General Information Staff Subscribe Donor Information Archives Syndicate Chronicle Headlines Other News articles		Academic McCarthyism For the first time in public, NU Prof. J. Michael Bailey answers allegations of ethical and sexual misconduct Posted 10-09-2005, 14:29 by J. Michael Bailey I appreciate the opportunity the Northwestern Chronicle has given me to provide my account of the events concerning my book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, and the controversies that followed its release. Since the summer of 2003, I have refrained, on the advice of my lawyer, from responding publicly to accusations against me. I now believe I am in a position to do so, and that I should do so, both for my sake and for the sake of free speech. Understanding these events requires an understanding of the history and content of my book, and so I begin there. Anjelica Kieltyka and the Origins of TMWWBQ I met Anjelica Kieltyka in 1994. She'd contacted me because of media reports about my research. She was an extraordinarily enthusiastic and open conversationalist. She did not fit my stereotype of a transsexual woman. She was rather unfeminine, with some very male-typical interests like working on car engines. As a male, Chuck's (Kieltyka's previous male name) primary sexual preoccupation had been masturbating in the role of a woman – as an adolescent he cross-dressed in female lingerie, often looking at himself in the mirror, and masturbated. Later, he incorporated "props" such as fake vaginas, fake breasts and feminizing masks. He would film himself wearing them and masturbating. The transition of Chuck to Anjelica seemed, in a very strong sense, sexually motivated. Getting a female body was the realization of intense and persistent sexual fantasies that had motivated Chuck's fetishistic activities. Kieltyka was enmeshed in a community of transsexual women who seemed fundamentally different from her. These women (to whom Kieltyka was often attracted) were much more feminine than Kieltyka was, and they were also much more convincing and attractive as women. They were attracted only to men, and none of them had ever engaged in the kind of fetishistic activities that had obsessed Kieltyka before Chuck became Anjelica. Rather, nearly all of them had attempted to live life as gay men, but this had not quite worked for them; they preferred living as women. The stark contrast between Kieltyka and her transsexual friends led me to consult the scientific literature, and I discovered that scientist Ray Blanchard had done a great deal of research demonstrating the existence of two fundamentally different subtypes of male-to-female transsexuals. One type, which included Kieltyka's friends, appeared to be motivated primarily by innate femininity, and by the desire to become attractive women in order to attract heterosexual men. Blanchard called these "homosexual transsexuals." The other type, which included Kieltyka, is motivated primarily by "autogynephilia." Autogynephilia is the erotic orientation of a male toward the fantasy that he is female. Autogynephilic males are best conceived as heterosexual men who are most attracted to women they create inside themselves. Once I understood the two types of male-to-female transsexuals, I wondered why virtually no one else seemed aware of them. The media invariably presented the "women trapped in men's bodies" story, which certainly did not fit the autogynephilic picture. Nor did it really do justice to the complexity of homosexual transsexuals' motivation. Partly to rectify this, I decided to write a popular science book including a section on transsexuals. I decided this in November of 1997, years after I had first met Kieltyka. Over these years we'd had many conversations at my office or over the phone, several visits to clubs and bars to see transgendered performers, and visits by Kieltyka to speak to my large Human Sexuality class. When I told Kieltyka about my writing plans, she was delighted and enthusiastic. I asked the permission of others I wished to include, promising to change their names. Kieltyka insisted that I use her real name. I had several more conversations with Kieltyka and others to get details correct, and to get vivid stories to make the book less dry. Late in the summer of 1998, I finally wrote a draft of the transsexual chapters, a draft that is quite similar to what was eventually published. I gave Kieltyka the draft in the fall of 1998, for her feedback. She was disturbed by what I had written – not by my depictions of her actions, such as fetishistic cross-dressing or wearing fake vaginas, but by my description of her as "masculine" and by my interpreting her transsexualism as an instance of autogynephilia. She asked that I change her name, and so I did, to "Cher." She did not ask that I remove her story from the chapters. Our relationship remained cordial, although she continued to try to convince me that I was wrong about her. I did not find her arguments persuasive. The Attack on TMWWBQ My book was published in March of 2003. (I had delayed finishing the book for several years due to other concerns.) The book was released to stores, and published for free on the Web site of the National Academy of Sciences. Almost immediately after publication, I became aware of an organized campaign against the book, spearheaded by Lynn Conway, a retired electrical engineering professor at the University of Michigan and a transsexual woman. During April, she dedicated a large portion of her Web site to my book, first as a place for criticism, then as a rallying point for "investigation." She wrote to scientists who had "blurbed" the book's cover, including Steven Pinker and David Buss, asking them to reconsider their positive comments. On April 21, Conway managed to use her influence at the National Academy of Sciences – she is a close friend of the wife of an officer there – to have the book removed from its Web site for a few hours. On April 22 she sent an e-mail to numerous transsexual organizations calling TMWWBQ "transsexual women's worst nightmare [that will someday] be viewed as very analogous to the Nazi propaganda films about Jews in WWII." Another Web site, run by transsexual Andrea James, closely linked to and from Conway's, contained even more hostile material. For example, in April, she constructed a page of "satire" by taking images of my children from my Web page and putting obscene passages by them – writing that I had sodomized them, for example. James also contacted everyone I had thanked for their efforts on my book, and threatened them menacingly. Conway, James and their associates portrayed themselves as transsexuals' protectors and me as transsexuals' enemy. Both of these portrayals are false. Most people who have read my book believe that I provided a very sympathetic treatment of transsexuals. Quite a few transsexuals have contacted me about my book. Although a number of them have been hostile in the Conway-James vein, the majority of their e-mails have been congratulatory. Some transsexuals said they had never understood themselves before reading the book, and at least two have credited it with their decision to become women. Others have said it was about time someone wrote about these important, but forbidden, topics. Conway's and James' claims to be "transsexual mentors and advocates" (they sometimes signed correspondence this way) were also false. Indeed, they reserved great cruelty for transsexual women who disagreed with them about my book. For example, James found and published a formal medical complaint against Anne Lawrence, a transsexual physician who has written eloquently and favorably about autogynephilia; James failed to publish the fact that a formal investigation cleared Lawrence. She called Willow Arune (another transsexual woman sympathetic to the ideas in my book) a man, and threatened to publish the false accusation that Arune was a convicted sex offender. When a group of young transsexuals launched a Web site endorsing some of the ideas I wrote about, James demanded that they be "vectored and exposed," that their identities be made public so they could be harassed. Conway and James are not protectors of transsexuals. Rather, they are the fierce guardians of the myth that transsexuals are women trapped in men's bodies, and attackers of theories less flattering to them, especially autogynephilia theory. The Complaints On May 4, Kieltyka sent an e-mail to Conway (who promptly posted it on her Web site) revealing that she was "Cher" in TMWWBQ. Although she made clear her continued disagreement with me about autogynephilia, she also said she continued to respect me. Kieltyka and I continued to have a cordial relationship. This changed in mid-June, when Conway and James made a "field trip" to Chicago to meet with Kieltyka and other transsexual women (most of whom I had not written about). I do not know exactly what happened during this meeting, but Kieltyka's attitude toward me changed abruptly. On July 4, I learned that Kieltyka had filed a formal complaint against me at Northwestern's Institutional Review Board (IRB), the body that oversees the certification of research for ethical approval. The complaint stated that I had conducted research without Kieltyka's consent. This was the first time I had contemplated whether what I had written about Kieltyka comprised formal research. I had been at Northwestern for 14 years, and I knew well that formal research requires ethical approval and written informed consent. I have routinely obtained such approval and consent in my research. I had never considered my transsexual writings to be research for two main reasons. First, I had never set out to study Kieltyka, but had gotten to know her informally. Because I had no research intentions, I had no systematic research plan or method. Second, I did not consider what I wrote to be scientific discovery. Research advances knowledge rather than illustrating what we already know. But Kieltyka's story exemplified the ideas of Blanchard, who had done the original research. Although I had not asked Kieltyka to sign a consent form, she certainly consented to my writing about her. She was enthusiastic when I decided to in 1997. She read the draft of the chapters about her in 1998, nearly five years before the book was published. Nor can she plausibly claim that I harmed her. It was she who compromised her own anonymity, in her e-mail to Conway. The facts about Kieltyka's life and sexuality had been provided in a variety of very public venues, including lectures to large classes. Kieltyka and "Juanita," a homosexual transsexual prostitute, who also filed a complaint, had both been filmed for an educational video on transsexualism. In this video, for which they signed a consent form with a textbook publisher, they revealed virtually everything I wrote about in my book. There is no plausible argument that either transsexual was embarrassed by the facts I revealed. The attacks by Conway, James and others, and the complaint by Kieltyka, were clearly motivated by dislike of the ideas in the book. The purpose of the attacks and complaints was to punish me for writing the book, to silence me if possible, and to intimidate and discourage others from defending the ideas in my book, especially the idea of autogynephilia. This is obvious to anyone who examines the massive record available on the Internet (but one must ignore Conway's interpretations of the information, the goal of which is to get me into the greatest amount of trouble). I believe this was also obvious to Northwestern officials, who pondered my fate during July of 2003. Furious transsexuals wrote threatening letters to Northwestern, saying that if Northwestern did not formally investigate me, they would pursue litigation and take their case to federal agencies. Such threats are effective at universities. During the past decade, there have been several highly publicized cases in which a university's entire research program was temporarily halted by the federal government, due to concerns about the school's IRB. And so Northwestern capitulated. On July 29, I was informed that there would be a preliminary inquiry into the complaints against me. The Committee would ascertain whether a full investigation was necessary. I would be investigated for "scientific misconduct" for not properly obtaining informed consent for scientific research. I retained a lawyer, who advised me to avoid any public comment on the substance of the complaints. On November 14, I learned from a Chicago Tribune reporter (who had been tipped off by Kieltyka) that I would be subject to a full-scale investigation. Inquiries and investigations of this kind are highly unusual at Northwestern, even for faculty who conduct research without proper approval (and I deny that I did so). Those situations have almost always been resolved at the IRB itself, through instructions to the researcher not to repeat the error. I was singled out in this public and formal manner due to the determined and organized nature of the transsexual women – a fact that a Northwestern attorney alluded to. Further Accusations and Attacks When Northwestern decided to subject me to a full investigation, it declined to pursue a separate complaint, by Juanita, that I had had sex with her. The transsexual attackers immediately released her complaint to the press, and articles were published in The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Daily Northwestern. Soon afterwards, I learned I was being investigated (at the instigation of Kieltyka, Conway, James and comrades) by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for my alleged membership in the "Human Biodiversity Institute." In fact, I am a member of an e-mail discussion group, called the "Human Biodiversity List," with some individuals the SPLC disapproves of. This includes, for example, Steve Sailer (the moderator), Charles Murray and Phil Rushton, all of whom have written controversial pieces on matters including intelligence, race and sex. In January a report was issued by the SPLC that resulted in further articles in the Chronicle and the Daily. Strangely for a book that has been compared to Nazi propaganda, TMWWBQ was nominated for a Lambda Literary Award in their "Transgender/GenderQueer" category. Lambda awards are "given annually to recognize excellence in gay and lesbian writing and publishing in the United States during the preceding year." Naturally, Conway and colleagues went ballistic and orchestrated an intensive lobbying campaign. On March 12, the Lambda Literary Foundation announced that my book had been removed as a finalist. From the time she allied herself with Conway to the present date, Kieltyka has called many of my colleagues, close and distant, to discuss me. These conversations are invariably described to me as meandering and bizarre, and they often concern various conspiracies that Kieltyka attributes to me. One of these is the "gay germ" conspiracy, a plan to prevent homosexuality by killing the germs that allegedly cause it. (I am in fact open to the possibility that microorganisms can affect sexual orientation, but I have no desire to prevent homosexuality.) Recently, Kieltyka appears to have split with Conway, whom she accuses of being involved in massive conservative conspiracies. I have come to accept that I will have the enmity of Conway, James and friends for life. Whenever they have the opportunity to attack me, they will take it. This happened in July, after an article on my lab's research on bisexual men was featured in The New York Times. An eruption of activity on their Web sites, and a flood of furious letters to the Times, followed. So be it. The pursuit of truth has many enemies, and it is a scholar's duty to thwart them. My Response to the Complaints and Accusations Against Me Research and Informed Consent. When I was first accused of scientific misconduct by Kieltyka, I did not believe that I had done anything wrong, but I was also unsure about the precise guidelines concerning which writing requires IRB approval. I became an expert on this question during the investigation, and my intuition had been correct. The definition of "research" used by the federal government and by Northwestern University is "systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge." If these words have any clear meaning beyond "whatever a professor writes," they cannot mean what I wrote about Kieltyka and Juanita. "Systematic investigation" cannot mean getting to know someone via informal conversations with no intention of writing about them. "Contributing to generalizable knowledge" cannot mean using stories about individuals to illustrate established scientific theories. Indeed, "case studies" are explicitly exempt from IRB review, both by the federal government and by Northwestern. Northwestern's investigation was for "scientific misconduct," which includes serious deviations from established practice. "Research misconduct is to be distinguished from honest error and differences of interpretation." I do not believe that anyone – even someone who believes that my book is research – can plausibly argue that I committed such misconduct. Northwestern's investigation concluded during the fall of 2004. Neither NU officials nor I will discuss results of the investigation. However, I will say that if the investigative committee did its job, I was cleared. In evaluating my research ethics, it is important not to get lost in the technicalities. I wrote about people with their permission. If I were not a university professor (or professional researcher), I would be under no obligation to get IRB approval to write about people, even if I chose to do so without their permission, and even if what I wrote fit the formal definition of research. Journalists do this all the time, and we are all better off that they can. I am of course bound to adhere to Northwestern's rules and to federal laws, even if they are bad rules and laws. I insist that I have done so. However, like many other academics, I believe that IRBs have overstepped any reasonable mandate of protecting research subjects from real harms (such as risky medical procedures) and often have an inhibitory effect on free speech. University of Chicago Law Professor Phillip Hamburger has argued cogently that IRBs violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, because IRBs license speech to some individuals (journalists) and not to others (scientists), and they have the result of making people believe they have less liberty than the Constitution guarantees them. With him, I hope that someday the IRB system will change, and that we will look back at the present as a dark time for academic freedom. Sex With a "Research Subject." This charge was clearly intended to embarrass me rather than to protect a research subject. The complainant was, after all, a prostitute. I offer two responses. First, there is nothing intrinsically wrong or forbidden about having sex with a research subject (and I insist that Juanita was not a research subject). Some of my colleagues have had sex with their research subjects, because it is not unusual to ask one's romantic partner to be a subject. Even if Juanita's complaint were true, there is nothing wrong with what she claims. But her "complaint" is not true. The alleged event never happened. If I ever needed to do so, I could prove this, but there is no reason why I should. My Membership in the Human Biodiversity Institute. To my knowledge, there is no "Institute" per se, and if there is, I am not a member. I remain a member of the Human Biodiversity Institute e-mail discussion list. The discussions include sensitive topics, such as sex and race differences. I find some postings on the list fascinating and useful, and others disagreeable for various reasons. I do not need to agree with everything people say in order to associate with them. The report by the SPLC was inept, as far as it discussed my ideas. Furthermore, anyone who knows of Joseph McCarthy's excesses should be repelled by the implication that I should be investigated for associating with intellectuals who discuss taboo topics. Whatever its former merits, the SPLC has become an organization not worth the support of any liberal-minded person. Conclusions The story of my book and the attacks on it had many subplots, but the basic plot was simple. Individuals who hated an idea tried to prevent the idea from spreading. Here they have clearly failed. Although I was frustrated in the 1990s that Blanchard's brilliant ideas were barely known, that is no longer true. Everyone truly interested in transsexualism has heard about autogynephilia, for example. Web sites have been started for both autogynephilic transsexuals and homosexual transsexuals. Many more people know about my book than would if Conway had never attacked me. It is also striking to me that such an accomplished and intelligent woman as she has utterly failed to provide any convincing scientific critique of Blanchard's ideas. Of course, much research remains to be done about transsexualism, and there is much we still don't know. I have faith that the truth will come out, and I believe that the truth will be much closer to what I wrote in TMWWBQ than to the tired old mantra that transsexuals are all merely women trapped in men's bodies. I have always been drawn to issues that matter, and the ferocity of the opposition to the ideas in TMWWBQ demonstrates that the issues there mattered, at least to some. There are things I would have done differently – although I do not believe I was conducting research requiring IRB approval, I would certainly have gotten approval if I had known what trouble it would have prevented. But I most certainly would not have avoided writing something I believed was true and important because it enraged a sensitive group. And be assured, I will not in the future. Email this Article Printer-friendly version Author J. Michael Bailey [e-mail] Reader Feedback Post a comment Name E-mail address Subject   Comment Lessons of McCarthy by Michael (masterd64357@aol.com) on 11-27-2006, 12:08 The maelstrom surrounding Dr. Bailey's book, although, somewhat traumatic for Dr. Bailey himself, has served to foment a healthy public discourse that is certainly needed given the stereotypes that envelope the transgender community. These stereotypes continue to be promulgated by the media and poplular culture, information sources that add little to the understanding of what this very curious lifestyle is all about and what it is not about. Having known many transgendered women and many fetishists in my lifetime and having owned and operated an adult Whore or Liar -- Pick 1. by Julie (furrycatherder@gmail.com) on 11-23-2006, 15:12 (Original post truncated, trying again ...) I forget the exact chronology of events as it has been several years now. At some point in time, about the time Dr. Bailey published TMWWBQ, I contacted Dr. Bailey by e-mail and engaged in what I'd hoped would be a civil discussion on the subject of Autogynephilia and my continued belief that homosexual / autogynephilic transsexual is a false dichotomy. In other words, that there are more than just the two types of transsexuality posited by Dr. Bailey. What I found most offensive about Dr. Bailey's response above is this sentence -- // It is also striking to me that such an accomplished and intelligent woman as she has utterly failed to provide any convincing scientific critique of Blanchard's ideas. // The reason that no one has provided 'any convincing scientific critique of Blanchard's ideas' is because Dr. Bailey insists -- as he insisted to me via e-mail -- that anyone who is, in his opinion, 'autogynephilic', is lying if they claim they are not, or more particularly, lying about whatever details of their life they use to oppose being labelled 'autogynephilic'. The flaw in Blanchard's work is fairly simple -- he extends one conclusion to another without validating the second conclusion. This flaw occurs because Blanchard rules out any possibility that whatever it is about so-called 'homosexual transsexuals that makes sex change socially advantageous is exclusive to androphilic males. It's just that simple. Blanchard's research, and this should not be surprising to anyone, shows that androphilic males seeking sex reassignment are more feminine than gynephilic males seeking sex reassignment. Blanchard's research also shows, and again I don't think this surprises anyone, that androphilic males are less likely to be sexually aroused by female images than gynephilic males. From this, Bailey concluded that gynephilc males who pursue sex reassignment are masculine and suffer from a fetishistic attraction to the image of themselves as women. Bailey never studied feminine gynephilic males, so far as I can tell, because he's stated the belief that feminine gynephilic males don't exist. Dr. Richard Green, in his work 'The Sissy Boy Syndrome and the Development of Homosexuality' was able to identify effeminate boys who would later grow into adulthood primarily attracted to women. It's in his work, you are free to read it and find it for yourselves. Gendered behavior exists across a broad range for both heterosexual and homosexual males. There is no sharp delineating point where femininity in heterosexual males stops. This is not accounted for in Bailey's work except for Bailey to claim that any gynephilic transsexual women who reports a feminine childhood is a liar. That is why no one has provided a rebuttal that satisfies Dr. Bailey -- we have, he's simply declared that we're liars. Whore or Liar -- Pick 1. by Julie (furrycatherder@gmail.com) on 11-23-2006, 15:07 I forget the exact chronology of events as it has been several years now. At some point in time, about the time Dr. Bailey published I'm very glad that there is a Lynn Conway by Marie-noelle (ebfg01@bluewin.ch) on 08-17-2006, 09:47 For decades, transsexuals have been a fair game. Anybody was free to unwind his/her sadistic tendencies and his/her prejudices against transsexuals. They did not have the strengh to defend themselves and who would defend them? They were easy target and it was an easy path to a successful career. It took a highly successful scientific reseacher and a lioness like Lynn Conway to change this. Other ones are coming too. This means that people like Colette Chiland and J. Michael Bailey will now be seriously challenged both for their research and their ethics. And the time where transsexual were unable to defend themselves against prejudiced researchers is gone. Question to anyone by Anon (anon@anon) on 11-04-2005, 08:49 Maybe some pro-Bailey person can explain this here, because I'm honestly not getting it: "Acknowledged, that Bailey in general is favorable toward transsexuals" How exactly is claiming that a group of people are all either prostitutes by nature or lying perverts being "favorable" or "sympathetic" to them? If that's sympathy, then geez, what's contempt? I'm with Dr. George Brown by mike (chicagopianist@yahoo.com) on 11-03-2005, 11:40 [former research administrator, and gay man] Acknowledged, that Bailey in general is favorable toward transsexuals, but how you may or may not feel about his arguments about autogynephilia or whatnot, that is not at all the point: Really no matter how hard Bailey tries to dance on the head of an ethical pin, it's still rather obvious that: ANYONE should know better than do anything that even LOOKS like research without IRB no matter how much of a pain you think it is [ and yes it should be revamped and simplified, or additional administrators hired to lead and assist] researchers should also better acknowledge that doing research is a PRIVILEGE, and to show accordingly more care in Following the Rules for the privilege of living their relatively elite lifestyles. The very existence of all these strange hyper-mini-subject-matter mini/pseudo research subjects out there and the tempests in teapots associated with them is evidence that academics in general has grown rather insular, culturally isolated and increasingly irrelevant to society at large. And to those of us who count ourselves as glad to be no longer in research [i am now a happy and successful artist] it all just really makes everyone concerned with the brou-haha [on both/all sides] look really kind of silly and foolish. Bailey's desires by anon (anon2@anon2.com) on 10-29-2005, 14:47 Should non-trans people be busying themselves trying to pick apart, examine, and "study" our lives? Like we're not enough of a spectacle for people already? It's just offensive, no matter how "sympathetic" it may be, or even if there's a grain of truth to some of it. Where is this fascination coming from? It seems pretty obvious that Bailey is just a tranny-chaser who channels his intense sexual desires into what he imagines is objective scholarship. What else could possibly motivate a non-trans man to be so obsessed with our lives? The World Needs More Baileys, Not Less by Patrick (anon@anon.com) on 10-27-2005, 10:17 Wow, I didn't realize how intolerant some transexuals could be! "But I most certainly would not have avoided writing something I believed was true and important because it enraged a sensitive group. And be assured, I will not in the future." Bravo, Bailey! Trangender Identity In Academe by kristen worley (kristenworly@sympatico.ca) on 10-23-2005, 15:24 Trangender Identity In Academe Dr. Jillian Todd Weiss Assistant Professor of Law and Society excerpted from her Ph.D dissertation THE CUTTING EDGE OF EMPLOYMENT DIVERSITY: TRANSGENDER HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES IN U.S. EMPLOYERS ©August 2004 I was just delighted to see a response from Dr. Weiss “Re: Academic McCarthyism.” I highly recommend that anyone reading Bailey’s response, in contrasts read Dr. Weiss’s paper “Trangender Identity In Academe “, a well articulated, concise and resourced document, published August 2004. Goto: http://web.gc.cuny.edu/clags/weiss.htm As Dr. Weiss has addressed and experienced, here in Canada we are identifying with the issues of diversity as it relates to gender and the challenges ahead dealing with identity in our national and international sports system. Canada, is taking an international initiative to play a leadership role last month within the international sporting community, to develop strong science, research and education to better understand “gender identity or transgenderism” and develop consistent international policy to ensure safe acceptance and accessibility for the transgendered community to participate at any level of sport, worldwide. Eliminating “distress and impairment from societal intolerance, discrimination, violence, undeserved shame, and denial of personal freedoms that ordinary men and women take for granted.” Dr. Weiss thank-you…. Re: Academic McCarthyism by Dr. Jillian T. Weiss (jweiss@ramapo.edu) on 10-23-2005, 09:25 As a social scientist and a transsexual, I was fascinated by the controversy over Bailey's book. I read it carefully, as well as the allegations of his critics. As he says, his book was not intended to demonstrate the truth of a new scientific discovery, but was an anecdotal account of the differences between two transsexual women based on the theory of Blanchard et al. regarding autogynephelia. I'm quite sure I dislike the attacks that he describes, and I shudder to hear the impugning of his scientific and personal integrity. However, although I disagree with the the tactics of these critics, the book itself is problematic from a scientific point of view. Blanchard's theory, upon which Bailey relies, lacks convincing proof, and is not generally accepted in the scientific community, particularly HBIGDA. I do agree with the basic concept that there is more than one etiology and formation of transsexual identity, but this idea originated in the 60's with the theories of Stoller and the concept of primary and secondary transsexualism. That idea was abandoned as not useful in the treatment of transsexualism by most practioners in the 80s. The current differential diagnosis in the DSM IV, while problematic in certain aspects, is more than adequate to distinguish those who are good candidates for surgical intervention. The usefulness of the "autogynephiliac" category, other than from a pure research point of view, is, to my mind, doubtful. Bailey makes the point that his is a sympathetic treatment of transsexuals. This is true, but his obvious sympathy does not change the fact that his book uses a very small sample to portray trans women as either (1) hyperfeminine, promiscuous and more like real women, or (2) mannish, sexual perverts, and not much like real women. The use of these stereotypes without critical analysis in a "science book", popular or not, is surprising and questionable. From a feminist point of view, Bailey's book incorrectly relies on the old idea that the only real woman is a hyperfeminine, heterosexual one. To those who are not steeped in the literature, it gives the idea that psychology endorses these ideas. It does not and it should not. Dr. Jillian T. Weiss Assistant Professor of Law and Society Ramapo College Northwestern “Scholar” seeks Jerry Springer for Research Accreditation July 2003… Bailey Big Looser!! by jcunningham (jcunningh@uk.yahoo.com) on 10-21-2005, 11:25 Northwestern “Scholar” seeks Jerry Springer for Research Accreditation July 2003… Bailey Big Looser!! I read Michael Bailey’s recent letter in the Northwestern Chronicle this month great interest and with great frustration indeed as he focuses his energies on “NU IRB”, and chastising them for the way his investigation was handled. Feeling he has been singled out unfairly, and actions taken by the IRB are directly related pressures by outside forces derived from transgendered sand academic communities. I don’t think Bailey truly reads what he writes in his own defense? It is just stunning to hear a response of someone a “supposed scholar” articulates this way in his defense. Though the practice of psychology is not a “medical designation”, but there are ethical and moral boundaries that are heavily endowed in each one of us. Bailey broke all the rules, what for in the “name of science”? Bailey quotes in his recent release regarding “Sex With a “Research Subject”. Sex With a "Research Subject." This charge was clearly intended to embarrass me rather than to protect a research subject. The complainant was, after all, a prostitute. I offer two responses. First, there is nothing intrinsically wrong or forbidden about having sex with a research subject (and I insist that Juanita was not a research subject). Some of my colleagues have had sex with their research subjects, because it is not unusual to ask one's romantic partner to be a subject.” Bailey concludes this was a charge was meant to “embarrass him.” No this is not the case, Bailey violated a “woman” physically, that was persuaded by him to participate in a research study, of which he was not clear about. Juanita personal reason to agree participate was that Bailey would support and sign of her request for Sex Reassignment Surgery, which Juanita and Kieltyka made very clear to him at the get go. Bailey states to quantify his actions to NU colleagues in his current release, “The complainant was, after all, a prostitute.” So Bailey feels that he is personally empowered and above all medical ethics and virtue, as a licensed psychologist, to victimize a vulnerable client because of your assumed position. Of which she would only succumb to your wishes to ensure the medical accreditation she needed to attain to have SRS. Of which in turn Bailey used against her, and validates his grotesque behavior because she is a prostitute and that makes it okay in Bailey’s mind. Not thinking like a “scholar”, and recognizing Juanita’s vulnerability and medical needs. Taking it one step further, and saying; First, there is nothing intrinsically wrong or forbidden about having sex with a research subject (and I insist that Juanita was not a research subject). Some of my colleagues have had sex with their research subjects, because it is not unusual to ask one's romantic partner to be a subject.” Condemning other colleagues, and further suggesting this behavior and actions is okay because others do it as well within his community. What Bailey fails to admit too, that his conduct is far more reaching then assuring research consent of which there is no excuse for, and that his own personal compulsions and sexual psychological issues, are clouding facts of his professional misconduct by using his past “accreditation” to defend his credibility as a viable licensed psychologist fit to practice, let alone develop research. Fortunately for Bailey, and unfortunately for the academic community that NU investigation was done internally. If done outside the “NU IRB”, Bailey’s fate would be a lot more condemning and he would receive a much greater fate then he has already has. Bailey in his description of Anjelica Kieltyka “Cher”, is quite destructive of a personality of which he shared a 10-year professional relationship NU working with Kieltyka. It wasn’t until this specific program the wheels fell-off, and Bailey had come to know of and met Ray Blanchard. Which looking at this in-depth is an interesting parallel between both men. On July 2003 Kieltyka challenged Bailey of which he agreed too appear on the allusive Jerry Springer show, which was tilted, “PLETHYSMOGRAPH CHALLENGE”. Which Bailey and Blanchard use as a “tool” base their “theories, without any science support. As a result, it appears Bailey succumbed to his own fate, as he fell to his own testing and research results, which Kieltyka clearly did not. Of which a distinguished panel of experts who over saw the test concluded, "The interpretation of test results such as these is likely to remain an art, not a science, for a long time, if not forever. However, we suspect from what we have witnessed here today that there is a strong chance Professor Bailey is a heterosexual man who would prefer to be gay, and that he is envious of transsexual women who have medical options to change their natal genital sex, whereas there unfortunately as yet exists no method by which a straight man can be transformed into a gay man." The question has to be asked, why would Bailey feel the need and accept such a challenge as “known scholar” on such a program as Springer. As well, is Bailey and Blanchard so insecure about their theories on transsexualism that they felt he needed to appear on such a vile program as this? Is this rally about Bailey’s own sexual interests indicated by the expert panel as well as his need for “celebrity” no matter the cost and how vile an outcome? In conclusion, unfortunately is seems for the psychology community and transgendered community who are seeking medical support and social validation, are feeling the pains of these events, and that these events are extremely tragic. Because of one man’s and close colleagues own sexual interests has perverted our practice and created greater animosity amongst academics. This is a problem with in our community that needs to be addressed, and personalities like Bailey must be made accountable for their actions if the psychology community is to continue as a viable medical profession. KIELTYKA EASILY VANQUISHES BAILEY IN TELEVISED PLETHYSMOGRAPH CHALLENGE Reported to Trans World News by Sonia John, 7-20-03 Copyright @ 2003 by Sonia John Anjelica Kieltyka, a Chicago transsexual woman, artist and bon vivant, made short work of J. Michael Bailey, a controversial Northwestern University professor of psychology in their much-ballyhooed genital-arousal matchup televised nationally on the Jerry Springer show this afternoon. The competitive challenge arose from a dispute between Kieltyka and Bailey about each other's sexual arousal patterns, which came to light as the result of the publication of a book by Bailey about transsexual women, in which he divulged details of Kieltyka's private and purportedly scandalous sexual behavior. Public interest in the issue was heightened by the widespread dissemination of Kieltyka's objections regarding the veracity of the book's content and by her suggestion that the professor's work might have been motivated by considerations other than those of the typical dispassionate academic. Springer, who recently announced his candidacy for the U. S. Senate from the State of Ohio, is well-known for his television shows which frequently feature unusual sexual themes, including transsexualism. Springer noted, "I am very sensitive about the criticism that has been leveled at my shows for being shallow and sensationalistic. Although I am now a declared Senatorial candidate, I believe it would be cowardly to shy away from subject matter that I am fond of presenting to the public, even if it could have some negative impact on my chances of being elected next year. Instead, I felt that it would be better to bring a greater seriousness to the subject matter, and I decided that the best way to do this would be to address these topics in a more 'scientific' manner." The writers for the Springer show discovered the existence of a device called a plethysmograph, which is used to measure the flow of blood in various parts of the body. It can be adapted to measure blood flow in the genitals of men and women, and under controlled conditions can be used to assess a person's sexual arousal to visual, auditory, tactile, and other stimuli. The plethysmography technique is very controversial and is rarely allowed, for example, as evidence in a court of law, because the interpretation of the test results is very problematical. However, such fine distinctions are seldom of importance to an eager TV audience or to any other group whose ox is not being gored. After Ms. Kieltyka and Mr. Bailey agreed to appear on the Springer show, negotiations ensued on its format. It was decided that Kieltyka and Bailey would be allowed to select five different visual stimuli to be shown to the other person while he or she was connected to the machine. The object of the test was to ascertain what material would sexually stimulate the person being tested, and the results would also be an important demonstration of the validity of the each person's hunches about the other's sexual turn-ons. In order to guarantee an air of scientific rationality and impartiality to the show, a three-person panel was lined up to supervise the installation of the equipment and the administration of the live televised testing. The panel consisted of representatives from RUF-SODS (Righteous United Families to Stamp Out Deviant Sexuality), NARDLA (North American Rubber Ducky Love Association) and the Nobel Prize-winning former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. The visual stimuli selected by Professor Bailey for showing to Ms. Kieltyka were: 1. A photo of David Bowie and RuPaul in flagrante; 2. A photo of a Corsican shepherd anally penetrating a female hoofed ungulate; 3. A female blow-up doll wearing a burqa that had been slashed open down the front; 4. A photograph of three pantyless "flashing" female high-school cheerleaders sitting on the hood of a "muscle car;" and, 5. A schematic diagram of the neuro-circuitry of the Terminator's nether regions. The visual stimuli selected by Ms. Kieltyka for showing to Mr. Bailey were: 1. A photograph of Professor Bailey wearing an "academic gown;" 2. A photo showing the excision of corpus spongiosum tissue during MtF sexual reassignment surgery; 3. Dr. Ray Blanchard's doctoral dissertation; 4. Photos showing eight-year-old boys anesthetizing and pin-mounting spiders and insects; and 5. A bowling pin. Professor Bailey's results clearly showed a high level of sexual interest in all of the visual material shown him, whereas the reverse was the case for Ms. Kieltyka. Professor Bailey, visibly angry and somewhat shaken after the test results were announced, commented, "I will admit that being a minor celebrity invited onto the Springer Show is an enormous turn-on for me, and I am sure that this is what has so grossly distorted my scores here today." With that, he abruptly stormed off the stage. Ms. Kieltyka, given her turn to comment, stated, "This merely shows that I understand Mr. Bailey far more than he understands me, and it further suggests that I might be more qualified to occupy his academic chair than he is. I also want to add that the material he chose for me to view reveals even more about his own sexual interests, and it's a shame he was not obliged to view those five items as well as the ones I selected." One final word came from a joint statement issued by the panel of distinguished experts who oversaw the testing. In part, it said, "The interpretation of test results such as these is likely to remain an art, not a science, for a long time, if not forever. However, we suspect from what we have witnessed here today that there is a strong chance Professor Bailey is a heterosexual man who would prefer to be gay, and that he is envious of transsexual women who have medical options to change their natal genital sex, whereas there unfortunately as yet exists no method by which a straight man can be transformed into a gay man." "Research" and bias: Questions to Bailey by Elizabeth (lizdhm@aol.com) on 10-20-2005, 16:17 1. Were the genetic female controls Ted Barlowe compared his transsexuals subjects to also recruited exclusively from drag bars and the CGS? 2. Angelica Kieltyka claims you told her that you made up the final "Danny" anecdote in your book. Did the final "Danny" anecdote actually occur? 3. Given that Blanchard exercised monopoly control over publically funded medical treatment for his research subjects and was under no obligation to actually provide said treatment, is there any possibility this could have biased his results by giving transsexuals in his samples a strong incentive to conform to his typology? 4. Are male-born individuals who have undergone sex-change and live as women in society but do not claim that they "feel like a woman" exempt from Blanchard's typology since they would not have qualified as transsexuals for his typology studies? 5. Are the numerous genetic females whose sexual fantasies hit at least five indicators on Blanchard's Core Autogynephilia Scale really paraphillic men? 6. Is it a scientific statement to claim that transsexual women do not have "women's souls" as you do in the introduction to your book? 7. Given that any transsexual woman who gives evidence of herself which contradicts Blanchard's model is automatically presumed to be lying or deluded, how does Blanchard's model pass the test of falsifiability? 8. What evidence is there that transsexuals (not "autogynephilic individuals" or "male gender patients" or "males who denied ever cross-dressing fetishistically" mind you, but specifically transsexuals) who deny autogynephilia are lying? 9. Are you aware that neither Lynn Conway nor Andrea James (nor, to my knowledge, any transsexual woman) has ever claimed to be or have been a "woman trapped in a man's body?" 10. If the passages Andrea James put by your children were "obscene," why did you write them? 11. Would you care to speculate as to why, after all the publicity given to Blanchard's ideas since your book came out, not to mention the fact that they have been in the DSM for years, they are still not taken very seriously by most experts who work with transsexuals? "Research" and case studies: Reply to Brown by J. Michael Bailey (jm-bailey@northwestern.edu) on 10-20-2005, 15:11 George Brown raises two issues I want to respond to. First, he notes that I refer to "research" in the book. I did in fact supervise a study of homosexual transsexuals and drag queens during the mid-1990s. The study was conducted by Ted Barlow, who wrote an excellent honors thesis. This study was IRB-approved, and subjects were consented. I helped in recruitment of subjects (at Crobar and some other venues). When I refer to "studies I conducted" on transsexuals and specific percentages of transsexuals, it is this study I am writing about. The information I wrote about Kieltyka (who is neither a drag queen nor a homosexual transsexual) and "Juanita" (whom I did not know until afterwards) were not from this study, but from informal interactions. I did not take care to distinguish this formal research from the informal interactions in the book. And in the real world, outside the increasingly strange and frightening world of IRBs, the word "research" is not laden with implications of regulations and oversight. Journalists refer to "research" broadly and frequently, and so did I. The second issue Brown raises is that of case studies, which he asserts require IRB approval. This is wrong, or at least it has been until recently, including during the time I wrote my book. (I would not be surprised if this changed due to IRB mission creep.) Case studies do not generally lead to generalizable knowledge. hard to believe by george r. brown, md (george.brown@med.va.gov) on 10-20-2005, 08:05 It eludes me that an experienced academician did not know that he needed IRB approval to do this book, which he himself calls research in the book as opposed to what he says in this letter. Even a case report requires IRB approval. Personality trumps hot-button issues by Alan Gross (AlanEGross@aol.com) on 10-19-2005, 13:47 Ideas such as those of Blanchard and Bailey can and often should be promoted,defended, and modified vigorously, intellectualy and polemically. This unfortunate episode displays how easy and tempting it is to slip over the line into personal and even vindictive attacks. Most ideas including the ones presented in this "debate" deserve to be examined, rebutted, and investigated. When the ideas are relevant to specific subgroups such as the transexual community, it is often relevant to discuss whether or not the concepts are useful to the community and/or the larger society. In the present discussion, most of the issue oriented discussion value has been blurred or completely obscured by the personal heat and anger of the participants who disagree with each other. Most folks who have been attacked react primarily via defensiveness and this is no exception. Compliments to those in this discussion, including Mr. Bailey, who have managed at least partly to keep their eye on the issues and off of the persons. One lesson learned for those who do research at institutions is "when in doubt obtain consent and IRB approval" PS: I am not acquanted with and have never met Bailey or any of others involved in this debacle. I wish you all peace and hope that more of your energy can be transferred to bettering your own life and contributing to the welfare of others. Oh please again by Elizabeth (lizdhm@aol.com) on 10-19-2005, 08:24 There are three separate issues to all this mess: Bailey's unethical conduct in regards to the women he exploited in his book, the unscientific nature of his assertions, and the utter contempt for transsexual women displayed in his book. NU dealt only with the first of these, and had nothing to do with any "enemies" of Bailey. The second was dealt with by the then head of the Kinsey Institute, the past and current heads of HBIGDA, Walter Bockting, and others. Andrea James concerned herself mainly with the third, and her only real crime was to treat Bailey as contemptuously as Bailey treated transwomen. (Bailey claimed she had put "dirty captions" under pictures of his children. While she was wrong to bring his children into it, the "dirty captions" were quotes from his book. If they were "dirty" why did he write them in the first place?) The NU IRB by Jeff Sherman (jsherman@ucdavis.edu) on 10-19-2005, 02:16 Though I largely agree with Bailey's claims about IRB's, the real problem with his case at NU was that the IRB was not allowed to do its job. As Peter Rosenfeld states below, charge was not given to the NU IRB to evaluate the Bailey case. Like Peter, I served on that IRB. Unlike all other such cases (many of which involved similar questions about the definition of "research"), this one was given to a "special committee" rather than handled by the group charged to judge it, the IRB. I won't say much here, but I believe this special committee did not handle the Bailey case as would have NU's IRB (or any other IRB with which I have experience). The real shame for the handling of the Bailey case goes to the NU administrators who cowered in the face of possibly negative PR, and threw one of their own to the wolves. They said and did nothing to defend Bailey's academic freedom, and seemed to care less about the facts of the case than about how to make it go away quietly. As the lunacy of some of Bailey's enemies becomes ever more apparent, I'd like to think that some of those administrators might be feeling just a little bit sheepish. But I seriously doubt it. Over Simplified... by kristen worley (kristenworley@sympatico.ca) on 10-17-2005, 17:24 Upon reading Mr. Bailey's statement, it is a gross and simplified overview of what Mr. Bailey and an example of the continuum of the arrogance Bailey and within the psychology community as it relates to sexuality and gender research. Rather than looking at the obvious, Mr. Bailey continues to keep his blinders on and takes all of us for academic fools, thinking we don’t know what happened. Still he feels obviously a need to defend himself for his mis-conduct around his book as identified by the University of Northwestern in their final review last fall. Moreover, two years later as respected colleagues and associations in the field of sexology challenged Mr. Bailey in several open forums amongst his peers, telling him his research is "non-science", with no supporting scientific evidence to backup his published statements, other then the "raw, raw" of his own voice and the self-identifying academics he used as affirmation of his story as research. He continues to stick his nose up not just the people he is researching, but as well, his academic colleagues who are doing good working support of people suffering from gender dysphoria around the world. At the same time as a result of his blind actions, does not take in consideration of the impact on academic colleagues, future research, research funding and the impact on the psychology community as a whole. To illustrate the point, the recent article in the New York Times July 6, 2005 yet attacking another minority group as it relates to bisexuality, creating a national uproar amongst advocate groups in the United States and Canada. Uncanny how similar parallels reported in the article on bi-sexuality, of which just (2) years earlier he was been challenged by academic peers about the same research and comments applying it to the transgendered community as he did in his book. This type of behavior by an academic is unacceptable. As Mr. Bailey tries to defend himself once again rather than taking responsibility as a professional and apologize for the impact he has had on this community, creating only further animosity and division within the transgendered community, but as well within the academic community, and for as well exposing publicly the greater problems and weaknesses within their community. I think Mr. Bailey would be greatly surprised how many of his colleagues and associations don’t support him. Of which many international academics are coming forward and “breaking the silence”, with incredible courage to speak and publish within their community so this doesn’t happen again. In hope too bridge the gap and rebuild a trusting relationship between academics and the transgendered community to assure safe, non-biased scientific research, proper safe medical practice in the near future. This is a hard lesson, and hopefully much can be learned from it allowing new development and opportunities for the betterment of all parties. Oh please by Elizabeth (lizdhm@aol.com) on 10-17-2005, 14:59 I'll give him one thing: there should have been a greater focus on explaining why the research of Blanchard, who is the real source of much of the garbage transwomen have to put up with from caregivers, is complete baloney. What's more unfortunate is that Blanchard's few studies are actually fairly easy to debunk. First of all, there is no way to know how many or which of the "transsexuals" in Blanchard's study actually were transsexuals. In all likelihood a majority of the people in what Blanchard termed the "nonhomosexual" groups were actually transvestites, and it shouldn't be all that shocking that fetishistic tranvestites would have a history of transvestic fetishism. Blanchard's selection criteria were male-bodied individuals who claimed that they "felt like a woman." which is simply not an accurate way of defining transsexuals. Second, Blanchard controlled access to medical care for the people he was doing his research on, and he was under no obligation whatsoever to provide any of them with it. The standards he operated under allowed him to deny treatment to anyone he pleased, for any length of time he pleased, for any reason he pleased. In practical terms this means that his research subjects had an extremely strong motivation to tell him whatever he wanted to hear. Third, there is no actual clear definition of "autogynephilia." Even Blanchard himself has used multiple, conflicting definitions. The criteria Blanchard used for his "Core Autogynephilia Scale" are so broad as to encompass normal female sexuality. (Here's a fun exercise: take a copy of Nancy Friday's Women On Top and go through it rating the fantasies on Blanchard's Scale using his claimed "nonhomosexual transsexual" average of 5 as a benchmark. A large number of them will end up rating autogynephilic.) As far as people trying to stop the spread of dangerous ideas, that is simply farcical. No one wants to "stop" these ideas. The more they are talked about, the more their lack of merit becomes easily discernable. For some reason, Professor Bailey seems to find it utterly inconceivable that an informed person could actually disagree with Blanchard on merit, but the evidence is that the opposite is actually true. Every expert in transsexualism who has weighed in on this and is not personally connected to Blanchard has come down against Blanchard's theories. And it's not because they simply haven't been exposed to his almighty brilliance. Most counselor's I've known are quite aware of Blanchard's model, since it's in the DSM after all, but they think it's silly and not particularly representative of the clients they see. More to the point, neither Andrea James nor Lynn Conway ever tried to censor Dr. Bailey or "stop" his ideas. The closest any of his critics came (besides the women he slandered in his book) was to call for the NAS to transfer the book to a more appropriate publisher, such as perhaps Penthouse Forum. If Bailey wants to publish books claiming that large groups of people are all lying whores (sorry, are all either liars or whores), then he is perfectly free to do so. However, he should not expect himself to be exempt from criticism. He should also not be surprised if the vitriol he heaped on the transsexual population is returned by some of that population. Bottom line Dr. Bailey, if you want to ramble on about what hot sluts trannies are and how much your "avowedly heterosexual male research assistant" wants to bone one of them even pre-op, hey, knock yourself out. Just don't try to pretend it's science. Bailey and IRB by J.Peter Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (jp-rosenfeld@northwestern.edu) on 10-14-2005, 16:21 I am a colleague of Mike Bailey in the Psychology department at Northwestern, and I am also a regular faculty member of the IRB (since 1998). The official work of this university committee is to evaluate proposals for human research submitted for IRB review. The evaluation is of a proposal’s compliance with the ethical requirements of federally mandated guidelines. In his article, Academic McCarthyism, Bailey writes: " However, like many other academics, I believe that IRBs have overstepped any reasonable mandate of protecting research subjects from real harms (such as risky medical procedures) and often have an inhibitory effect on free speech." One may or may not agree with this statement, but to the extent that it implies in context that the official IRB committee of Northwestern faculty and community lay persons comprised the Northwestern group who gave Bailey so much grief, I disagree with it. To the best of my knowledge, our official IRB group was never formally charged with evaluating the case against Bailey at any regular, full IRB meeting. Certainly, I was never present at such a discussion. This case was handled by administration supervisors of and staff members for the IRB. One or two selected members of the IRB were also consulted by this administrative group, presided over by university administration officials. Their views do not necessarily reflect those of the faculty and lay members of the official IRB on many issues. J.Peter Rosenfeld Deparatment of Psychology Northwestern University Evanston, Il to Lisanne Anderson by Francis (glucose2@hotmail.ca) on 10-13-2005, 14:28 Lisanne Anderson Free speach is one thing but sabotagin some one else life is an other. It was drasticaly feard that this book would have an effect on genral policy to allow access to the GRS to trans people. The fear may have been blown out of porportion, I see an french autor who is a spychologist in she as shot down Trans comunity to simply insance human crap.. but as Far as I see her views have not changed any thing at all. I don't think this book would have had much impact on general pratice. to Lisanne Anderson by Francis (glucose2@hotmail.ca) on 10-13-2005, 14:27 Lisanne Anderson Free speach is one thing but sabotagin some one else life is an other. It was drasticaly feard that this book would have an effect on genral policy to allow access to the GRS to trans people. The fear may have been blown out of porportion, I see an french autor who is a spychologist in she as shot down Trans comunity to simply insance human crap.. but as Far as I see her views have not changed any thing at all. Achieving Balance by Lisanne Anderson (LFAnderson@autogynephilia.org) on 10-13-2005, 14:10 For the past two years those who have been offended by both the theory of autogynephilia and the publication of "The Man Who Would Be Queen" have dominated the debate through persistence, tenacity and aggressive posturing. While some may admire them for their willingness to fight for a seemingly good purpose their methods should give all reasonable people cause for concern. The hope that some had for a reasonable exchange of ideas after the book's publication was sabotaged by the malicious actions of a small portion of the transsexual community. The focus of concern for those who supported the ideas generated by the book (much misrepresented by those who opposed it publication) shifted from explaining the concepts to defending free speech. I wish that I could say that the dust has settled, and that such a dialogue could be possible. Unfortunately, the shrill voices of a few unreasonable persons will continue to drown out those of the more equable. The publication of this article is a start in achieving balance, but it is only one step in a long process of negating the effects of individuals whose current life work appears to be making life difficult for anyone who supports and promotes the autogynephilic theory. We need to hear more from those reasonable voices on both sides of the debat IRBs by Elizabeth Bartmess (bartmess@umich.edu) on 10-13-2005, 14:03 IRBs do unbelievable crap. I've been involved in trying to make things less Kafka-esque here at Michigan and have not been able to do anything. I am sincerely sorry to hear you were singled out for massively worse treatment from your IRB and university. I wish Lingua Franca were still in existence. It seems like an appropriate venue for an expose on IRBs, and one is needed. As a disclaimer, if IRB were really helping me protect my subjects rather than holding up my research on meaningless red tape, I would have far fewer complaints. We do need something in place to protect subjects, but in my experience, IRBs fulfill that purpose very poorly. The purpose of Institutional Review Boards by Emilia Lombardi (emilial@stophiv.pitt.edu) on 10-13-2005, 07:56 I'm surprised that a former chair of a dept that conducts research would be so unknowledgable about Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and the process of human subject protections. In my experience IRB's have been very helpful in aiding myself and others conduct proper research without putting research subjects and the University itself at risk. I wonder what Northwestern's policy regarding researcher's having sex with their research participants is if Dr. Bailey feels that its alright? Maybe somebody should ask them. http://www.northwestern.edu/research/OPRS/irb/ The purpose of Institutional Review Boards by Emilia Lombardi (emilial@stophiv.pitt.edu) on 10-13-2005, 07:55 I'm surprised that a former chair of a dept that conducts research would be so unknowledgable about Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and the process of human subject protections. In my experience IRB's have been very helpful in aiding myself and others conduct proper research without putting research subjects and the University itself at risk. I wonder what Northwestern's policy regarding researcher's having sex with their research participants is if Dr. Bailey feels that its alright? Maybe somebody should ask them. http://www.northwestern.edu/research/OPRS/irb/ Good for Bailey by Ben Barres (barres@stanford.edu) on 10-13-2005, 01:04 Yes, I think it is shameful that Lynn Conway and her friends were unhappy with the remarkably sympathetic writings of Professor Bailey, whose groundbreaking studies have revealed transgendered people to be liars primarily fit for work in the sex trades. Thank God the professor published his work in the National Academies Press where his "findings" can be used as evidence in court to prevent these whackos from gaining any civil rights. In fact, it now appears from the professor's essay that the person he based his book on may be floridly psychotic, repetitively exhibited rambling and bizarre speech. I am sure glad that the Professor didn't let that distract him from extrapolating her behavior to his truly brilliant deductions about transsexual people in general. I couldn't agree more with the Professor that it would be ridiculous to claim that he harmed her. Afterall, who is to say that a psychotic person cannot give informed consent? I am looking forward to his next book; perhaps he will "study" how many types of African-Americans there are, what their sexual behavior is, and what sort of work they are fit for. I am so glad to hear that Prof. Bailey plans to continue his important work of "scientifically" showing that what people believe and say about their own sexuality isn't true. Bailey's defense by Joan Warmbold (jwarmbol@oakton.edu) on 10-12-2005, 17:42 The field of psychology and sociology is imbued with political correctness. It appears that our society have become cream puffs who simply show no ability to stand up for the truth if it might offend any group. I am extremely impressed with Bailey's courage in standing firm on an issue despite all the attacks. Northwestern investigation by richard green (richard.green@ic.ac.uk) on 10-12-2005, 17:03 Pleased that you have begun to break the imposed silence. Obviously, you pulverized a very sensitive nerve. The strength to stand by Gillykat (gillykat@comcast.net) on 10-12-2005, 14:24 Having both fully read the book in question and what I could mentally tolerate of the attacks I am glad that Professor Bailey has finally had the chance to speak his peace. He has remained quite patient and respectively held his tongue during the very trying course of events. I look very much forward to any additional writings that Professor Bailey should see fit to grace the public with. It takes greatest of strengths to stand strong during such things. Congrats to him and those who stood by him. Back to top Hosting generously provided by Steadfast Networks.