Financing Insurance Workplace Legal issues Name choice Name change Driver’s license Birth certificate Passport Marriage Will Other documents
Hair removal Voice Facial feminization Hair loss Reproduction Hormones Orchiectomy Vaginoplasty Breast implants Injected silicone Breast forms Movement Tall clothing Skin care Makeup Handwriting
Simon LeVay on transsexualism
Simon LeVay is a researcher who is strongly supportive of labeling sexual minorities as biologically distinct or even diseased. This overview is part of the Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence (BBL) clearinghouse and focuses on LeVay's treatment of transgender women who are not exclusively attracted to males. LeVay's thinking on this topic is heavily influenced by a small group of sexologists who assert that interest in feminization often stems from psychosexual pathology, hereafter called the "BBL model" of gender expression.
Bias and sexual separatism in LeVay's textbook
LeVay co-authored an undergraduate textbook called Human Sexuality with Sharon Valente. This textbook is heavily tinged with essentialist and masculist dogma, with only the most cursory descriptions of opposing views and scientific evidence. LeVay describes biological differences based on sex as "society's deepest divide."
As I discuss in my essay on disease models of gender variance, LeVay's sexological worldview can be directly traced to the 19th-century eugenics movement, particularly in Germany. One of LeVay's major influences, Magnus Hirschfeld, also believed in "justice through science" (which was the motto of Hirschfeld's Scientific Humanitarian Committee). We all know where this school of thought led by mid-century in Germany.
Like the race scientists who influenced Nazism by emphasizing biological differences of ethnic minorities, these sex scientists seek to shore up what they feel are important distinctions between anatomical and sexual minorities by extrapolating behavioral determinism from minor biological differences.
This was called "sociobiology" after the term "eugenics" fell into disrepute, though the preferred terms as of this update are "behavioral genetics," "evolutionary psychology" or more generally, "human biodiversity."
The bias in LeVay's 2003 textbook is especially evident in the three most cited
These three researchers are best known for dividing males into two unequivocal sexual orientations: homosexual and nonhomosexual. Blanchard even merits a photograph on page 471, in addition to several pages of uncritical praise about Blanchards often questionable methodology and conclusions (see Blanchard section below).
LeVay's connections to these three researchers illuminate his (and their) biased conclusions about gender identity and expression.
LeVay and J. Michael Bailey
Ideologically and academically, LeVay has aligned himself most closely with psychology professor J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University. Both received considerable attention from the mainstream media in the early 1990s for published claims regarding biological markers of homosexuality.
Bailey's conclusions were based on studies of twins.  In 1991, LeVay published "A difference in hypothalamic structure between homosexual and heterosexual men" in Science Magazine, claiming he had found a difference between gay and straight brains, located in the interior nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH 3).  Based on brain tissue taken from 41 autopsies, LeVay asserted that the area was twice as large in heterosexual men. This led to a flurry of publicity in the mainstream press.
This area of the brain had been of interest to eugenics researchers in the past. Advocates of psychosurgery to "cure" gays as "a matter of public health policy" proposed a "treatment" in which they would destroy that part of gay prisoners' brains in exchange for release from prison. British medical journal Lancet applauded this experiment, noting that "castration is open to criticism on ethical grounds while psychosurgery is not."
Though the mainstream press was largely uncritical of LeVay's claims, his peers were less enthusiastic. Among the many criticisms of LeVay's methodology:
For the most thorough critical review of LeVay's work and his place in the history of the American eugenics movement, please see Nancy Ordover's American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism, pages 57-124. Ordover notes, "Nothing in the long medicalization of homosexuality has ever displaced what came before. What we have seen instead is additive causation theories." 
This is especially evident in how these researchers shill for each other. Since their moment in the spotlight, Bailey and LeVay have a long history of academic logrolling. In 1999, Bailey called LeVay "appropriately opinionated" when praising LeVay's Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality, proclaiming it "The best book yet on the origins of sexual orientation"  Bailey also uses LeVay's Human Sexuality textbook in his undergraduate sexuality course.
Bailey, who has suggested homosexuality is an "evolutionary mistake"  and a "developmental error,"  published The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism in 2003.  LeVay writes: "I read the manuscript before publication at the request of the publisher and, as I recall, made a few suggestions for improvements. I think that the quote from me that appeared on the front cover was in that review--the publisher asked for my permission to use it." When asked about others who might have reviewed the manuscript, LeVay stated, "I don't know who read it besides myself."  LeVay appears at the top of the front cover of Bailey's book, proclaiming the book is "absolutely splendid."
Bailey exhibits all the hallmarks of what John Money called "malignant
bisexuality."  As of this update, Bailey is under investigation
at Northwestern University for a wide range of ethical charges, including sex
with a research subject from one of his federally-funded sex research studies.
 This situation is being monitored closely and will be discussed on this
clearinghouse as information becomes available.
LeVay and Kurt Freund
Kurt Freund was the head of the gender program at Toronto's notorious Clarke Institute until shortly before his suicide. Freund's most influential achievement was the development of phallometric testing, especially the penile plethysmograph, a controversial device that measures blood flow in the genitals while the subject is exposed to images or audio recordings of materials some people find erotic. Proponents claim the devices are an accurate gauge of sexual arousal, although results are highly variable and open to interpretation and manipulation by both the test subject and the observer. The device is not admissible as evidence in most US courts for that reason.
Freund developed the device in the 1950's to catch recruits in Czechoslovakia trying to get out of the military by falsely claiming to be gay. Freund later immigrated to Canada, and the device replaced the earlier "fruit machine" developed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as part of "the identification and dismissal of every gay person in the employ of the public service." 
LeVay's textbook cites Freund's work claiming he never encountered a male bisexual,  and Freund's and Blanchard's belief that transwomen attracted to other women suffer from a "courtship disorder." 
Freund was also mentor to Ray Blanchard, who took over at The Clarke after Freund's suicide. See the discussion of plethysmography on this site for more on Freund's legacy and its damaging effects on gender-variant people.
LeVay and Ray Blanchard
LeVay's thinking on gender variance and transsexualism is also heavily influenced by Ray Blanchard at Toronto's notorious Clarke Institute. LeVay completely buys into a sex-fueled mental illness Blanchard created to describe transsexual women not exclusively attracted to males. Blanchard calls this disease "autogynephilia," a type of "paraphilia" in which Blanchard collapses any non-heteronormative transsexual sexuality, even no sexuality.
LeVay claims that a "paraphilia" like Blanchard's "autogynephilia"
is a problem, and in any medical model, problem = diagnosis. From LeVay's discussion
LeVay then locates "transvestic fetishism" between obscene phone calls and rape in terms of prevalence.  LeVay follows Blanchard in claiming there are "two types" of transsexuals: homosexual (which is OK by him) and "autogynephilic" (which by his textbook definition describes "problematic sexual desire or behavior"). When I asked why he feels that transsexuals attracted to other women have "illnesses that need treatment," he replied:
Unfortunately, this claim does not appear in the textbook. LeVay prefers to link transsexualism with pedophilia, as he tried to do with Stanford biologist Joan Roughgarden at a sexuality lecture (see below).
LeVay and Anne Lawrence
The most vocal "victim" who claims to be suffering from "autogynephilia" is sexologist Anne Lawrence. Because people can only imagine and explain feelings in the language they have available, it makes sense that a physician like Lawrence would conceptualize any behaviors or the thoughts that cause them as problem = disease.
Autogynephilia describes a sex-fueled mental illness that lumps gender variance in with sex crimes. BBL believe that "paraphilias" cluster, meaning that they believe that autogynephiles are more likely to be aroused by children, corpses, excrement and other illegal and socially unacceptable things. This diagnosis was widely ignored after Blanchard first suggested it in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease in 1989.  By the end of his series of papers, Blanchard was shoehorning other behaviors into his model with crackpot variants like partial autogynephilia.  However, Blanchard and his colleagues had enough influence in this rarely-studied subspecialty to get autogynephilia mentioned in the DSM.  The work would have remained an obscure intradisciplinary skirmish until Lawrence found Blanchards articles in 1997, during a time of great need.
Lawrence has claimed to be a "real transsexual," which raises the question of why Lawrence feels a need to make an assertion of authenticity. As Lawrence notes, There are many human behaviors that look like the same thing, but really aren't.  Previous medical attempts to catalogue behavior like Lawrences were not only pathologizing, but insulting: People like Lawrence were transvestitic applicants for sex reassignment  who are aging  and distressed,  suffering from pseudotranssexualism,  a non-transsexual variant of gender identity disorder (GIDAANT),  and iatrogenic artifact.  Lawrence found in Blanchard a definition that allowed Lawrence to be a "real transsexual."
Many would argue that Lawrence is in fact part of a long line of crossdressing physicians with access to medical technology not usually available to people with their erotic interests. In fact, it seems likely that Lawrence entered medicine in part because of an erotic interest in medicalized feminization. In Lawrence's case, this seems to have manifested itself as an erotic interest in ritualized genital modification, an interest Lawrence indulged in 1996.  Unfortunately for Lawrence, this did not "cure" whatever "problem" Lawrence had. As I discuss in The Anne Who Would Be Queen, Lawrence left anesthesiology after increasingly "bizarre behavior" at work culminated in a 1997 incident where Lawrence checked a sedated patient for ritualized genital modification.
Like Bailey, Lawrence has all the hallmarks of a self-hating crossdresser with an erotic interest in transsexuals, or more precisely, transsexualism (the process and procedures). As I discuss in my essay "Wannabes," Lawrence appears to have transitioned as a strategy to have wider access to a dating pool with the object of desire. Lawrence's reputation as the "gender convention lothario" has been reported by many witnesses.
Robbed of prestige and power after the forced resignation, Lawrence turned to medicine once again for a disease that would explain Lawrence's self-hatred and "bizarre behavior." Discovering Blanchard was clearly revelatory for Lawrence, who now had a diagnosis to explain what happened. Suddenly, this forgotten diagnosis had a vocal and influential champion. I dismantle the pseudoscience behind autogynephilia in a longer essay elsewhere.  Lawrence not only found a "respected authority," but someone who could elevate Lawrence back to the status of "respected authority" as well. Another symbiotic academic relationship was born. Blanchard and Lawrence remain joined at the hip to this day, frequently referring to each other in papers and lecturing at the same conventions.
Several readers with autism wrote to me after I began exploring disease models of gender identity to express their suspicions that Lawrence may have Asperger's Syndrome or some other form of autism. My own encounters with Lawrence leave me inclined to believe Lawrence's poor socialization may be a sign of some neurological issue. It is also my suspicion that Lawrence and Bailey may be taking different strategies to deal with the same issue: one underwent feminization as part of an erotic interest, and the other didn't. Transsexual women transition to live as women; Lawrence appears to have transitioned to live and identify as a "real transsexual."
When I asked LeVay why he believed transsexual women attracted to other women had a pathological paraphilia, he replied, "In the second edition of the book, which will be out in about a year from now, we emphasize more clearly our view that the majority of sexual variations are not pathological and don't call for medical treatment."
Unfortunately, BBL do consider this pathological, even though Lawrence insists the few who embrace this diagnosis do not declare ourselves sick. Not morally sick, anyway, but physically sick. Lawrences self-descriptions have remarkable parallels with descriptions of binge-and-purge cycles among crossdressers who hate their behavior, or those afflicted with unwanted homosexuality:
Swap autogynephilia with the word homosexuality, and Lawrences comment would feel right at home in a NARTH publication. Lawrences problem is not self-love, but self-hate.
LeVay and Joan Roughgarden
LeVay's belief that transsexual women who aren't exclusively attracted to men are all "paraphilics" is evident in his interactions in 2003 with Stanford evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden. Roughgarden is a highly respected theorist whose book Evolution's Rainbow has received considerable critical praise from peers and in the mainstream press since its 2004 publication. At the time Bailey's book came out, LeVay was lecturing at Stanford University. He invited Roughgarden to share a stage in his sexuality class along with a pedophilia advocacy group called the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Roughgarden declined LeVay's attempt to suggest a link between gender identity and pedophilia, but later joined him in a lecture to correct many of his misstatements about the biology of sex and sexuality.
For more on this dispute, please see LeVay's review of Roughgarden  and Roughgarden's account of her dealings with LeVay. 
LeVay is a dilettante, having tried his hand at all sorts of things over the years, from fiction to astrobiology. This jack-of-all-trades dabbling and personal belief in binaries of sex, sexuality, and gender identity may help explain the lack of sophistication in his thinking about transwomen.
LeVay's connections to Bailey, Blanchard and their theories are clearly part of a mutually beneficial arrangement to promote each others' work and books about sexuality. "Nonhomosexual" transsexual women conflict with their definitions and ideologies, so these women get marginalized in order to shore up BBL's and LeVay's theories about sexuality and "maleness."
In the meantime, expect these names to continue popping up in the mainstream press whenever they need some "expert" to reassure everyone that sexual minorities are fundamentally different than the general public. Transactivist Kate Bornstein notes, "A dominant culture tends to combine its subcultures into manageable units," and the dominant culture in this country has found the perfect stooges for managing sexuality in LeVay and his like-minded colleagues.
See also Lynn Conway's article:
Simon LeVay's gay-gene promotional tour: Uses scare tactics to bias thinking about Northwestern's gay-gene study
1. LeVay S, Valente S (2003). Human Sexuality. Sinauer, p. 123.
2. Bailey JM, Pillard RC (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation.
Archives of General Psychiatry. 1991 Dec;48(12):1089-96.
3. LeVay S (1991). A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science. 1991 Aug 30;253(5023):1034-7.
4. Ordover N (2003). American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science
of Nationalism. University of Minnesota Press, 2003. p 65.
5. Ordover N (2003). American Eugenics p. 68.
6. Bailey JM (1999). Review of Queer Science, 1 January 1999. via Amazon.com.
7. Bailey JM (2003). KOOP radio interview.
8. Bailey JM (1999). Homosexuality and mental illness. Archives of General
Psychiatry. 1999 Oct;56(10):883-4.
9. Bailey JM (2003). The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending
and Transsexualism. Joseph Henry Press.
10. LeVay S (2004). personal correspondence with the author, 13 November.
11. Money J (1990). Gay, Straight, and In-Between: The Sexology of Exotic Orientation. Oxford University Press. p. 108-110.
12 Conway L (2004). Timeline of unfolding events in the Bailey case.
13. Sawatsky J. Men in the Shadows: The R.C.M.P. Security Service. 1980, Doubleday. ISBN: 0-385-14682-5 / 0385146825 See also the chapter "The homosexual witchhunt" reprinted in Body Politic No. 63 May 1980 pp. 21-23
14 LeVay S, Human Sexuality p. 201.
15 LeVay S, Human Sexuality p. 471, citing Freund and Blanchard.
16. LeVay S, Human Sexuality p. 454.
17 LeVay S, Human Sexuality p. 455.
18. LeVay S (2004). personal correspondence with the author, 13 November.
19. Blanchard (1989). The concept of autogynephilia [sic] and the typology
of male gender dysphoria. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1989
20. Blanchard R (1993). Partial versus complete autogynephilia [sic]
and gender dysphoria. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 1993 Winter;19(4):301-7.
21. Bradley SJ, Blanchard R, Coates S, Green R, Levine SB, Meyer-Bahlburg HFL,
Pauly IB, Zucker KJ. Interim report of the DSM-IV subcommittee on gender identity.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 20, 1991, No. 4, pp. 333-343.
22. Lawrence AA (1999). Autogynephilia [sic]: Frequently-Asked Questions
23. Wise TN, Meyer JK (1980). The border area between transvestism and gender
dysphoria: transvestic applicants for sex reassignment. Archives of Sexual
Behavior. 1980 Aug;9(4):327-42.
24. Lothstein LM (1979). Psychological treatment of transsexualism and sexual
identity disorders: some recent attempts. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
25. Wise TN, Dupkin C, Meyer JK (1981). Partners of distressed transvestites.
American Journal of Psychiatry. 1981 Sep;138(9):1221-4.
26. Wise TN, Lucas J (1981). Pseudotranssexualism: iatrogenic gender dysphoria.
Journal of Homosexuality. 1981 Spring;6(3):61-6.
27. American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III-R).
28. Moser C, Kleinplatz PJ (2002). Transvestic fetishism: psychopathology or
iatrogenic artifact? New Jersey Psychologist, 52 (2) 16-17.
29. Lawrence AA (1996). Taking Portlandias hand: sex reassignment surgery
30. James AJ (2004). Autogynephilia: a disputed diagnosis.
31. Lawrence AA (2000). Sexuality and transsexuality: A new introduction to
32. Lawrence AA (2004). Posted as autogynephile1, 25 August 2004.
33. LeVay S (2003). Evolutions Rainbow by Joan Roughgarden
34. Conway L (2003). Making connections regarding psychologist Simon LeVay
35. Bornstein K (1995). Gender Outlaw. Vintage. p. 3.
LeVay lists himself as co-founder of the Institute of Gay and Lesbian Education
(IGLE), which had a web presence here:
The phone number for IGLE is now listed for the Coalition Of Pets & Public Safety. The address is listed as the June Mazer Gallery.
On 13 November 2004, LeVay requested that I remove his contact information from this page. As of this update, researchers interested in contacting him can reach him through his personal website or at: SLeVay@aol.com. You may also be able to reach him through contact information via Google.