|
|
|
Financing Insurance Workplace Legal issues Name choice Name change Driver’s license Birth certificate Passport Marriage Will Other documents
|
Why Bailey's Book is Offensive
J. Michael Bailey, the author of The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science
of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, has received a lot of criticism for
his book, which relates Blanchard's two types of transsexuals. He writes:
However, this criticism will have nothing to do with his and Blanchard's two
types. Instead, I will show that even ignoring this, his book is nonetheless
very insulting to transsexual women, full of stereotypes, and hardly a scientific
piece of work. I will refer to his two types merely as Type A women and Type B women. His book is insulting The title, "The Man…" is insulting for male-to-female transsexuals ("transsexual women") because they are women. Calling a transsexual woman a man is the nastiest insult that one can give her. "…Queen…" That is probably the second worst insult. "Queens" are male performers who dress like women for show. There is nothing wrong with that at all, but one does not use the term for a transsexual woman unless to insult her. "…Science…" It is Pseudoscience [2]. The cover, showing masculine legs in heels suggests that transsexual women
are "men in dresses," because this picture clearly shows cross-dressing
with no success at looking like a woman, but a man in women's shoes. To suggest
that transsexual women do not look like women is horrible. True, inside the
book, Bailey states that Type A women are feminine and attractive (And Type
B women are not), but you do not know that from the cover. It is insulting.
From the same URL as above, Bailey states:
Transsexual women are not male, nor should they be objects of laughter. He refers to Type A women (who like men) as "homosexual transsexuals." Women who are attracted to men are heterosexual, not homosexual. He could at lease follow his colleagues who use the term "androphilic" for attraction to guys. He describes Type B women as "erotically obsessed" (p. 146). He calls a transsexual woman a "transsexual man." Again, here is the greatest insult to a transsexual woman and I'm sure that he knows that. His offensive choice of words was deliberate. He relates, in detail, some past sexual behavior of "Cher." I will not repeat these here, but those were very private actions. How could he print them for all to read? "Cher" is a real live person with feelings and emotions, not an object for mockery. Transsexuals or any other people do not deserve such treatment. Further, he describes her as "strikingly masculine" (p. 147). That is a horrible thing to say! The pictures that I have seen of her show a very good-looking and feminine woman. In Chapter 8, he seems to stress that Type B women lie and are deceitful.
I very much dislike this provocative accusation. According to my experience
with women whom he would likely label as Type B, they tend to be very honest
and open. The fact is that what they say about their condition does not match
Bailey's expectations, so he accuses them of lying. I wonder why transsexuals might lie to him but not to me? On page 190, we see:
His selected test subjects are hardly representative of transsexual women. I know of many transsexual women who have long-term husbands. This is very insulting to suggest that these women are unwanted and unlovable creatures who cannot have a steady boyfriend unless she is pimped. Stereotypes abound In the Preface, he meets a "feminine" man named Edwin. He states,
starting on page ix:
Oh, don't bother asking people who they are—just assume it. He continues:
Really?! He just meets the man and he just "knows" that his whole life fits his stereotypes. On page 96, he perpetuates the idea that males cannot be bisexual--“You’re
either gay, straight, or lying.” But he writes of women differently:
Most women are bi but no males are?! He continues:
On page 100, we have:
Always?! This is not just a stereotype, it is meant to be an absolute. But I know a homosexual male who is, due to being humiliated because of being gay, celibate. His heterosexual siblings are fairly busy with having sex partners. This seems to contradict Bailey's edict about gay promiscuity. How can we resolve this conundrum? Easily—Bailey's statement is wrong. On page 142, he writes:
Excuse me? He is implying (and attempting to create a stereotype?) that transsexual women hang out in gay bars?! This is preposterous, and it goes against my observations. However, since he says so, many readers of his book will believe it. He continues:
These choices of occupations were deliberate and biased, especially strippers and prostitutes. He could have chosen "doctors, professors, scientists, artists, engineers,…" On page 178, we have:
This stereotype just can't be right. There are plenty of women in sports, including professional and international competition teams. Assuming that women are lesbian (remember, Bailey uses homosexual meaning Type A or androphilic; we call such women "heterosexual") because they like sports is just not acceptable. On page 184 he writes:
This also belongs in the "His book is insulting" and the "The book is hardly scientific" sections. I have seen no data to support such an accusation and Bailey supplies no proof. The book is hardly scientific First, he mentions Blanchard's theories, but does not debate them with other theories. How can we believe that his theories are correct without discussing the pros and cons of these and other theories, especially since the theories that he presents are so controversial? Secondly, his choice of subjects is far from scientific. He has in the past
recruited subjects for study by using advertisements. But, perhaps to prove
his point, selected study subjects for this book from a places where you may
least expect to find typical transsexuals—in gay bars in a part of Chicago
where transsexual women tend to avoid. [3] He could have looked for a broad selection of regular transsexual women. There
are many, see:
The site above also has links to many successful post-operative women who would be more suitable for such to a study. His choice of prostitutes and "drag queens" from gay bars was deliberate. Was this meant as a slur or does he spend so much time in gay bars that he has little time for actual research? Beginning on page 120, he writes: "LeVay…found that INAH-3 was larger in straight men than in straight
women. The finding that put him on Oprah, though, was that gay men’s INAH-3s
looked like those of straight women rather than straight men’s." This is interesting, and well worth sharing. Thank you. Bailey does write that
this was given criticism, especially by Byne. But, Byne finally agreed:
I have two problems here.
On p. 184, he writes:
If your pool of subjects come from an area populated by prostitutes, then that is the reason why your subjects are mainly prostitutes. This should not imply that transsexuals tend to be prostitutes. This is not science but very poor Pseudoscience. Another fine example of Pseudoscience can be seen on page 183:
Really, the reason why there was a high number of Latina's in the study is that Latina bars were used for the recruiting. Non-transsexual Hispanic people should take this as a racial slur. On page 142, he writes, "Fewer than 1 in 20,000 persons is transsexual."
He does not cite a source. That is not science—it is an opinion. Here is
a source:
Lower IQ?! On pp. 178-179, he writes, "Zucker found several predictors
of adolescent GID: lower IQ…" He blames this one on Zucker, but does
not give a citation, so it is opinion, and could go under the "His book
is insulting" section. Here is a source on the IQ's of adolescent transsexuals:
Average IQ is defined as 100, so 106 is not "lower IQ." Other valid points He avoids the central issue of Gender Identity Disorder—gender identity
(self-identification of oneself as male or female) [6]. This is what transsexuality
is all about. Yet he has no clue about gender identity. On p. 50, he is told
what gender identity is:
Lastly, why is it that when a transsexual reads Brown and Rounsley's True Selves: Understanding Transsexualism--For Families, Friends, Coworkers, and Helping Professionals [7], they generally think, "That's me!," but when they read The Man Who Would Be Queen [8], they generally think, "That's NOT me!"? I could go on and on, but the point is made. Even if we ignore the controversial, unpopular, and disliked theories about transsexualism discussed in the book, Bailey still insults transsexuals. Also, the book is not worthy of being referred to as "Science." With love, Notes: 1. http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversy.htm 2. A good definition of Pseudoscience that fits this book can be found in http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html : "Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances." 3. From http://www.tsroadmap.com: "This is an area most stealth TS women I know deliberately avoid." 4. LeVay did find both a sexual and sexual orientation dimorphism in the volume
of the INAH-3 region. See: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nature-nurture/levay.html He found that females had volumes that were 47% of the hetero males and gay
males had volumes that were 43% of the hetero males. Very striking! However,
Byne found no sexual orientation dimorphism in the number of neurons—the
most important indicator. For HIV+ volumes, these were not spectacular—women
had volumes that averaged 62% of the hetero males, and the gay males had volumes
that were 89% of the hetero males. 5. These results can be seen here: http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm and here: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034 The latter states, "Regardless of sexual orientation, men had almost twice as many somatostatin neurons as women (P < 0.006). The number of neurons in the BSTc of male-to-female transsexuals was similar to that of the females (P = 0.83). In contrast, the neuron number of a female-to-male transsexual was found to be in the male range. Hormone treatment or sex hormone level variations in adulthood did not seem to have influenced BSTc neuron numbers. The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder." 6. From http://www.gires.org.uk/Web_Page_Assets/Etiology_definition_signed.htm : "Gender Identity Disorder is defined as an incongruence between the physical phenotype and the gender identity, that is, the self identification as male or female." This page is signed by 22 experts in the field. 7. The book can be obtained here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=dp_sr_00/103-7283626-6219035
Or, just go to http://www.amazon.com/ and search for "True Selves." If you are transsexual, you will likely cry with deep emotions when you see how well much of this relates to your entire life. I recommend letting non-TS people read this book so that they can understand what transsexuals go through and why they need to transition. 8. But don't buy the Queen book! If you really wish to read it, you can do
so for free here: |
|
|
|
||
