Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Andrea James Controversy

I would like this issue cleared up because of the constant accusations that Andre James was committing some random act of obscenity with photo's of Baileys children. Baileys archive of it. http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/Andrea%20James.pdf

The text:

"Lets replace women in my community with a couple of random photo's and see if Baileys words seem as academic .... "

Clearly trying to change the context of Dr Baileys own verbal assault on the MTF transsexual community. Now under the first , untouched photo of Baileys son:

"There are also kids like "Drew", who work as waiters, hairdressers, strippers and prostitutes as well as many other occupations"

Where is the obscenity ? Was that not the only point of Andrea James and her incredible assault on Dr Baileys family ? The insane act of defiling Bailey's spawn  ? No , it was to change the context of Baileys outrageous statements and apply them to people Bailey knew and didn't stereotype . On to the incredible obscenity posted under Baileys daughters picture:

"Kate". A cock starved exhibitionist, or a paraphiliac who just gets off on it ? We'll find out in 12 easy questions !"

And so this is the ONE offensive line that turned everything Andrea James wrote previously into "obscenity". Obscenity because before that one line lifted from Baileys own words the message in this demonstration was clear . To emulate exactly Baileys outrageous sexual fantasies about MTF's and place them in a context applied to "real" people to show how false they rang . Apologists like Alice Dreger scream out "obscenity against children " when the true obscenity was a book that suggested anyone had the right to say that about anyone. Baileys book. Ok, now everyone go on about your rants without the slightest care , at least I've said it. DarlieB (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC) DarliB

Controvery edits (Feb 2008)

The controversy sections in this cluster of articles seems to grow endlessly. Everyone wants to add just one more detail. Could we consider splitting them into two sections? There are actually two parts to the controversy:

• the criticism of the basic ideas, to be labeled "Criticism" and to include all of the "how dare you define the sexual orientation of transwomen according to their biological sex" and "Blanchard didn't statistically control for this factor" kinds of complaints (about any part of the book), and
• the scandal surrounding various allegations and bad behavior shortly after publication, to be labeled "Bailey Scandal" and to include nasty websites, allegations that he had sex with a transgendered prostitute, e-mail messages from his ex-wife, NWU's spineless decision to hide behind "employee confidentiality," and so forth.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

These are all irrelevant. This is not the place to mount a defense for Bailey unless you are prepared for both sides arguments to make it balanced . It is a wiki page on the book . The sarcasm in these statements aren't welcome. Calling NWU spineless is again betraying your bias.DarlieB (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC) DarlieB

Recent POV edits by DarlieB

The edits made to this page over the last two days or so by one editor have dramatically reduced the quality of the article and seriously unbalanced its coverage, which already included significant descriptions of the critical response to Bailey's work. So far no (zero) reliable source references have been introduced to support any of the edits that have converted this article from a neutrally worded piece on this work and its controversy into a unalloyed slam article. I would far rather have a stub, or no article at all, than such a poorly balanced and unreferenced article. Avruch ^T 22:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Darlie B.

I'd like to think Avruch is not a bigot or Dr Bailey or his associates under another name. The article in question was as one sided a bigoted as I have seen on Wiki. Defiant in the face of "Do no harm " Avruch seems bent on a POV of his own with it's wild accusations and misquotes on data and comments. For example, you have one person named Alice Dreger supporting Dr Bailey and not even for the books outragous statements but for "academic freedom". The right to publish books like Baileys book . The Witches Hammer of books on gender. In the begining there was a quote that the "New Times found evidence of a "conspiracy against Dr Bailey " when in truth it was a quote in the Times of Alice Dregers . The same person quoted through the entire wiki article trying to prove some conspiracy . The Times never at any point investigated the allegations . Why was that lie in there ? Bailey was forced to resign and the findings sealed yet the article makes claims of his "vindication" ? What part of "neutral " was that under ? I could go on and on about Avruch's obvious bias but apparently for whatever reason he is driven to push his POV.

I have been told that the edits I made were fair an neutral by others, giving balance to what essentially is innuendo and slander (. but Avruch seems to have an agenda that goes beyond balance. By now he has snuck back in and undone it all so I have no doubt this is just another bigoted hit piece reigned over by a fanatic with endless energy . Perhaps both of us should be blocked and someone from wiki with less "agenda" could re-edit it. Darlie B

On reread I am afraid much of the article is still bias. The using terms like "question his personal integrity" when that are actually questioning Baileys "professional integrity". His personal life is not under discussion, his academic life is.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

--DarlieB 6:45 , 13 July 2007 (UTC)

DarlieB, can you tell me how you can accuse a college professor of having sex with a "research subject" (who is also a prostitute) without impugning both his personal integrity and chastity as well as his professional integrity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing. The controversy is about the book and the subjects. If you care to mention that on his personal wiki site feel free but Bailey has not admitted till recently in a radio interview that the book was meant as a "popular " or "soft science " book. The book was promoted as hard science and when his peers attacked him it was for breaking ethical rules for hard research . His defense was that those ethics don't apply to a book that isn't hard science. Making it out to be a "personal " attack ignores that fact . The article is about the book, not Bailey . DarlieB —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) 11:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DarlieB makes some misstatements in the above. There is more than one sense to "science," and some folks in the debate are playing with it rather loosely. To disambiguate the senses of the word: There are scientific reports which provide original data on novel experiments and are published in peer-reviewed journals, and there are science-interest books which translate scientific reports to make them suitable for non-scientists with an interest in the subject. In the discussions about the book, I do not recall anyone distinguishing between hard science (typically the physical sciences) and soft science (typically the social sciences) when trying to ascertain where Bailey's book fits (sexology includes aspects both of the hard and of the soft sciences). It is certainly possible, however, that there exists some relatively obscure discussion that I have not seen.

The ethical principles for researchers are no different for hard- or soft-sciences. Rather, the rules apply according to whether one uses humans in the conduct of the experiment. For example, a knocking atoms together would be hard science and not require ethics committee oversight, whereas a study looking at undergraduate drinking behavior would be a soft science project that did require oversight.

Bailey's peers did not attack him, for ethical or any other reason. Lynn Conway and Andrea James attacked him (and attacked everybody they thought might be associated with any aspect of him). Neither Conway nor James are Bailey's peers, in the sense that they do not conduct research in a related field. One peer (John Bancroft) said that Bailey's book was not science (in the sense that it was not a scientific report); a line which has been misrepresented to mean that Bailey's book has no scientific basis (which is incorrect). It was a science-interest book (based on findings reported in the scientific literature) that did not provide any new findings of its own (it was not a scientific report), and used real-life examples to illustrate its point (the same as a journalist would, without need for systematic recording of data or need for ethics committee approval). Moreover, missing from any conversation about Bancroft's comment was that it was followed by a series of perhaps 20 other sex researchers who unanimously supported Bailey, saying the book should not be attacked in the way it was regardless of whether it reported original data or summarized existing data for a public audience.

Bailey never said that "ethics don't apply to a book that isn't hard science." Bailey (and his university, which reviewed the issue, and the U.S. federal standards on which the university based its opinion) said that asking prior permission from the ethics committee is not necessary for what Bailey did, which was not the conduct of an actual experiement.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

James Cantor , you are wrong . Bailey himself makes that distinction. Listen to the interview. http://kqed02.streamguys.us/anon.kqed/radio/forum/2007/08/2007-08-22b-forum.mp3

Conways entire premise was exactly that. That the book was promoted as "accurate hard science" ( see Baileys own promotions for the book ) and in this interview Bailey said his intention was to create a "popular science " book.

The physics of atoms are verifiable through mathematics and observation . Not so Baileys observations on transsexuals or "human beings" as we like to call them . Of the incredibly limited sample he collected from one single gay bar . As I understand it there are different rules for hardcore and soft science . Soft being less based on a ridgid ethical methodology where you aren't supposed to be having sex with your interview . Based on his own statements Bailey said he was free from the more rigid scientific standard because of this.

Academic peers , I personally know Andrea James and what she did. I see you make a distinction calling it a "science-interest book" . Bancroft was correct, it was not science , it was , and I quote "bad science". From it's intentionally sensational cover with huge muscular masculine male legs set in high heels to its intentionally sensational conclusions. How is the reader to know that this is merely a "what if " book when it was promoted as "accurate science" ? DarlieB

DarlieB, you have not answered my question at all. In this paragraph, we report that Bailey was accused of having sex with a prostitute. This is generally considered morally wrong. In many places, it is also legally wrong. Now tell me: How is accusing Bailey of a sin and a crime not an attack on his personal integrity? Can one engage in sin merely as a professional, and not as an individual person? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're framing the question that way. I don't think anyone much cares whether what he did there was a "sin" or violated some stupid law. The point is that he is alleged to have had sex with a research subject, not that he had sex with someone other than someone you would be inclined to approve of as not a sin. It reflects on his conduct relative to the book, which is why it was brought up. Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm phrasing the question this way because of the change that DarlieB has insisted upon. This accusation is widely perceived as relating to Bailey's moral character, which is a personal quality, not a professional one. (Think about John Edwards and the "love child" scandal: the National Enquirier isn't talking about Edwards' professional capabilities, is it?) DarlieB wants to claim that "Bailey had sex with a prostitute that he was interviewing" is solely a professional issue. Previously, the text said that it was an accusation against his personal integrity. I do not think that this change is justifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What change is DarlieB insisting on? I don't see any recent edits or even suggestions of edits by this editor. You're the one with the odd POV here, stating that having sex with a prostitute is generally considered morally wrong. What you mean by "generally" here is biasing your whole interpretation away from the intention, which was to report alleged professional misconduct. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This one, for example, in which (JMS's allegation of) inappropriate sexual behavior gets recast as an exclusively professional failing. This thread began a couple of hours after this edit, and this edit was clearly one of the changes that precipitated this discussion, as evidenced by DarlieB's first reply (almost two months later). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Your point then is that by changing "personal" to "professional" the sentence is less critical of Bailey's criticizers. I thought you were trying to say something relevant about Bailey; sorry I misunderstood you. Anyway, a comment every few months is not so much an "insistence", but I agree with DarlieB's point; not that the criticism is "exclusively" professional, but that the his professional conduct is what the criticism is of. Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bailey's personal sexual escapades have no relevance other than how it affects the validity of the work that the article is about. WAID insists we treat accusations of unethical practice in research as " crime" or a "sin" as "personal" attacks to create some melodramatic excuse for accusations of Baileys use of prostitution , when no such reference exists in this article. DarlieB (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC) DarlieB

WhatamIdoing is talking about Bailey having sex with his interview subject and I did explain. If this is to be about the book it has to do with ethics and research standards and not Baileys indignity at having been accused of having "sex". I feel for him but as I said before , Bailey and his promiscuity problems belong on his wiki page . Some his interview subjects say that is not even what they said in interviews so is that relevant ? I have my own personal feelings about the misrepresentation of a rather large group of people by Dr Bailey but I am trying to keep it as neutral as possible. The word "balanced " comes to mind. Alleged is a good word Dicklyon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally let me put this to you directly WAID, you asked "How is accusing Bailey of a sin and a crime not an attack on his personal integrity?" . Since when is sex a "sin " or a"crime " ? 50% of all marriages in the USA fail and for the vast majority of them through infidelity. It had to do with ethics of his research and nothing more .This is a tough article for many of you to maintain your neutrality on but you should. The reference to Baileys alleged infidelity has to do with his research subjects and otherwise no one cares because this article is about the book. The article should remain neutral and about the book. Stop trying to to inject your personal/religious point of view POV into this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) 07:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It may have escaped your notice, but in many jurisdictions, prostitution is an offense for which all involved parties can be arrested by the police, brought before a judge, and sentenced to jail (or other punishments) for breaking the law. That, I think, is a reasonable definition of the word "crime" for our purposes.

What I want to know from you is how one could have sex with a prostitute "professionally" without simultaneously doing it "personally". You have attempted to introduce a specious distinction here. Some behaviors do not admit a distinction between personal and professional selves. A professional assassin can't really claim that he didn't personally murder those people; it was "just his job". Similarly, I think, we shouldn't be presenting an allegation of (allegedly) exploiting a prostitute is "just" a professional issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you for dropping your "sin "premise at least WAID . A step in a positive direction. Ok, lets look at the original passage that the you Bailey advocates here insist on making "personal integrity" instead of "professional integrity". The passage I wrote that was deleted:

"Many of Bailey's critics attack not only his book, but his professional ethics. Two of the transwomen in his book and several organizations still accuse him of several ethical breaches in his work. Charges of having sex with a research subject and not telling them they were research subjects. Bailey has adamantly denied that he behaved unethically. "

Where are the criminal charges WAID ? Do you see accusations of prostitution ? I sure don't and in a page search for my last edit could not find a single reference in the whole page of "prostitution". Bailey went to a gay pick up bar and found what he expected to find . People looking for sex. Had he visited a hetero "meat market" he would have found exactly the same activity. Of course then , he couldn't have used Blanchard's theory as it only can be applied to transsexuals right ? I wonder then how the average heterosexual would have felt being judge by observations made at a sex club ? Hmm ? You had no basis to delete a single thing as Bailey had not been accused of a crime in this text or any other. None and furthermore I've become curious about just what your motive is here. Your religious "sin" reference tells me there is more here. DarlieB (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC) DarlieB

Neutrality tag

I've tagged this article with a neutrality tag to reflect my view that this article represents a fairly clear anti-Bailey point of view. I've said in the past and will repeat that I don't have a particular agenda regarding this article other than a neutral treatment of the subject (the book) and its author. This version of the article (contrasting the version from a few weeks ago) is far more critical of Bailey and represents his defence and defenders in a much less rigorous manner, a bias that I believe ought to be corrected. Its hard, though, when editors of the article decline to discuss their edits on the talkpage and make significant edits at a rapid pace. Avruch ^T 19:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(I agree with the neutrality tag but because you made it a piece of pro Bailey propaganda. Siting a single source repeatedly under multiple guises ( Alice Dreger) trying to defend Baileys academic career and discredit his detractors . I was more than willing to discuss the edits because I gave "balance" , you did not. You have no idea how hard that is given my personal point of view and something I am proud of . You said "Do No Harm" yet that article clearly made accusations against Baileys critics. Accusations of conspiracies. You want to defend Bailey , fine but be neutral give both points of view . DarlieB

Titles

At this point, it seems reasonable to clean up the professional titles for this piece.

In the ==Summary== section, we have these four that need identification:

• Kenneth Zucker
• Simon LeVay
• Dean Hamer
• Ray Blanchard

In the ==Controversy== section, we have these four that need attention:

• Clinician Walter Bockting (add academic degree: PhD, MD, PsyD, something else?)
• Anne Lawrence
• writer and consumer activist Andrea James (are these titles at all relevant [published a book about TG issues, for example]?)
• Dr. Alice Dreger (should have academic degree, not "Dr.", and title should be here [first mention], not in next section)

Generally, I think everyone with a doctoral-level degree in a relevant field should have that mentioned, and everyone should have a reasonable (and short) title (so "sexologist" or "psychologist" instead of "The John R. Smith and Mary L. Jones Professor of Gender Identity, Sexology and Whatever Else We Thought Of").

Would anyone like to look these up? I don't, BTW, think that we need to source these in the article, but if you want to put a link after the names here in the permanent record on the talk page, then it might prevent future problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wording

The article reads, 'Many of Bailey's critics attack not only his book, but his personal integrity.' I think this could be better worded (I'll leave aside the question of whether it should be in the article at all). Generally, one 'questions' someone's personal integrity, not 'attacks' it. Skoojal (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Another quibble. The article also reads, in part, 'The second section deals primarily with homosexual men...He also discusses the behavior of gay men and its typically masculine and feminine qualities.' I don't think it makes sense for the article to use both the expressions 'homosexual men' and 'gay men'. One or the other should be used, but not both. Skoojal (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Third quibble. The article reads, 'One of these pages - now removed - published pictures of Bailey's young children labeled with obscenities and vicious personal attacks.' Setting aside the accuracy of this description of the website in question, I doubt that the word 'vicious' should be there. Calling something 'personal attacks' is such strong language that adding the 'vicious' qualifier to it hardly seems necessary. Calling something 'vicious' looks more like making a moral judgment than stating a fact. One can make whatever moral judgments one likes, but surely it's unwise to present them in articles? It smacks of self-satisfaction. Skoojal (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fourth quibble. The article reads, 'The text above the pictures reads " Let's replace women in my community with a couple of random photos and see if Baileys words and theories seem as academic ."' Surely past tense should be used here? Skoojal (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fifth quibble. A section of the article is titled, 'Concerns about academic and intellectual freedom.' This could probably be changed to something shorter and more concise; it sounds grandiloquent. Skoojal (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those things need work, and leave it to you. MarionTheLibrarian and I have an agreeement to not touch it. Dicklyon (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is correct.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I will change most of these things shortly; in my view, even referring to 'personal attacks' here is unnecessary and gratuitous. Obviously labelling pictures of someone with obscenities is a personal attack; there is no need to spell out the obvious. Skoojal (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now done what I said I'd do, and I will consider whether further changes should be made. Anything I do to this article will be minor touching up of the kind I've already done. Skoojal (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the additional changes I have made is removing the reference to 'obscenities.' As I wrote in the edit message, implying that someone is a prostitute may be offensive, but strictly speaking it is not an obscenity. The way I reworded this may not be perfect; if someone wants to reword it again, that's fine, so long as the inaccurate 'obscenities' does not go back in. I have also cut down on the number of times the word 'controversial' is used; it doesn't have to be used every other sentence; people get the idea. Skoojal (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Another point

The article reads, 'As part of this controversy, a male-to-female transsexual person who was interviewed for his book accused Bailey of having sex with her while she was his research subject.' This seems like a rather odd way of putting things. Presumably, if the person who made this accusation had sex with Bailey (I express no opinion either way), the sex was consensual, with both partners equally responsible. So why 'accused Bailey of having sex with her'? Why not 'said she had sex with Bailey'? Skoojal (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The cited source says "A transsexual woman who is described in a book by J. Michael Bailey, chairman of the psychology department at Northwestern University, says he had sex with her while she was an unwitting subject of his research. The woman also says that Mr. Bailey, as a psychologist, supplied her with a letter she needed from a professional..." I think the asymmetry comes from the idea either that he was in a position of power over her, since she needed the SRS letter from him, or that he knew she was a research subject and she didn't. She's not saying it wasn't consentual, but that it was inappropriate. Feel free to reword it to make it more consistent with sources if you feel that's needed. You seem to be doing a good neutral job so far. Here is the whole cited article, as reposted by Lynn Conway. Here is another source about it. And Conway's analysis of it, and more collected stuff in case anything there is useful. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed this part. 'Accused Bailey of having sex with her' was another example of over-excited language. As for the article from the Chronicle of Higher Education, if Conway reposted it, why shouldn't the article link to her repost rather than the original source? Skoojal (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to stick closer to the cited source (in full here). It's not encyclopedic to add "As part of this controversy;" just say what happened (I know, this has been around a while; not saying it's from you). And "who was interviewed for his book" misses the point of the article that she was "described in" the book. And the passive "This became the subject of a sexual misconduct complaint" is not nearly as useful as saying WHO filed the complaint (namely, the anonymous woman, according to the article). Finally, the source says "Mr. Bailey has declined to comment on the accusations," not that he has denied the accusations; if he denied them, you should cite a source that says so. I agree that you don't need the word "accuse"; it was only in the headline, which is not properly part of the story since headlines are typically written by editors trying to hype the stories. The bit about quoting Dreger that "the sexual misconduct allegation came 5 years after the fact" misses the point of the article that in the intervening interval the book got published, and she said, ""I would not have participated in the lecture or had anything to do with Dr. Bailey if I was aware of his hypocritical deception in obtaining any and all information about [transsexuals] that turned into research for his most maligning book." It might be better to be more balanced on that point, or just leave it out. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

'As part of this controversy' can be removed. I am not going to rush to remove "who was interviewed for his book", or other parts of this article. Input from other editors would be welcome here. My choice of wording was intended to distinguish between two related but distinct facts: the fact that someone claimed to have had sexual relations with a particular person, and the fact that there was a sexual misconduct complaint. 'Accused Bailey of having sex with her' is the language of sensationalism. Skoojal (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We already agreed on the 'accused' wording. I don't understand why you separate the claim from the complaint that the claim was made in; the cited source doesn't do that. I'm not worried that you're promoting any POV here, just noting that in general it's best to stick close to sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The cited source is OK for the first two sentences, but "She has refused to offer details or discuss the accusation, which Bailey has denied" needs a citation. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it needs a citation. I will look for one. Skoojal (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bailey has denied absolutely everything on his website, of course. Skoojal (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Titles

There's a hidden comment in ==Controversy==: Why are the critics described with professional titles but the supporters are given no identification other than their name? Do we have a standard set of titles for the untitled people in this section? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're describing a favored tactic on this issue. The criticisms of the book are merely ideological. So, it's long been in the interest of the critics to exaggerate their basis for having an educated opinion and to minimize the qualifications of supporters. If you read Andrea James' or Lynn Conway's websites on the issue, you'll find that rarely is someone simply "a researcher." They are typically "a discredited researcher" or "a recognized expert" according to whether they agree with James/Conway.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We have no control of tactics used by people on their own publications. In wikipedia, it's generally useful to have a brief description of the named person if the person is not universally known. Of course you're both right that even here a favored tactic of editors is to boost their POV by providing titles or descriptions that sound good on their side and bad on the others. Let's just try to keep them balanced. Not like calling Dreger a "historian" just because she has a degree in history and wrote what she called a history, when her self-description doesn't include historian, which is the tactic that MarionTheLibrarian was pushing in the Lynn Conway article. And of course opinions like "merely ideological" are "pure POV" and should have no effect on the article editing. Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a lovely analysis, guys, but you'll note that neither of you answered my question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we answered the first question, and the answer to the second is implicitly "no". Dicklyon (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you answered someone else's question. (I'm not sure who added the hidden text; it's been there for a while.) So let's start with someone at least slightly easier than Dreger. Can you remind me who Simon Le Vay is? Do I remember correctly that he's a sexologist? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have discovered his Wikipedia article. Any objections to calling him a sexologist instead of the more cumbersome "neuroscientist and author known for his studies about brain structures and sexual orientation"? I don't think there are any particular rules for becoming a sexologist -- it's not like getting a medical license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about him, but sounds like neuroscientist would be closer to what he is. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

LeVay by training is a neuroscientist; calling him a sexologist might be misleading. Skoojal (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to neuroscientist then? Is that good enough, or do we need to say something like "neuroscientist and author"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Author doesn't add much; anyone you refer to is likely to be an author. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Neuroscientist is certainly the least debatable, but it was his article (and subsequent publications) on sex that made him natable. WhatamIdoing is correct that sexologist is not a regulated term, and Dicklyon is correct that author will not add anything. Perhaps something along the lines neuroscientist best known for... might work.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Only if you find a source that indicates that that's what he is best known for. No reason to go beyond neuroscientist, really, as there's an article linked for anyone who wants to know more. Dicklyon (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've gone with neuroscientist for now. Since the first mention (I hadn't realized he was mentioned twice) is in the context of his research and the second section of the book, I think we can let the reader assume that his LeVay's research area has something to do with sex, at least more or less. Adjustments can be made later if needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Next

Dean Hamer

His Wikipedia biography calls him a geneticist. Any objections? Anything better? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of objections, I've made this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Next

Kenneth Zucker

His Wikipedia biography calls him a "psychologist and sexologist". Any objections? Anything better? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I've no objection. Go ahead and make the change. Skoojal (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Next

Ray Blanchard

Sexologist seems like the obvious choice. Any objections? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be logical to use "psychologist and sexologist," consistent with Zucker.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

His profile suggests that maybe psychiatrist would be better than psychologist. Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Um...except that he's not a psychiatrist. (Something on that link suggested otherwise?)

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

His Wikipedia biography says that he has a PhD and worked as a clinical psychologist at one point. His profile has him teaching psychiatry, but that doesn't give him an M.D. and a physician's license. Shall we go with "psychologist and sexologist"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Consideration of Andrea James' 1998 autogynephilia confession

I want to know what other editors think about the inclusion of material concerning a remarkable 1998 email from Andrea James to Anne Lawrence. The email is here, with commentary from James who tries to show that it doesn't mean what Alice Dreger suggests it means:

http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/alice-dreger/hermaphrodite-monger.html#appendix1

In this email, James says that she has found many of Ray Blanchard's scientific insights "valid, even brilliant, especially in distinguishing early- and late- transitioning TS patterns of thought and behavior." Recall that Blanchard is the originator of the scientific theory of transsexualism that James has so assiduously decried. Furthermore, she says: "I readily admit my own autogynephilia." When i first read this, I found these to be explosive admissions. After all, James has dedicated a good part of her time and reputation to trying to destroy J. Michael Bailey for promoting this theory in his book. (The title of the relevant part of her website is: "Categorically Wrong.") Bailey's account of the controversy is that it was a smear campaign waged by unprincipled liars. (Lest anyone accuse me of being inflammatory, the accusations that Conway, James and others have made against Bailey are just as bad.) The contrast between James' 1998 email and her later anti-Bailey and Blanchard campaign surely is consistent with this interpretation. Moreover, it is relevant to the contention that autogynephilia is not consistent with many transsexual women's experience. If it is consistent with the experience of the concept's most vociferous critic, that makes the contention less credible.

This material was mentioned in an earlier version of the Autogynephilia page, but Dicklyon removed it, saying that it was taken out of context. Frankly, I do not find Dicklyon's objection (or Andrea James' objections as related on the above website) at all plausible at negating the obvious facts that she once found Blanchard's theory to be of great interest and she once agreed that she is autogynephilic. Dicklyon has admitted that he has ties with Lynn Conway, but I am sure that he does not want anyone to think that's a primary reason for his edits. Perhaps other editors can weigh in on whether they think there is any other way to read James' 1998 email other than how I read it, and whether they think it is relevant for inclusion in various articles. I think it could be considered for Andrea James, J. Michael Bailey, Autogynephilia, The Man Who Would Be Queen, and BBL controversy.ProudAGP (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this conversation has been unified at Talk:Andrea James (which happily is not on my watchlist, so I cheerfully consider myself exempt from participation). We don't need to have five different versions of the same conversation going, so discuss the issues there, and then come back here and let us know if you all have come to conclusions that might affect this article.

You might, BTW, want to read about our policy on saying anything about living people that they dislike, because I'm sure it will come up repeatedly in that discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

DarlieB's latest edits and Skoojal's revert

In this edit, DarlieB added a few words about the book being what Andrea James was attacking, with edit summary "(→Controversy: Without context this reads like just a personal attack rather than the statement on the book it was.)" which looked reasonable to me. Then Skoojal in this diff reverted, saying "(undoing edit - please, the article doesn't need this sort of stuff, that's the kind of thing we're trying to get rid of)." I'm unclear on what "this sort of stuff" refers to; Skoojal or someone, can you clarify. Was it the second part of the edit, "( apparently taken from Bailey's book , or in the style of the book )"? Seems like there ought to be a way to make that clear, if the incident is to be mentioned at all. It seems rather unbalanced to cite Bailey's personal blog about the episode, in which he re-published what he considers to be offensive pictures of his children, and not say anything about the other side. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the words "the book" appears appropriate (I doubt anyone would contest that Andrea James was attacking the book), but the remainder of the edit was too unclear to my mind to add any context at all. Moreover, there does not exist any reliable source capable of indicating what Andrea James intent was.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm astonished by Dicklyon's use of the expression 'what he considers to be offensive pictures of his children.' Are you suggesting that those pictures were somehow not offensive? They were revolting, and offensive in the absolute extreme. Second, some of the text I removed '( apparently taken from Bailey's book , or in the style of the book )' suggests something that isn't true (eg, that Andrea James took some passages from Bailey's book word for word and then applied them to those pictures). The 'apparently' bit suggests that whoever added that isn't really sure, which makes it doubly inappropriate. It looks like opinion or speculation, and is wrong for an article. Skoojal (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The pictures themselves do not appear to be offensive, and I have not seen what captions were used originally, but yes, I think they were offensive, which is why it's odd to me that Bailey, who presumably also considers them to be offensive, would republish them that way. I agree that this whole thing has a verifiablity problem. The sentence "One of these pages, which has now been removed, published pictures of Bailey's young children and placed offensive sexual messages beneath them" has only Bailey's strange recreation as source, it appears. Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not necessarily see a problem with this. No one appears to be saying that Bailey created those pictures himself, and nor can anyone suggest a plausible reason why he would do that. Skoojal (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you think you're replying to here; it doesn't matter who created the pictures of Bailey's kids. What matters is what we can say from reliable sources, and how we can keep it the presentation from being one side. When DarlieB tried to make it less one sided, you reverted, with a cryptic explanation that I'm still trying to understand. But forget that; why not fix it by reducing to what is supported in reliable secondary sources? Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon: You have the right to comment on any article, of course, but your lack of familiarity with the events in question is rendering your comments rather non-sequitur. I recognize that you are unlikely to take my word for any of this, but have watched each of the events as they occurred and I did read the original quotes. You will find that no one on any side of the debate questions: that Andrea James posted pictures of Bailey's kids, that she included the captions exactly as Dreger quoted them, that James' website contained these for several days before removing them, and that James issued an apology/explanation of her behavior. What remains debated (and likely always will) is what James' intent was both in creating the comments, in removing them, and in her apology/explanation.

You have the right, again, to offer any opinion regarding the latter issue and even to indicate that WP's description of the events should be limited by what is documentable. However, it strains credulity to say that "only Bailey's strange recreation" documents events that both Bailey and James describe on their respective websites. Many listservs (sex researchers, GLBT psychologists, etc.) discussed it at length at the time.

Putting a spin on events is one thing, but advocating revisionism is another. As an otherwise educated and intelligent person, you should be ashamed.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

[Jokestress struckthrough the above with an edit summary that read, "please stop insulting people here as if this were academia. strikethru per WP:CIVIL." I have pastede that edit summary here to improve the narrative flow of the following.— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 09:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)]

• Jokestress: Holding and expressing a negative evaluation of another's behavior is not an insult. Insults are the kinds of things one finds on your personal website, such as saying that Alice Dreger "is fixated on 'freaks' because she feels more attractive and normal by comparison."
• To assert that other people should eschew a behavior that one is happy to engage within other contexts is the very meaning of hypocracy.
• Of course, one is free to say whatever one likes on a personal website; it is statements made on WP that are subject to review. To be willing to engage in behavior only when one can get away with it, but to follow or advocate the rule otherwise, suggests being unprincipled. Individuals who support a principle sincerely follow it in all contexts.
• Because it is how best to describe your off-wiki behavior that is the subject of the discussion leading to the aboved edit, your participation in it is questionable at best. Dicklyon himself has not indicated feeling that there was anything untoward in my comment (despite, of course, expressing his disagreement with the main of my edit), also suggesting that it is yourself rather than the participants in the discussion whom you defend.
• Editing other editors' talk page comments without prior discussion of those comments is a WP no-no. You have previously emphasized your veteran status on WP. A sincere application of WP conventions would mean following them always, not merely when it is in one's interest to do so.
• Finally, if you have any actual credentials to qualify you to hold an educated opinion regarding what happens in academia, you have never offered them. I have been both in academia and in activism for many years. I have never seen the types of comments that pepper your personal website appear in any academic meeting, any scholarly journal, or any listserv of professionals outside of those made by self-professed activists who sometimes participate in those venues. That academics engage in such insults appears to me an idiosyncratic stereotype you hold of academics (or that you seek to create because it is in your policital interest to do so).
• I am not reverting the strikethrough because I am not sufficiently invested in this portion of the thread to precipitate an edit war over it. My point was the remainder of that edit, to which Dicklyon has already responded.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 08:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Most academics don't insult each other by saying "You should be ashamed" in response to published work. That kind of rhetoric doesn't appear in most academic journals to my knowledge. It's pretty unprofessional and certainly not respectful. More to the point, it absolutely does not belong here. Please limit commentary to improving article content here. Most of your response above would probably be better to place on my talk page or in a private email or offsite. Please comment on the actions and not the editor. Jokestress (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right about my lack of familiarity. But this is wikipedia. We should be writing only from reliable secondary and tertiary sources, not from people's memories of things that happened. I'm not sure what you are referring to here by revisionism, or what you think I should be ashamed of. My goal here is to encourage moving some of these controversial articles in the direction of conforming with wikipedia policy. I'm still unclear on what Skoojal objected to in DarlieB's edits. Dicklyon (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Speculation. Skoojal (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dick, you are advocating here for strict adherence to high quality reliable sources. That's fine. The addition of "apparently taken from Bailey's book , or in the style of the book" is not supported by any high-quality reliable source. Therefore Skoojal was right to revert it. So what, exactly, is your concern here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for strict anything; I'm saying that the edit provided some balance, and if we're going to take it our for lack of reliable sources, we can achieve balance by taking out more of that badly sourced stuff that's one-sided. Basically, the whole controversy section is probably irretrievably flawed, and out to be just replaced by a brief statement and the main link, so that we can keep the flawed controversy in one place. Where it says "writer and consumer activist Andrea James. James' website includes numerous pages attacking Bailey, his book, his family, his friends, and his professional associates. One of these pages, which has now been removed, included pictures of Bailey's young children and placed offensive sexual messages beneath them.[10]" the one cited ref doesn't support much of the content, and it's a Bailey blog page, so no way a WP:RS. The sources for this controversy need to be treated with some fairness and balance, or not at all; per strict interpretation, that would be not at all, unless you have some that are reliable sources. And if you bring up the Dreger piece, then you have to open up the commentaries published alongside it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Or if you actually want to clarify what the discussed event was about, and the fact that she apologized and explained later, then reference this page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with you at all. I don't consider the things you are objecting to problematic. We obviously have a major disagreement here. If you feel strongly about this, it might be a good idea to get more outside involvement. Skoojal (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrea James' behavior is documented in the New York Times, which says, "Ms. James downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided."[1] It is James' apology that is difficult to document with an RS.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 08:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely you're not saying that the apology didn't happen? Do you consider James's website not reliable? Skoojal (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that the apology didn't happen. (Although one could reasonably question its sincerity.) The behavior for which Andrea James was apologizing has been documented by quite strong RS's, such as the New York Times. The apology, however, is documented only in self-published sources (personal websites), which do not meet WP:V (with some exceptions).

And no, I do not consider Andrea James' website reliable. According to WP:SPS, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Andrea James does not meet this standard.

Whether an exception should be made in this circumstance is certainly worth discussing. Personally, I have no strong opinion in either direction.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

James Cantor , what was Andre James point if not to mimic the book ? Give us some MO ? Examine the "obscene text " and you find it is EXACTLY what Bailey wrote about transgender children in his book. To recognize that of course removes right to "moral outrage ". Of course, it is only transgender children Bailey maligned and not someone "normal" so perhaps it is better to play over and over Andre James and her "abuse" of Baileys children. DarlieB (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC) DarlieB

Transsexuals' "common lies and deceptiveness"

ProudAGP removed the following:

Bailey summarizes theories about etiology, adding "learning more about the origins of transsexualism will not get us much closer to curing it" (p. 207). Bailey also discusses the process by which transition from male to female occurs and summarizes the "common lies and deceptiveness" of trans women. (pp. 172-176).

This is an accurate and fair summary of this part of the book. It's even indexed as such. The claim is that this belongs in the controversy section, but it's obviously not controversial. It's even indexed as such in the book. Jokestress (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To my eye, the phrases you added (and ProudAGP deleted) are neither an accurate nor fair summary of that part of the book. They are particles of phrases sewn together into a Frankenstein's Monster that misrepresents Bailey's intended meaning.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Common lies and deceptiveness" is reported here as an exact quote from the book. Presumably it doesn't take five pages to print four words. Would someone with the book please type up the entire paragraph/appropriate section that these four words are supposed to appear in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

He spends five pages (pp. 172-176) outlining the "common lies and deceptiveness" of trans women, according to the book's index. It basically boils down to this: anyone who objects to his sexualized taxonomy and terminology is lying. The section starts with "Most gender patients lie," then moves to "The most common way that autogynephiles mislead others is by denying the erotic component of their gender bending." After that, he states, "There is one more reason why many autogynephiles provide misleading information about themselves that is different than outright lying. It has to do with obsession." He details their "self-presentational deceptiveness" and ends with, "True acceptance of the transgendered requires that we truly understand who they are," which in his opinion are obsessed erotomaniacs whose "teenage masturbatory cross-dressing" should be discussed more in the media. Jokestress (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: Jokestress appears not to have appreciated what you meant by "entire." Personally, I have trouble trusting that an author's intent is being accurately conveyed when one cannot do it without stringing together multiple limbs from separate sentences. Doing so often reflects, not the view of the original author, but the view of the editor.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 23:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing already has the full text of the section. Anyone else requesting it can email me. Jokestress (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have received the text in e-mail. The quoted phrase does not appear on the cited pages. It appears, instead, in the index. Indices are normally constructed by the publishing house instead of the author. It therefore should not be included as a direct quote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly a direct quotation from page 232 of the book, though. This article is about the book, so anything in the book (blurbs, cover art, jacket copy) should be open for discussion and inclusion. Bailey probably didn't create the cover, but her certainly approved it, just like the rest of the contents. Jokestress (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress writes that anyone who wants to see what Bailey actually said can email her, but it would be more complete to say that 'anyone who believes that they will get an unadultered version from her can email her.' For folks reading here, I will put each of Jokestress' selected quotes back into their original contexts and let readers decide if the thoughts expressed by Bailey are accurately conveyed by Jokestress' rendition of Bailey.

• Jokestress said "The section starts with 'Most gender patients lie," The whole of that section reads:

"'Most gender patients lie,' says Maxine Petersen, the ace gender clinician at the Clarke."

That is, Jokestress is hiding from readers that Bailey did not say what Jokestress is making it look like he said; Bailey was quoting someone else. Moreover, Jokestress's choice of quote also negelcts to point out to readers out that Maxine Petersen is herself a MtF transsexual, one of the only licenced, openly transsexual clinicians in any gender clinic anywhere in the world.

Bailey continues:

"One common lie among autogynephiles, according to Petersen, is that they are homosexual rather than heterosexual. The motivation for that lie is probably the fear that a gender clinic will deny them a sex change if they are determined to be heterosexual. And indeed, some psychiatrists have taken the position that nonhomosexual transsexuals are uniquely inappropriate or sex reassignment because they are not 'true' transsexuals. Autogynephiles who claimed to be homosexual transsexuals could account for the apparent cases of homosexual transsexuals who practiced erotic cross-dressing. Other common lies, according to Petersen and others, include an exaggeration of early femininity. This might in some cases have the same motivation."

So, what we have in reality is Bailey recognizing that transsexuals are feeling pressured to give an untrue report, but Jokestress is making it sound as uif Bailey simply thinks transsexuals are liars. It is up to readers to decide if Jokestress "summary" is an accurate reflection of Bailey's above idea.

• Jokestress next wrote "then moves to 'The most common way that autogynephiles mislead others is by denying the erotic component of their gender bending.'"
  

In truth, that sentence is followed by two examples. The second example (which I think makes the point better, but Jokestress can insert the first one, if she likes):

"When I spoke at a meeting of Chicago cross-dressers, the men became clearly uncomfortable when I brought up the erotic component of their activity, preferring instead to attribute it to their inner femininity. When I pointed this out, one cross-dresser said "I wear feminine clothing because I feel feminine, and I can't help getting aroused because the clothes are sexy. Any man would."

So, we have Bailey reporting to readers what cross-dressers have told him, and Jokestress faulting Bailey for conveying what others have said. In a subsequent passage, Bailey conveys the idea that cross-dressers deny the sexual component of their activity because of its stigma. That is, Bailey is empathizing with their position, but Jokestress is re-casting him to seem their enemy.

• Next, Jokestress wrote, "After that, he states, 'There is one more reason why many autogynephiles provide misleading information about themselves that is different than outright lying. It has to do with obsession.' He details their ‘self-presentational deceptiveness’…" What the section actually says is:

"Something about autogynephilia creates a need not only to enact a feminine self, but also to actually believe in her. It seems important to them to emphasize the permanence of the feminine self as well as her primacy: 'I was always feminine, I just managed to hide it. I became a Green Beret as a defensive response to my femininity'….Cheryl Chase, the intersex activist, told me that transsexuals frequently join intersex groups because they are convinced that they are also intersexual. In most cases they are not. I assume that these are autogynephilic transsexuals who want to believe that there is a real biological woman inside them as well as a psychological woman."

Whether Chase’s observation and Bailey’s interpretation (which he acknowledges as an assumption) are accurately characterized by Jokestress is up to readers.

I can’t find the part that says what Jokestress said said “which in his opinion are obsessed erotomaniacs whose "teenage masturbatory cross-dressing" should be discussed more in the media.” It must be outside the section Jokestress said (or implied) it was in.

So, there you have it: What Bailey said and what Jokestress says he said. Whether Jokestress description is an accurate reflection of Bailey or a set of half-truths that depict something very different from the original is up to readers to decide for themselves.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We are all aware of the significant biases of certain editors. However, what matters here is the error. We incorrectly claim a direct quote on pages where the phrase does not exist. One editor then claims that the quoted phrase should be kept because it appears in the index, so that we can blame the author for a phrase that may have been constructed by a nameless indexer in the backroom of a publishing house. It won't fly. We can pick new quotes, we can pick longer quotes, we can summarize -- but we absolutely cannot claim a direct quote that is not in the text of the book.

Hfarmer, do you have a suggestion on how we might re-write that paragraph? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in writing a paragraph on the deceptiveness issue. It is an interesting and important issue, and it surely has been one of the things resented by some transsexuals (and for that matter, cross dressers). (Jokestress, if your original edit had not been a patent attempt to make Bailey look bad rather than thoughtfully explore both sides of an issue, such a paragraph would probably be there by now. If you would like me to work with you on this kind of thing, let me know.) One thing that I am wondering is to what extent we can bring in (highly relevant) sources outside the book. For example, one of Bailey's harshest and most prominent critics (and especially a critic of the book) is Deirdre McCloskey. But I just found this passage from McCloskey's autobiography (she is a transsexual, and she is writing about herself as "Dee"):

Dee started lying. They all do it. A psychiatrist proposes to withhold a desired and harmless life from a free, sane adult based on no scientific evidence and no intelligent empathy for the patient and no understanding that the DSM's list of symptoms rewrites the society's myths about gender. We need to examine you. For two years. Wait, wait. We might not ever approve you. Chances are we won't. Dee knew a gender crosser from Galesburg, Illinois, an otherwise normal working-class person, who after two years and $2,500 of "therapy" from a local psychologist was still being delayed: You have more issues to work on. You will always have "more issues to work on," dear. It's therapy for the therapist, Dee thought indignantly.

Of course the gender crossers lie. They can read the DSM just a well as the psychiatrists can. Pat Califia, who wrote Sex Changes: The Politics of Trans-genderism (1997), notes, "None of the gender scientists seem to realize that they, themselves, are responsible for creating a situation where transsexual people must describe a fixed set of symptoms and recite a history that has been edited in clearly prescribed ways in order to get a doctor's approval for what should be their inalienable right."

"Oh, yes," Dee said to the Free University psychiatrist, "I've always had these desires. Oh, yes, Doctor, ever since I can remember. Oh, yes it's just like being a woman in a man's body. Oh, yes, I hate my penis."

Oh, yes, Doctor, whatever your dopey list says. The psychiatrist's eyebrows returned to normal.

(Feel free to edit format if I've done it poorly.) It seems to me a perfect example to illustrate the "lying" point. Oh, and it's available on McCloskey's own page (http://deirdremccloskey.org/pubs/gender/dee.php)ProudAGP (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I'd just use the second paragraph. It's common knowledge that the "lying" is caused by a corrupt gatekeeping system as described by Califia. Jokestress (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I believe the corruption is committed, not by gatekeepers, but by "activists" who keep "forgetting" to mention that Blanchard has demonstrated rather conclusively that the classic story need not be true for one to undergo transition successfully. It is a terrible disservice to the trans community to hide from them the very science that permits them to be themselves and still receive letters of support (not to mention hiding this information from clinicians).

A summary based on truth instead of posturing would include that there existed this idea among some mental health folks (cite Benjamin), that that idea pressured transfolks to lie (cite Bailey, cite McCloskey), and that the idea turned out to be false (cite Blanchard, cite Lawrence).
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Blanchard is the primary reason people continue to "lie," by creating a hierarchical taxonomy that encourages people to avoid discussing sexuality for fear of being labeled with his neologous psychosexual pathology. McCloskey is quite open and honest about her life (see above), yet objects to Blanchard's pathologization of her life. Further, it's clear that when the Clarke Institute held the pursestrings in Ottawa, they created a system where they would reject anyone who would not accept their stringent requirements and definitions -- 90%+ clients (quote Namaste, etc., etc., etc.).

The reason Blanchard is reviled is because he is the cause of the problems he complains about. (quote The Pyrrhic Victory of OHIP-funded Sex Reassignment Surgery, Califia, etc.) Jokestress (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, a whole bevvy of mistakes: Ottawa has never supplied any funding, the requirements predate Blanchard, the same requirements are used by clinics throughout the world (also predating Blanchard), the Clarke (a term 10 years out of date) does not reject 90% of clients (most clients come in just to ask questions, not to ask for letters of support for transition). Whenever Jokestress makes these kinds of claims, I keep asking for evidence, and all of a sudden Jokestress is quiet. Will this time be any different? Evidence, Jokestress?
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 18:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll provide evidence when you drop the incivil tone. Jokestress (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That would assume there exists such evidence (which there does not). Whether your refusal to back up your claims is because of my choices of words or is merely a transparent excuse for having entirely fabricated those claims is, of course, up to readers to decide for themselves.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you can take it offline. We're not here to solve all the world's problems, okay? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of lying, the following statement was made by Fisk (the originator of the term "gender dysphoria" in 1973:

"Soon it became conspicuously and disturbingly apparent that far too many patients presented a pat, almost rehearsed history, and seemingly were well-versed in precisely what they should or should not say or reveal. Only later did we learn that there did and does exist a very effective grapevine. So effectively “the message had been transmitted and received,” that individuals were carefully preparing and rehearsing for what they felt was going to be an intense scrutiny and probing in order to ascertain this supposedly critical differential diagnosis." (Fisk, 1973, p. 8)

In other words, the tendancy of some people to misrepresent their histories was observed and described years before Blanchard and before even the first standards of care were published by (then called) HBIGDA. So, Jokestress' claims are simply untenable...short of time-travel.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You pulled that quote from Blending Genders By Richard Ekins and Dave King . Totally without basis as the book claimed that it was the medical establishment that "sold" transsexuality and it was the medical communities misdiagnosis of nontrans people wanting to escape dug use, schizophrenia , bipolar ... it didn't allow for clearing these issues before proceeding with transition. The medical establishment was so backwards at the time you had John Money forcing penisless boys to change sex purely through socialization and then lying about his success and the patients adjustment. Johns Hopkins for your information got 2000 applications for SRS and took only 24. Those 24 were chosen exclusively for passability (how scientific) . Now remember Fisk is there before anyone has really adopted HBSC as the rules and it is totally understandable that gender bending sex workers would lie to get their surgery because I doubt a TS prostitute could earn the same money as a genetic woman on the street. Oh and follow ups or the "happiness test" as bigots like Hopkins Catholic McHugh would say was out of context. If you had read Gender Blenders you would know that the average SRS at the time was two stage yet it took 3.5 surgeries on average . Know why ? Repeated reconstruction, infections, hemorrhaging , bad surgery , sexual dysfunction , post operative depression, post operative suicide , loss of skin grafts .... the list goes on. There is always post operative depression , even in non SRS surgery so imagine 4 surgeries. In other words, it was a butchering without knowledge. You also missed that to afford the surgery that many of them had to work as prostitutes both before and after surgery. Are we getting the picture ? No ? If you ever try and post this shallow observation of it will be balance by the open statement from doctors admitting they are clueless and had not yet had a handle on what it was or how to treat it and routinely lied about results.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3767337480016853964

Money directly caused the suicide of a boy he forced the boy to live as a girl without his permission . How dare you try and lay this totally at the patients feet when there was such an undisciplined and misinformed medical community at the time . You have completely removed the cultural context in which these desperate individuals sought surgery and were treated. Were there cases of post surgical unhappiness ? My god, once that primitive surgery of the time was done depression had nothing to do with that because they would never be employed , or have friends/family in the normal sense you and I have . There were many cases of children as young as 13 being tossed out of their homes by parents and having to work as prostitutes to survive. Knowledge is not obtained just from the doctors text nor are they the authority. Money lied to become idolized among his peers and paid heavily for it. Bailey set out to write a sensationalist book based on speculative "theories" and backed up by a limited 6 subject casual study of people who frequent a sex club . He and his peers promoted this book as "science fact" so if there ever was a conspiracy it was between Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence and now Dreger. You can still find on the net where they call it "scientifically accepted". I wouldn't be considering calling anyone "liars " in the face of that obvious fabrication.DarlieB (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC) DarlieB

New Section on Book Content Controversy

I want to add a paragraph or two about what may have been controversial in the book's content. I will include the "Deception" issue there. One thing I also think I will include is the highlighting of "Cher" (Anjelical Kieltyka) as the central autogynephilic transsexual. I suspect that some transsexuals with more conventional lives found this insulting. I have looked at the internet archives, so far unsuccessfully, at Conway's site, because I seem to recall her saying some pretty awful things about "Cher." Do editors agree with me that this may have been an issue, and if so, can anyone find a source that mentions it?ProudAGP (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. The key issues that should be covered (first-blush - probably more):

• Marketing the book as science and "original research"
• Fabrication of "Danny Ryan" and family
• Framing the book as a cure narrative where a gender nonconforming child is cured
• Exploitation of vulnerable people in an oppressed community
• The cover
• The title
• The subtitle
• The self-assertion that Bailey is a "single heterosexual man"
• The mockery of "Juanita's" wedding and divorce by a divorced guy
• Those who agree are "open and honest"; those disagree are "lying" - contrast with Bailey's lack of openness and honesty about his own sexual interests
• The claims about racial makeup of trans women
• Use of sex workers and fetishists to demonstrate that trans women are sex workers and fetishists.
• The "gay, straight, or lying" controversy
• Every example of a "type" who was tracked down objected to how they were portrayed in the book.
• "Common lies and deceptiveness" of trans people
• Use of Bailey's children in the book
• The Cosmo-style "rate your mate" quiz on how to tell the "two types" apart
• "homosexual transsexuals might be especially suited to prostitution"
• "As for shoplifting, homosexual transsexuals are not especially well suited as much as especially motivated."
• Use of the term "homosexual transsexual"
• Homosexuality is "maladaptive" in terms of evolution
• Screening for and aborting gay fetuses
• Zucker's claim that transsexualism is a "bad outcome" - disputed by Zucker
• A world tolerant of gender variance "might well come at the cost of more transsexual adults."
• Discrepancies in prevalence data presented in the book
• "movies in recent years such as Priscilla Queen of the Desert, The Crying Game, Ed Wood, Silence of the Lambs, and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, among others, have featured transsexuals and their like. Transsexuals are hot."
• "learning more about the origins of transsexualism will not get us much closer to curing it"
• Transsexuals "work as waitresses, hairdressers, receptionists, strippers, and prostitutes, as well as in many other occupations."

I believe most people saw "Cher" for what she was: a well-intentioned but misguided eccentric (and statistical outlier who would be classified as non-transsexual under most taxonomies) who was exploited by someone from whom she sought attention and validation. I don't recall Professor Conway or others saying anything "bad" about "Cher" beyond observations like the ones above. According to Bailey, she's only reliable when she agrees with him. But this section is about controversial content of the book, so reactions about exploitation of "Cher" may be outside that scope. Jokestress (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress, someday I hope you will reform and become ProudAGP2. Until then, I will work without your suggestions.98.212.193.52 (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)ProudAGP (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me which suggestions you disagree with? All of those controversial issues and passages have been discussed in various reliable sources. I believe a section on controversial content should include all of them. Jokestress (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Juanita"/"Maria"/"Silvia" is a prostitute, and here's why it should be in

From Dreger's piece:

"Kieltyka speculated to me that, in Juanita’s case, monetary reward for her aid to Conway’s ‘‘investigation’’—including her sexual relations charge against Bailey—may have been substantially higher.Kieltyka adds ‘‘[Juanita] denied it, so I had no proof’’ (Kieltyka,2006d). I asked McCloskey whether she knew if Conway financially compensated Juanita for making formal accusations against Bailey (p.e.c., January 22, 2007). McCloskey responded, ‘‘What an absurdity. Juanita is well-to-do’’ (p.e.c., January 22, 2007). It is certainly true that for at least several years before TMWWBQ’s publication, Juanita had been wealthy; in the 2002 human sexuality textbook video, she says that ‘‘when I was a she-male [and] I prostituted myself […] I enjoyedit […] eas[il]y making about a hundred thousand [dollars] a year’’ (in Allyn & Bacon, 2004)."

Bailey's book states that Juanita continued to be a prostitute after transition, while he knew her. This matters towards Juanita's credibility accusing Bailey of sex, and of Bailey's potential guilt having sex with her. (How bad would it be if he had sex with a prostitute?)

I have the link to the video above that is clearly the same person as "Maria" on Conway's website, who clearly has the same story as "Juanita" in the book. (In the video, though, her name is "Silvia." Perhaps we should include all these sources together? No one should, btw, argue that there is any protection we should give Juanita/Maria/Silvia. She has allowed her image and video to be available on very public pagesProudAGP (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

I will wait for some discussion before restoring the word "prostitute."ProudAGP (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fair description of Juanita/Maria/Sylvia. It is accurate, it is public, and it is relevant -- relevant because J/M/S's occupation forms part of Bailey's response to this charge.[2] WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the minimum requirement to call someone a prostitute is to cite a reliable source for that; you can't just do it because you believe it to be true or well known. It should also be done in a way that that makes the relevance clear, and with great care and sensitivity to the implications. If the info is only from Bailey, it would be less biased to refer to her as "a person who Bailey characterized as a prostitute" or something like that. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the Dreger article in Arch Sex Behav identifies J/M/S as the prostitute in the Allyn and Bacon video. I know you dislike the Dreger piece, but no one has ever disputed this particular fact in it, and an article (unlike letters to the editors about it) in the major sex journal is generally considered a reliable source. Furthermore, I have the impression that at least one editor here has met this person, and knows that JMS's occupation is described accurately (although we might choose the more modern term sex worker over JMS's own choice of prostitute). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I agree also that the term "sex worker" (or "sex trade worker") is more appropriate.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The concern here is that adding "prostitute" is being used to push the J. Michael Bailey/ProudAGP POV, as if she is less believable or less ethical because of how she made money (and her ethnicity, for that matter). This is part of a pattern with Bailey and Dreger where people are telling the "the truth" when they agree with them and lying when their stories are inconvenient to their version of "the truth." The Hendrick paper cited by WhatamIdoing above discusses this at length, and the article should present this in a fair way. Jokestress (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• It is up to readers, not editors, to decide whether or to what extent to count Juanita's statements. That is possible only when they are given the info.
• If anyone has associated believability to Juanita's ethnicity, I have missed it. (I'm part Hispanic, myself.)
• Whether ProudAGP and Bailey et al. are pushing a POV or Jokestress and Conway et al. doing so, is up to editors to decide for themselves. Personally, I see ProudAGP providing extensive, contextualized quotes to make his point, whereas Jokestress frequently provides only fragments of sentences that appear very different when returned to their original contexts. This, to me, says it is Jokestress and gang who are pushing POV.)

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 18:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make sexist assumptions about ProudAGP's gender identity. Unless you have additional information, we have no way of knowing ProudAGP is a man. Jokestress (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right; I apologize to you both. Ironically, I have even warned other people against doing exactly the same thing.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 19:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate both of your courtesy.ProudAGP (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ProudAGP that prostitute is a better word. Sex worker is a euphemism desgined so people can avoid the word prostitute. Skoojal (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think ProudAGP has expressed a preference between the terms yet. I'd prefer "sex worker", a euphemism designed to avoid the sort of judgmental negative connotation that "prostitute" is loaded with. Or go further and explain the relationship better; she was one of Bailey's main subjects for his book, not just one "who was interviewed", if I understood correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me folks if I butt in here . I want to know what relevance there is to whether a "sex worker " remained in the profession or enjoyed their work. This is not an investigation nor is it relevant. None of us know if this person was molested at an early age ( the vast majority of sex workers have been ) or how their gratification fits into them risking their lives in the trade. Baileys book makes incredibly shallow and primitive assumptions about sex workers that don't need to be dignified with more of our sensational misinterpretations . DarlieB (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC) DarlieB

It sounds like we have consensus to change the phrase "male-to-female transsexual person" to "male-to-female transsexual sex worker". Who will make the change? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever wording is used, a reasonable RS citation to support the characterization should be included. Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After the latest edit, the small remaining problem is that the Carrey ref is missing the link ([3]) to the article, and states a as fact the findings that the NYT attributes to Dreger; the NYT does not claim these as fact, so it should not be stated that way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the bit that starts, "According to findings by Dr. Dreger, reported in The New York Times..."? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)