Failure of Due Diligence by the National Academies Press with Regard to the Publication of “The Man Who Would Be Queen”

The National Academies Press makes the following claim with regard to Dr. Bailey’s book:

“The conclusions to which Bailey came after years of psychological profiles, statistical studies, interviews, and comparisons of his research with that [sic] fellow scientists, may not always be politically correct, but they are scientifically accurate and groundbreaking. And with the publication of this book, the field of gender studies will never be the same.”

Professor Bailey misled the National Academies Press in describing his book. The National Academies Press failed to do diligent research to determine the veracity of the information provided to them by the author. The problems that should have been identified by the National Academies Press prior to accepting the book for publication include:

Professor Bailey now claims that his book is not based on his original research, but on past research that is not presented in the book.

The conclusions are not new and controversial. In fact, they simply present old theories that have been seriously challenged for years based both on conclusions and on methodology.

The underlying research does not take into account the findings and experience of experts who have focused in depth on the nature, causes and treatment of gender dysphoria.

The source of subjects was selective and biased, drawn primarily from the clientele of gay nightclubs and poor transsexuals in need of approval letters to obtain surgery.

Professor Bailey failed to design his research method to address results that did not support his thesis.

He failed to address the possibility that subjects might present stories he favored in order to obtain letters of approval for surgery (this problem is well known in the field of gender dysphoria from similar occurrences at institutions that attempted to enforce extremely narrow rules for approval for surgery).

He failed to report in his book on interviews that ran counter to the thesis he supported.

He declined and dismissed offers from transsexuals who disagreed with his views and who offered to explain the basis of their disagreements.

He reinforced his selective data sample when he dismissed transsexuals whose lives did not fit his theory as “liars”.

He falsified the ending of a key illustrative story he used in the book.

He failed to join the primary professional association dealing with gender dysphoria and did not discuss his research results with members of the association, except for a member who was known to share his viewpoint.

A significant amount of material in the book was obtained from interviews with transsexual women who were in dire need of letters of approval for surgery from a Ph.D. level psychologist and that he provided such letters in return for the interviews.

He provided approval letters for gender reassignment surgery without acquainting himself with the large body of expertise available from the professional group that established the guidelines for approval.

He failed to inform subjects that the interviews he conducted, which they thought to be solely for the purpose of approving them for surgery, were to be used in research or in his book.