a model for behaviour taken from the common law. Where it is a matter of John Doe vs Jane Doe in 'oath versus oath' then publication of an inquiry implies to the unskilled observer in the one case that Jane Doe is a liar and in the other case that John Doe is a liar. Academia does well to avoid even the mere appearance of such a finding, especially if the matter can be resolved amicably. This is similar to the implied golden rule of court procedure: take all possible steps to avoid going into court. As to the book. For too much of history people have been categorised as being in some way 'not normal'. It matters not that 'normal' means 'average', or 'median' or whatever. In common speech 'not normal' is a derogatory term. In order to avoid the derogatory, people working in psychology has invented category names. There is a fundamental drive in humans to understand the cosmos by dividing it into categories. I am sure that this did not originate with Plato, but with our genes. The downside of categorisation is 'stereotyping'. One may say with impunity of a species of animal that the male stakes out a territory near resources in order to mate with passing females. What one may not do with impunity is state that the males in location X hang around in bars looking for pick-ups, even if the surface data seems to show an identity of behavioural category. Some, perhaps many people feel that their particular sexual orientation is misunderstood. Suppose that someone, asked about their sexual orientation were to reply 'heterosexual'. Many people unfamiliar with this term might think that person meant to say 'homosexual'. Sometimes, categorisation - that most useful of tools - can lead to misunderstanding. I ask the people who oppose this book: how many popular-science books, as against academic books, have been published about transsexuals? And how much hateful propaganda? I think that this book is a small step in redressing the balance. To the opponents of this book, I say 'If the most controversial parts were modified, would you be satisfied? To Professor bailey, I say 'Can you admit the possibility that your comment about prostitution is derogatory stereotyping? It may well be that in the USA sexual orientation is no barrier to academia. Unfortunately, in too many countries it is a barrier to education, work and even life itself. I am confident that in a deprived and isolated condition, any group of individuals may turn to prostitution in order to survive. It does not follow that the group is somehow 'fit for purpose'. Of course, it is your book, your copyright, and your freedom of speech that is of concern. But there is far too much controversy in the world already. With the greatest of respect, might you consider a new, edited edition? Sometimes, a re-statement of facts and theory can clarify the intent - in which case honor can be satisfied on both sides. Now. Where'd I leave that ticket to Korea? :)
    I actually didn't finish the article because I figured at some point someone would ask if some transgendered persons could be chimeras--that perhaps there is something to a "female" brain in a "male" body, or vice-versa. I guess it hasn't merited discussion yet because it might mean one thought there was such thing as a "female" or "male" brain, and go against the idea of spectrum or whatever. good luck.

    I have thought about this question for some time and have concluded that the major flaw in the autogynaphilic theory is that it makes a symptom experienced by some transexuals, the defining factor of the transexual experience.

    The ideas about young homosexual effeminate men, seems just plain offensive at one level, and at another simply one dimensional.

    The other difficulty in the approach taken by Bailey seems to be that he is apparently determined to prove that the transexuals who dissagree with his perspective are somewhat deluded. In this is revealed the essential flaw in his perspective, if you are studying a population, you are observing a system and so it is scientificaly flawed to ignore or dismiss feedback from that population or system. In response to the controversy Bailey seems to have hardened his perspective and adamantly refused to adjust his ideas to take account of the feedback. This seems to undermine his ideas even further.

    Baileys ideas concerning bisexuality are also flawed, (Gay Straight or Lying) as most bisexuals I have encountered describe an oscillation in their orientation over time, if you test their genital reaction at any given time it will indicate one orientation or the other, and show no indication of their bisexual orientation.

    The actual Research Bailey conducts seems adequate (TMWWBQ isn't research as such more popular {or prehaps unpopular} science) the big flaw seems to be not how he conducts his research but what he researches. In essence Bailey is asking the wrong questions, and it is this which reveals the unacknowledged prejudice he seems to carry. He is not asking, "What diversity exists within the transgendered population?" He is asking "How can we categorise this population as simply as possible?"

    Honestly any research anyone else did or anyones opinions on anything related to this at all... is just made up... these are people with ideas that try to make them fit some formula... and you idiots actually argue over this stuff? i mean come on there are far more better ways to feel good about yourself and feel smart.

    the gay gene? the transexual gene? are you kidding?

    and seidlberg I am ashamed that you are a coreligionist of mine and of the same ethnicity.

    oy vey people waste waste waste.

    I am in counseling and the majority of tran/bi./gay whatever i come in contact with are that way because of three main reasons.

    Abuse... Sexual verbal emotional physical.
    Spoiled brats... never had a word of critique or correction ever... which stemmed an arrogant mentality which spawned arrogant I can have anything I want mentality then eventually "evolved" into trying all sorts of new things.
    Someone who exposed themselves to so much filth and disgusting types of pornography and snuff that just became twisted... try visiting /b/ on 4chan sometime and see what can happen to normal straight people exposed to filth and evil.

    We are Anonymous we do not forget we do not forgive.

    Rule #34 on this article.

    I admit that I have not read TMWWBQ, but I have read the Dreger article about the controversy as well as a few other articles written by yourself and others on the subjects brought up in the book.

    I am a female to male transexual, with many trans friends, both women and men. I wanted to respond to the theory of autogenaphillia that you talk about here. You state that any trans woman who experiances sexual arousal from feminising themselves is actually autogenaphillic. Many trans women I've known have said they felt unable to be sexually active with their birth genitals pre-surgery, and that any sexual activity that involved them was a complete turn off (this is the same for many trans men also), and that it was only by viewing themselves as having female genitals and being a woman that they feel able to be sexual. This is not so much about being sexually excited by the idea of being, or appearing, female, but about feeling unable to be sexual when they see themselves as male or recognise that they have a penis. Feeling comfortable with one's own body is very important to feel able to express oneself sexually.

    Of course there are links between gender identitiy and sexuality, if they wern't concepts of "gay" and "straight" wouldn't even exsist! As a transexual person, we have to navigate how our gender identity and sexual identity interact. Sexualityis about more than the object of your affections, it also counts on the gender identity of those involved. A man who has sex with other men will generally have a very different sexual and gender identity from a woman who has sex with men. My point is that *everyone* sculpts and defines their gender identity through their sexuality, whether it's the pre-transition trans woman who can only enjoy sex if her partner refers to her as female or the heterosexual man who brags about his conquests to his mates down the pub.

    I also feel that deciding that all transexuals must fit into one of two catagories (both of which would be seen as highly offensive to many trans women and reenforces negative steriotypes they encounter constantly, either as a gay man who wants to take it a step further or a sexual deviant), then branding those who claim not to fit into either catagory as liers is extreamly unproffesional and biggoted. Try looking at the world and forming your theories on that, rather than starting with fixed theories and trying to mould the world to fit them!

    I'm also interested in what the people who follow this theory think about trans men (mainly so I can use myself as an example against it!)

    If anyone wants to email me to further discuss these issues please feel free, gokristofski@hotmail.co.uk

    "I am in counseling and the majority of tran/bi./gay whatever i come in contact with are that way because of three main reasons.

    Abuse... Sexual verbal emotional physical.
    Spoiled brats... never had a word of critique or correction ever... which stemmed an arrogant mentality which spawned arrogant I can have anything I want mentality then eventually "evolved" into trying all sorts of new things.
    Someone who exposed themselves to so much filth and disgusting types of pornography and snuff that just became twisted... try visiting /b/ on 4chan sometime and see what can happen to normal straight people exposed to filth and evil."

    I don't really feel like these comments are worth commenting on as they are so rediculously offensive and outside of the experiance of most of the trans people I have known and loved. I also didn't have any of these experiances before first realising I felt like a boy, aged about 6.

    In reading on his work lately, I noticed a detail of Bailey's 'test' which raises issues of general misogyny and class bias I have not seen addressed elsewhere. He asks:

    "-1 Have you worked as a hairstylist, beautician, female impersonator, lingerie model, or prostitute?"

    Note how all of Bailey's examples relate to either sexuality or physical appearance, none require any secondary or higher education. In sharp contrast with supposed autogynephiles, Bailey offers a much broader range of blue-collar and professional occupations, with particular emphasis on the later:

    "+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 physician?"

    So why did Bailey exclude common female-dominated professions such as librarian, nurse, accounting worker, grade school teacher or secretary from his list? The list is of course in accord with Bailey's attempt to hyper-sexualise transsexualism to the exclusion of non-sexual social and psychological motivations. Yet the shocking disparity between the two lists raises the issues of Bailey's general attitude towards femininity and his reliance on Ken Zucker's research.

    The notion of women as intellectually inferior as a staple of misogyny needs no introduction. The very word 'effeminate' as a stinging pejorative for men indicates how misogynistic prejudices can be extended onto feminine men. The genesis of Bailey's specific prejudice seems to lie in Zucker's supposed observation that overtly feminine boys are intellectually inferior on average and tend to come from broken, lower-class backgrounds. What Zucker (and in turn Bailey) never seem to question is whether the type of parents troubled enough about gender incongruity in their children that they seek out a coercive solution may be precisely those parents whose lack of intelligence, education and general worldliness makes them reactively intolerant towards behaviour which differs from the norm. Since femininity in men is so socially stigamtised, again it stands to reason that feminine genetic males whether heterosexual, homosexual or transgendered are more prone to social exclusion, especially if coming from a less educated or more religious home. Bailey fails ultimately to question whether his narrow perception of 'homosexual' transsexuals is coloured by social factors wholly unrelated to the transsexuality itself.

    Apparent even the possibility of "homosexual transsexual" in a respected profession contradicts his lurid picture of us as socially marginalised failures. It must perplex Zucker and Bailey to no end that I have managed to curb my man-crazy 'homosexual' lust and earn an undergraduate degree in the liberal arts and a masters degree in library science while living as a woman. Of course lurking throughout his work is the most stunning example of misogyny amongst Bailey and his cohorts, namely the utter exclusion of female-to-male transsexuals from their theories, let alone research. I suppose the pervasive failure to study autogynephilia amongst natal women as a control qualifies as well. I would also note that the notion of the law and medicine as male professions is painfully dated, with both law and medical school enrollments at or near gender parity in the United States for a decade or more. There is simply no excuse for a scientist to be so comprehensively ignorant of such trends. Nor is being a "scientist" a male profession when one distinguishes between says engineering and physics on one side and the environmental sciences and biology on another. Or does Bailey honestly view the women in the psychology department at Northwestern as somehow 'masculinised'? Would a transsexual grad student there get a +1?

    One final question deserves some special derision:
    In reading on his work lately, I noticed a detail of Bailey's 'test' which raises issues of general misogyny and class bias I have not seen addressed elsewhere. He asks:

    "-1 Have you worked as a hairstylist, beautician, female impersonator, lingerie model, or prostitute?"

    Note how all of Bailey's examples relate to either sexuality or physical appearance, none require any secondary or higher education. In sharp contrast with supposed autogynephiles, Bailey offers a much broader range of blue-collar and professional occupations, with particular emphasis on the later:

    "+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 physician?"

    So why did Bailey exclude common female-dominated professions such as librarian, nurse, accounting worker, grade school teacher or secretary from his list? The list is of course in accord with Bailey's attempt to hyper-sexualise transsexualism to the exclusion of non-sexual social and psychological motivations. Yet the shocking disparity between the two lists raises the issues of Bailey's general attitude towards femininity and his reliance on Ken Zucker's research.

    The notion of women as intellectually inferior as a staple of misogyny needs no introduction. The very word 'effeminate' as a stinging pejorative for men indicates how misogynistic prejudices can be extended onto feminine men. The genesis of Bailey's specific prejudice seems to lie in Zucker's supposed observation that overtly feminine boys are intellectually inferior on average and tend to come from broken, lower-class backgrounds. What Zucker (and in turn Bailey) never seem to question is whether the type of parents troubled enough about gender incongruity in their children that they seek out a coercive solution may be precisely those parents whose lack of intelligence, education and general worldliness makes them reactively intolerant towards behaviour which differs from the norm. Since femininity in men is so socially stigamtised, again it stands to reason that feminine genetic males whether heterosexual, homosexual or transgendered are more prone to social exclusion, especially if coming from a less educated or more religious home. Bailey fails ultimately to question whether his narrow perception of 'homosexual' transsexuals is coloured by social factors wholly unrelated to the transsexuality itself.

    Apparent even the possibility of "homosexual transsexual" in a respected profession contradicts his lurid picture of us as socially marginalised failures. It must perplex Zucker and Bailey to no end that I have managed to curb my man-crazy 'homosexual' lust and earn an undergraduate degree in the liberal arts and a masters degree in library science while living as a woman. Of course lurking throughout his work is the most stunning example of misogyny amongst Bailey and his cohorts, namely the utter exclusion of female-to-male transsexuals from their theories, let alone research. I suppose the pervasive failure to study autogynephilia amongst natal women as a control qualifies as well. I would also note that the notion of the law and medicine as male professions is painfully dated, with both law and medical school enrollments at or near gender parity in the United States for a decade or more. There is simply no excuse for a scientist to be so comprehensively ignorant of such trends. Nor is being a "scientist" a male profession when one distinguishes between says engineering and physics on one side and the environmental sciences and biology on another. Or does Bailey honestly view the women in the psychology department at Northwestern as somehow 'masculinised'? Would a transsexual grad student there get a +1?

    ***

    Oh, one final question deserves some special derision:
    "-1 Do you like to look at pictures of really muscular men with their shirts off?"

    Seriously? Not just 'handsome guys with their shirts off' or apparently even 'buff men with their shirts off' but "really muscular men"? This question is almost as if Bailey were parodying himself. Again how many heterosexual, natal women would say "no" to this question? A lot, depending entirely on what kind of man turns them on. So why do 'homosexual' transsexuals and/or gay men have to be so ridiculously uniform? Prof. Bailey, you really are painfully limited by the stereotypes you harbour.

    Oh dear what a rubbish is written in this article. The same idea I found by a man called Anne Lawrence, no he thinks that he is a female. What apoor writing.

    What a load of tosh - almost as crazy as Anne Lawrence who was clearly working out her own sexual deviation by forming a fancy theory and thus trying to tar all the rest of us with the same brush. I assume she did this mainly to justify her own feelings of guilt and maybe the fact that deep down she was insecure and worried that she might really still be a he in womens clothes. - Anne, for goodness sake chill! Who cares - you don't NEED to justify yourself. Just be happy to be what you are.

    Because the bottom line is that while all this argument may be very fascinating and gratifying to the likes of Mr Bailey and Ms Lawrence, it is still remarkably unconvincing to the many of us who score, as I do, Zero on the classification score sheet. Yeah - Ok I was medically intersexed but so what? - I still effectively chose to be female. So maybe I could be autogynaphilic too! Only somehow I don't really think so...

    Nor do I think that anyone else should be classed that way unless they choose that definition for themselves. Why force an uncomfrtable label on someone - what good does it do? It certainly doesn't help them get on with their lives and live in a happy and productive way. In fact if it causes someone else to question their true identity then it may indeed prevent their wiider public acceptance and make their lives very difficult indeed - in which case one has to ask Bailey and Lawrence what they think have really achieved? If the principle result of their work is to give the tranny bashers more fuel with which to persecute innocent people then that is hardly a positive contribution to human happiness. Great achievement guys - you should be very proud! By helping to persecute your own you just effectively deffacated on your own front doorstep.

    In any case who cares why someone chooses to live in a particular way. I made my choice to undergo SRS in my early twenties and I'm happy with it. That's all that matters to me and it's all that SHOULD matter to anyone.

    So all you theorist who always think that you have to analyse something in the hope that by understanding it you can make it less scary and perhaps even make it go away can just scuttle off back to your ickle nonsensensical academic theory safety blankets and leave the rest of us adults who are comfortable to have a few grey areas in our lives to our contented ignorance.

    Oh - yes - and I should have added - I had SRS in my early twenties because of an intersex condition - I'm now nearly 50... so I've certainly done my time so to speak. But I do accept that because I effectively grew up in the female role, even though genitally ambiguuous, I don't entirely fit the theory. But I still feel that the theory is fatally flawed - not least because of the negative effects that it has had on a great number of my dear friends lives. They deserve better!

    Halfway through the year SPIN tipped their hand by offering the 20 Greatest Albums Of 2009 ... So Far. If you remember, the list

    wasn't in any specific order. Their 40 Best [url=http://www.ugg-boots-store.net]ugg boots store[/url] Albums Of 2009 are, and it's

    interesting to see all the titles that popped up after the last one was published. As well as the albums that missed the cut after

    [url=http://www.watchesxm.com]Cheap watches[/url]
    they were spun a bit more: Peter Bjorn And John, Blk Jks, Regina Spektor, Glasvegas, Mavado, and Sa-Ra Creative Partners are

    nowhere to be found. The list -- one of oh so many lists -- is also refreshingly interesting in and of itself, a fine example of a

    publication stepping outside of the hive mentality and coming up with something that feels personal. Even if I don't personally agree

    with a lot of it.

    People who are always complaining about having to pay taxes are a bunch of sniveling deadbeats. What would you do with the extra money anyway? Spend it on crap most likely. You are being forced to [url=http://www.sportshoeshopping.com]wholesale shoes[/url] do something good in your lives for a change.

    The CBC, I grant you has a liberal bias, but then most Canadians are liberal, so it reflects their values. It can't be blamed for not pandering to right-wing hyenas; the broadcaster would not be able to plunge to the depths required to represent [url=http://www.uggsoutletstores.com]uggs outlet stores[/url]the squalid opinions of such people.

    OK! well isn’t it about time some conclusions are reached? We have a body of post op. transsexuals defending their cause (or egos) and a guy (who possibly struggles with his own identity) trying to figure it all out. However, there is a third type of transsexual that does have its genesis in an area that possibly relates also to the other two types discussed previously. This type is the ‘post trauma transsexual’ and often, the one who regrets the whole transition a few years later.

    I am not a scientist I am an educator who has studied early childhood development. In the first 18 months of a child’s life ‘bonding’ - ‘survival’ information is stored deep within the memory during the intense periods of REM (rapid eye movement) that takes place during this period. The child/baby takes in images that give comfort or act as a warning to danger. These images are often in the form of male or female - deep voice or high voice. And allow the child to relax or be ‘on guard ‘ when in the company of people over the next few years. Now because a higher percentage of children are traumatised by males in these formative years a positive image of a female (the primary carer) is stored in the brain. Hence the greater incidence of males wanting to become females in the transsexual environment and in regards to seeing a female image - cross dressing while seeking sexual comfort (masturbation).

    While I believe Bailey, has answered much in his book the points I am making can only reinforce some of his understanding. I am transsexual, I mix with transsexuals and for the best part they are in denial of anything that is outside of the party line and that is the total naivety of the concept of being born in the wrong body. It is as true as the old Catholic notion of the world being flat and everything revolves around the Earth.

    Having said that I will get back to my premise, and it is quite simple, when a person suffers intense trauma - psychological, physical or emotional - the brain if so traumatised it seeks to reroute itself (Doidge, N. 2007) and finds paths back to these early childhood images. What takes place next is pure psychosis as the brain changes into the image of the only thing it knows for sure will protect it - the image of its mother or father. Whether or not modern anti-depressant drugs add to the transfer of the image of self delusion due to the high levels of serotonin that they encourage I have know idea but within a few months the person is so convinced they are the wrong sex they seek help. Often, in recent years, this is a web site and then, they are hooked by others who are trying to justify their own confusion. Shared information allows the person to navigate quickly through the myriad of doctors and psychologist. Families are destroyed, lives are destroyed - Transsexualism is a serious mental health issue and not a natural occurring genetic mutation - it is not new it is part of life but its wide spread acceptance has allowed people who should never be part of that life to be dragged in, chopped up and then offered no support 4 or 5 years later when it becomes evident that it was only a way that the body tries to defends itself and, the real diagnosis should have been general psychosis with care and rest in a safe environment while the mind came back to its senses. We need to be making sure doctors know what they are doing rather than fighting ourselves.

    Jasmine Hoansen (Western Australia)

    You seem very misguided and judgemental. After reading your comment I do not even believe that you are transgendered. You seem to cling to some protection by trivializing the experiences of others. Do you regret your decision? Do you believe you are mentally ill?
    Though, I do agree about a distinction in regards to trauma, I believe that there are other causes of transsexualism as well. And I believe the trans phenotype is caused by a constellation of factors. It is not a condition, or "mental health issue" as you put it, that can be easily classified.
    I have found peace with myself that no biggots or scientific theories can put assunder. I pray you will find this peace as well.

    I find the breakdown of male-to-female transgendered people to be rather vague. Again, classifying us into one of two groups just as the classic gender-schema prescribes. As anecdotal evidence, I will review my experience... Just take it for what it is worth. As a very young child, before gender conceptualized in my brain, I had naturally feminine tendencies and preferences. i.e. (between age 2-4) favorite colors being pink and purple, played with barbies, avoided rough or loud activity... As I aged, my actions and personality developed in a gender-neutral direction, although my inner-identity was exclusively female. As for sexual-orientation, I differ in that area as well. My first sexual experience with a girl was at age 11. My first sexual experience with a boy was at age 13. In my early teen years, I found both females and males attractive. However, I have a strong preference toward the female phenotype. At the same time, my sexual arousal is ignited by the male genitalia. Any masturbation was usually involved a vibrator or other means of anal stimulation and was accompanied by erotic fanatasies.
    Anyone who is famialiar Abraham Maslow's Pyramid should be able to follow the thought that, in the MtF transsexual picturing oneself with a female phenotype, they are trying to experience safety in the sense of security of body - which may or may not be accompanied by sexual stimulation.
    I do not entirely discredit Blanchard's theories, yet I do find them fundamentally flawed. Also, I beliveve that the transgendered people who take offense may not have fully developed self-esteem, and find their identities threatened by scientific theory. I take no offense, as my person is evidence to the contrary of Blanchard's model Science could tell me that I am a combination of a homosexual transsexual and an autogynephillic, but would that not contradict the fundamental distinctions that are asserted.

    Keep living, growing, and learning...

    Dear Michelle,
    You seem to have missed the point in my understanding. The real consideration is that we have this "biblical" divide between the sexes that draws a line that turns the trespasser in to an iconoclast. Trying to make this transsexual thing sound and seem normal is fine but, its not. "Late -onset-transsexualism" is demonstrably destructive to the individual and his/her family and society. The only winners are the transsexual industry that has sprung up around these unfortunate souls in the past 50 years and the medical people who see them as the geese that lay the golden eggs that supply their retirement funds.

    When I was a young child there was a joke going around, it went like this:
    "Hey John! what's George doing running around making a noise like a car?"
    "Don't worry he's OK, he thinks he's a car."
    "John, someone should tell him he’s not a car."
    "Well I’m not going to, he pays me $2 a week to clean it."

    Why we continue to use the HBSC as a primary means of diagnosis for TS, we ignore modern understanding of the brain function and early childhood development. In your own words you state," As a very young child, before gender conceptualized in my brain, I had naturally feminine tendencies and preferences. i.e. (between age 2-4)" I reiterate you still had 24 months of nurturing prior to that period, 24 months that prepare you for the years ahead.

    Traumatic stress is found in many competent, healthy, strong, good people. No one can completely protect themselves from traumatic experiences. Many people have long-lasting problems following exposure to trauma. Up to 8% of persons will have PTSD at some time in their lives. People who react to traumas are not going crazy. What is happening to them is part of a set of common symptoms and problems that are connected with being in a traumatic situation, and thus, is a normal reaction to abnormal events and experiences. Having symptoms after a traumatic event is NOT a sign of personal weakness. Given exposure to a trauma that is bad enough, probably all people would develop PTSD.

    By understanding trauma symptoms better, a person can become less fearful of them and better able to manage them. By recognizing the effects of trauma and knowing more about symptoms, a person will be better able to decide about getting treatment. Late-onset-transsexualism is in my view a symptom of trauma and it is not being recognised or treated properly.

    I have never seen the work of Alice Miller linked to transsexualism but it should be and, although I believe there are some cases where a person is "born in the wrong body," the majority of cases are the product of trauma and could be treated, families kept intact and, the financial windfall to the medical and legal profession avoided.

    Miller considers much of the following in her work when she discusses the therapeutic significance of Kohut's
    conception of narcissism, with special attention to the development of infantile aggression, the consolidation of a stable regulatory system for narcissism, and the problem of idealization. 4 case histories demonstrate that children of narcissistically disturbed mothers are frequently blocked from normal access to their own aggression and from the neutralization of aggression. A simple conceptualization based on a drive frustration theory does not afford therapeutically decisive insight into object relations. It is not merely the mother's disturbance which is pathogenic, but also the child's response to the mother's disturbance. Out of consideration for her, the child undertakes a regressive flight from separation anxiety and ambivalence. This regression is revived in the analytic situation in the form of avoidance strategies, clinging, or distancing. The analyst, in his double function as transference and identification object, has the task of enabling the patient to face the conflicts he has circumvented in the mother-child relationship. In this manner, the construction of a stabler self-representation can be approached.

    In another work Miller, explores the following narcissistic aspects of the mother-child relationship. In healthy narcissism, the child has a mirroring mother, who allows herself to be cathected narcissistically as a function of the child's narcissistic development, allowing a healthy self-feeling to develop gradually in the child. Narcissistic disturbance may result when the mother is herself in need of narcissistic supplies. As she tries to assuage her narcissistic needs through her child, she cathects him narcissistically. The natural narcissistic needs appropriate to the child's age are split off, partially repressed, and retain their archaic form, making later integration more difficult.

    In her now well accepted ground breaking work , "The drama of the gifted child and the psycho-analyst's narcissistic disturbance."(1979), Miller throws the problem right back to where I believe it lies; to develop a true self, children need, in the 1st weeks and months of life, their mothers' appropriate emotional responses, mirroring, and respect. These narcissistic aspects have to be distinguished from the drive wishes. Only mothers' appropriate responses make it possible for children to experience their feelings as belonging to their own selves. If children do not get the right narcissistic responses, they will continue to search for narcissistic supplies for the rest of their lives. Specially gifted children will quickly learn to adapt to the narcissistic needs of their parents. When my confusion first started I was surprised at the intelligence of many transsexuals and how well they had done in life yet, to end up in a mess of gender confusion. By 2 years of age it has become a serious time bomb waiting to go off, yet who has gone to a psychiatrist and had this explained to them?

    The truth of the matter is, we know far too little about the causes of transsexualism and today, more than ever, caution should be the priority and the need not to fuel the psychosis of a person suffering the affects of a traumatic experience. My own personal research has revealed chronic back injury/pain to be present in about 80% of the transsexuals I have spoken to prior to the onset of the desire to fulfil the childhood "dream."

    To deny people the knowledge they need to make choices about life changing decisions is criminal, my own experience was one that should never be repeated but, sadly it is -everyday.

    Ref: available at http://lifecyclejourneys.com/Researchers/aliceMiller.htm

    "True acceptance of the transgendered requires that we truly understand who they are."

    By denying that there is any gender (consciousness) component to transsexualism, as opposed to motivations relating only to sex drive and sexual orientation?

    To me, it increasingly seems that cis-gendered people have great difficulty understanding the distinction between sex and gender that John Money introduced... to the extent that they can't manage to maintain the distinction. Prof. Bailey: are you using "transgendered" to mean "transsexual", as apparently some people now do?

    Or are you implicitly acknowledging that there IS a gender component in the desire to transition?

    ... and to me, the thing that is most incredible in all this is the denial that bi-sexuality exists, based on rather bizarre experiments relying on plethysomographic measurements conducted while viewing depictions of sexual behaviors. Wow... that's... creepy.

    Spot on Anne, these so called researchers and their methods to me seem like a bunch of sick ****s sexually harassing a group of vulnerable people. People who unfortunately have to deal with these nerds to get the treatments they desire. They wouldn't get away with nor would they try to hook a bunch of women up to 'masturbation' machines and then watch them do it and record their responses. Sick, sick, sick. Hanging out in bars looking to hook up with prostitutes to write a research paper? huh.

    Micheal Miller says: "(4) it is not considered wrong or ethically questionable to write a vignette in a trade book about someone you have had sex with, and while remembering that this woman was not a research subject we should also note that (5) it is not ethically wrong under most conditions to have sex with someone who was, or will become, a research subject. Thus, you are falsely accusing Bailey of doing something that wouldn't have been wrong if he had done it."

    I'm not an academic so I don't know if this is true but maybe you academics on here can set the record straight, is this a true statement? As a therapist/psychiatrist/psychologist is it ok for you to screw your patients and research subjects? Considering most clients would come to you seeking help in a vulnerable state many in the general population would consider this rape or at least predatory behavioral considering your clients are usually vulnerable people coming to you in search of help and you're in a position of power. Hmmm....if this is the ethics of psychiatry it's no wonder psychiatrists are almost always at the forefront of any eugenics movement that pops it's head up in any country.

    Maybe you all just need to go back to the old days when you were lobotomizing anyone who was different or didn't hold to societal norms. Besides it's easier to get them in bed after you've sucked out a 1/4 of their brain, right?

    Hello

    This article regarding "autogynephilia" is extremely interesting. In my view, from personal experience, different human sexual orientations (or lack of them in certain cases) is a continuum in a large sample of human individuals and represents a multi-dimensional issue for analysis. By the phrase "sexual orientation", I include all categories: male-male homosexuals, female-female lesbians, male transsexuals (i.e. born female by changed to male) attracted to males(pseudo-homosexual), male transexuals (i.e. born male but changed to female) attracted to woman (psuedo-lesbian), and so forth. Analysis by various resepectable academics seeks to divide this continuum into specific categories which can, in certain instances, be a useful analysis tool. However, it is to be appreciated that the boundary between the aforesaid categories when applied is blurred by the nature of the continuum.

    It is for the first time here that I read the term "autogynephilia" and immediately recognize clearly my own traits. I was born male but my production of male hormones at a young age was delayed by quite natural biological causes. As a consequence, my brain developed in a testosterone-starved situation. The consequence of such hormone starvation is sexual disorientation later in life. I have never married, do not know if I am really male or female in my mind, although I appear outwardly male, am not attracted to males whatsoever, am only very weakly attracted to females. People describe me as psychologically complete in myself without the need for support of any form of partner. In my dreams, I am always a woman and alone. No enjoyment comes from cross-dressing, although intellectually the design and style of womens' clothes is far more esthetically appealing to me than mens' clothes which seem dull and boring. Every day, one feels sad because there is something not right with the way one feels inwardly in comparison to the image that one is required by social pressures to present to the World. Would a gender change address this sadness ? - possibly. However, there is terrible prejudice in the World against people who do not conform to the expected gender norm such that is a gender change worth all the hassle, rather than just accepting the present situation and living in sadness?

    In many ways, the World is facing great existential issues of peak oil and uncontrolled exponential population growth; this is not a attractive environment for children and granschildren; intellectually, why then bring children into the World? Coupled with a uncontrollable debt situation in the USA and Europe which could cause an imminent general collapse akin to the 1930's or worse, there are more immediate issues to concentrate upon which eclipse to aforementioned issues and feelings associated with "autogynephilia". Concentrating on these existential issues diverts thoughts away from the "autogynephilia" issue, but the "autogynephilia" always lingers, namely haunting in the background of one's mind. How much simpler life were be if one han been a "standard" male or "standard female".

    I write this comment in the hope that it can promote understanding of the issues. For someone to call me "homosexual" or similar is to me deeply hurtful as I have never had any such tendencies. I fear the real problem is that general society does not understand the complexity of the issues above and returns a robust simple response to try to make people conform with the simple norms, possibly as a reaction of fear caused by ignorance amongst the general population.

    Best wishes

    T.

    Why do people beat around the bush, they are mentally ill. You don't needs a PhD in psychology to figure that out. They can identify as what they want but DNA doesn't lie. As long as the transgender person does not deceive people in relationships or sex then it shouldn't matter. They have a lot of crazy people who believe crazy things but they are still functional and don't harm others.

    they all need a bullit........no wait,that would be a waist of good amunition

    Im sorry, but I find this strange division of the transsexual population much too rigid and simplistic. Sure, male homosexuality and autogynephilia might play a role in motivating many transwomen to seek transition, but ultimately, it's bigger than that, and many dwell outside of, or between, those paradigms.

    I, for instance, was not allowed to act feminine as a child, or I would have. My parents were religious, and would have reacted very harshly. The small town community I lived in would have been the same or worse. I kept my desire to bea girl secret, and behaved in an androgynous, subdued, unimpassioned manner to hide my secret. I threw myself into drawing and scholarship as a coping mechanism.

    So here's me:
    - Hidden femininity from early childhood for self-preservation
    - Attracted to women exclusively
    - No autogynephilic history
    - Never liked sports or other stereotypically male stuff
    - Accepted into many female social circles throughout life
    - Worked as a artist and graphic designer
    - Got married as a man, had two kids, out of obligation to God and my parents
    - Transitioned at age 38, finally feel good about life
    - Due to vision loss, earning a joint degree in law and social work

    As a woman, I find it a little offensive that I can't be feminine AND attracted to women under your theory. I also find it extremely simplistic to state that I waited to transition because I belong to an autogynephilic group, when it had much more to do with conservative family values, honoring my mom and dad, and learning to cope worth the shame and repression that situation entailed. I'm a complex human being, not a choice in a binary theory of my stigmatized community.

    Im sorry, but I find this strange division of the transsexual population much too rigid and simplistic. Sure, male homosexuality and autogynephilia might play a role in motivating many transwomen to seek transition, but ultimately, it's bigger than that, and many dwell outside of, or between, those paradigms.

    I, for instance, was not allowed to act feminine as a child, or I would have. My parents were religious, and would have reacted very harshly. The small town community I lived in would have been the same or worse. I kept my desire to bea girl secret, and behaved in an androgynous, subdued, unimpassioned manner to hide my secret. I threw myself into drawing and scholarship as a coping mechanism.

    So here's me:
    - Hidden femininity from early childhood for self-preservation
    - Attracted to women exclusively
    - No autogynephilic history
    - Never liked sports or other stereotypically male stuff
    - Accepted into many female social circles throughout life
    - Worked as a artist and graphic designer
    - Got married as a man, had two kids, out of obligation to God and my parents
    - Transitioned at age 38, finally feel good about life
    - Due to vision loss, earning a joint degree in law and social work

    As a woman, I find it a little offensive that I can't be feminine AND attracted to women under your theory. I also find it extremely simplistic to state that I waited to transition because I belong to an autogynephilic group, when it had much more to do with conservative family values, honoring my mom and dad, and learning to cope worth the shame and repression that situation entailed. I'm a complex human being, not a choice in a binary theory of my stigmatized community.

    Im sorry, but I find this strange division of the transsexual population much too rigid and simplistic. Sure, male homosexuality and autogynephilia might play a role in motivating many transwomen to seek transition, but ultimately, it's bigger than that, and many dwell outside of, or between, those paradigms.

    I, for instance, was not allowed to act feminine as a child, or I would have. My parents were religious, and would have reacted very harshly. The small town community I lived in would have been the same or worse. I kept my desire to bea girl secret, and behaved in an androgynous, subdued, unimpassioned manner to hide my secret. I threw myself into drawing and scholarship as a coping mechanism.

    So here's me:
    - Hidden femininity from early childhood for self-preservation
    - Attracted to women exclusively
    - No autogynephilic history
    - Never liked sports or other stereotypically male stuff
    - Accepted into many female social circles throughout life
    - Worked as a artist and graphic designer
    - Got married as a man, had two kids, out of obligation to God and my parents
    - Transitioned at age 38, finally feel good about life
    - Due to vision loss, earning a joint degree in law and social work

    As a woman, I find it a little offensive that I can't be feminine AND attracted to women under your theory. I also find it extremely simplistic to state that I waited to transition because I belong to an autogynephilic group, when it had much more to do with conservative family values, honoring my mom and dad, and learning to cope worth the shame and repression that situation entailed. I'm a complex human being, not a choice in a binary theory of my stigmatized community.