|
|
|
Financing Insurance Workplace Legal issues Name choice Name change Driver’s license Birth certificate Passport Marriage Will Other documents
|
Editor's note: The following letter was sent to the National Academies by Dr. Barbara Nash on 12 May 2003 in response to their publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey.
Bruce Alberts Harvey V. Fineberg Dear Drs. Alberts and Fineberg, I am writing to express my deep concern about the National Academies publication
of a book by J. Michael Bailey entitled The Man Who Would be Queen. The book
reflects poorly on the Academies' usually high standards for publication. Despite
its subtitle of "The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism",
it is nothing of the sort. The author's approach is entirely unscientific, and
his conclusions pose a danger to transgender individuals particularly as the
book may be used to influence public policy. Publication by the National Academies
Press unfortunately lends both a presumption of academic legitimacy and significant
visibility to this work of unsubstantiated personal opinion. While Mr. Bailey is entitled to his opinions, my major concern is that the
National Academies Press would place its imprimatur on this particular book.
I shall return to that concern momentarily. I am aware that my colleague Joan
Roughgarden at Stanford has already provided a detailed account to you of
problems with this book. I won't go into as much detail here, but I do feel
the need to point out the most egregious instances of absence of scientific
integrity in the work. Mr. Bailey's book doesn't even rise to the standard of "junk science".
Junk science at least purports to be scientific by presenting observational
data and interpretations made from those data that are expressed in the context
of contemporary thought and argument. Mr. Bailey on the other hand eschews traditional
data gathering techniques. Rather, he relies on recruiting research subjects
(a convenience survey as opposed to more traditional survey instruments) by
"cruising" gay clubs frequented by transsexuals who engage in survival
sex. No wonder that Bailey later concludes that one of his two classes of transsexuals
consists of homosexuals that are commonly engaged in the sex trade. Bailey's
data are anecdotal and subject only to his personal interpretation in which
he expresses great confidence in his preface: "Knowing his occupation and
observing him briefly and superficially were sufficient for me to guess confidently
about aspects of (his) life that he never mentioned.... I know what kinds of
activities interest him and what kinds do not." (p. ix). Is this the standard
for data acquisition - conjecture as evidence? It would be as if as a volcanologist
I could discern the life history of a rock by noting its glint in the sun and
its heft in my hand. There is a reason we invest in mass spectrometers and electron
beam instruments. It is to provide tangible, reproducible observations that
are ultimately shared and interpreted, perhaps in differing and more enlightened
ways by interested parties. Nowhere in Bailey's book are there raw data or tabulated
results of surveys. When survey results are mentioned there is never a reference
to the original data source, nor is there a description of sample size, variance
or standard deviation. No references are provided to any other studies that
are mentioned as supporting evidence. In fact, with the one exception of a 1991
paper by his colleague Ray Blanchard in the list of suggested readings at the
end of the book, there are no specific literature references to any other research
studies on the subject. Bailey distinguishes two classes of transsexuals, homosexual and autogynephilic.
This distinction is not new with Bailey - it was originally proposed by Ray
Blanchard over 20 years ago, and it has enjoyed very little resonance in transgender
studies. Mr. Bailey has no trouble distinguishing between the two groups because
"Most homosexual transsexuals are much better looking than most autogynephilic
transsexuals." (p. 180). This inelegant dichotomy is simply inadequate
to describe the diversity the transgender spectrum and experience. But Bailey
has no interest in directly confronting contemporary alternative views. He simply
dismisses them. People who disagree with him are liars ("Most gender patients
lie,..." p. 172) (..."many autogynephiles provide misleading information
about themselves..." p. 175). transgender narratives are not to be trusted
and are ignored ("...(transsexuals) tell stories about themselves that
are misleading and, in important respects, false." p. 146). Or his detractors
are incompetent ("... sex researchers are not as scholarly as they should
be and so don't read the scientific journals." p. 176). For someone who
neglects to cite the literature, this is an amazing statement. Bailey concludes that the overwhelming majority of transgender persons are
autogynephilic transsexuals, and indicts and stigmatizes that entire group by
stating that autogynephilia is a paraphilia linked with masochism, sadism, exhibitionism,
frotteurism, necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia (p. 171). This is an outrageous
and unsubstantiated statement. He further asserts that "...there are two
reasons to think that these sexual paraphilias have some causes in common."
His reasons? "Paraphilias occur exclusively (or nearly exclusively) in
men. Second, paraphilias tend to go together." (p. 171). Surely if one
were to honestly arrive at such a conclusion, one would feel compelled to supply
a more substantial scientific argument than guilt by association. I won't take the time here to enumerate the factual errors in the book and
the failure to reference or confront contemporary studies that may disagree
with the author's contentions. Science succeeds in part through self-regulation
arising from the variable interpretation of observational data. Bailey makes
this a daunting task for critics because he provides only his personal opinion
based on anecdotal accounts stemming mostly from a limited and self-selecting
population. It doesn't even meet the lowest standards of junk science. It more
closely resembles a lengthy op-ed piece. As a professor of geology and geophysics for 32 years whose research has been
supported by NSF, NASA, DOE and the U.S. Geological Survey, I am confident that
I can distinguish good science from bad science. Recently, I have designed a
course on transgender studies. Part of the course examines scientific approaches
to the phenomenon. Some studies are good, others are not, and students are asked
to assess why. The Man Who Would be Queen will not be on the reading list because
it lacks any scientific rigor whatsoever and would be a waste of students' time
as well as a source of considerable misinformation. What distresses me is that
that the book may be adopted uncritically in courses taught in social sciences
or humanities especially because of the imprimatur provided by the National
Academies Press and its promotion by the Press. Further the I fear the work
may be deemed credible because of the reputation of its publisher, thus facilitating
incorporation of its uncritical and erroneous assertions into the formulation
of public policy contesting civil rights and social justice for transgender
individuals. There is no question in my mind of such an application. As Bailey
says, " "My undergraduate students ... are especially hesitant to
support surgery for nonhomosexual transsexuals, once they learn about autogynephilia."
(p. 206). The promotional materials for the book are unbecoming a professional scientific
association. As Presidents of your respective academies, I recommend you take
a moment to view the web site of the National Academies Press promoting your
book. It is sensational and lurid. The Press says, "the book is grounded
firmly in science" and presents a cover showing a pair of hairy legs in
high heels. The opening line is " Gay. Straight. Or Lying." The ad
poses the critical question, "Are gay men genuinely more feminine than
other men? And do they really prefer to be hairdressers rather than lumberjacks?"
And if you buy the book you can read about "Kim, a strikingly sexy transsexual
who still has a penis and works as a dancer and a call girl for men who like
she-males while she awaits sex reassignment surgery." It reads more like
the headline in a supermarket tabloid rather than what one would expect from
the respected press of the National Academies. The National Academies should not be in the business of supporting such unscientific
and prejudicial works. To do so can only reflect poorly on the Academies and
their scientific integrity. I believe it is only appropriate that the National
Academies withdraw their support for the book. Sincerely, Barbara Nash For more on this book and the theories that inform it, check out my Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence
clearinghouse. |
|
|
|
||
