Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen

Post-publication summary, proposal 1

I decided to take a crack at summarizing events from fall 2003 to present. I have the information presented in chronological order. I presented peer commentaries alphabetically by everyone with a Wikipedia article.

Following complaints from trans women described in the book, Northwestern University opened a full investigation into Bailey’s research activities in November 2003. In late 2003, the Southern Poverty Law Center broke the story that key figures involved in promoting the book (including Bailey, Blanchard, Buss, Derbyshire, Pinker, Sailer, and Seligman) “belong to a private cyber-discussion group of a neo-eugenics outfit, the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI).” Northwestern did not investigate allegations that Bailey had a sexual encounter with a trans sex worker described in his book, a charge he denied.

In February 2004, the Lambda Literary Foundation nominated the book as a finalist in their transgender award category. In the wake of a protest, the judges found that it was transphobic, and Lambda Literary Foundation removed it from their list of finalists in March. Northwestern concluded their investigation in November 2004. Although the findings of that investigation were not released, Northwestern’s Vice President for Research, C. Bradley Moore, said, "The allegations of scientific misconduct made against Professor J. Michael Bailey do not fall under the federal definition of scientific misconduct."

The free online version of the book was among a number of free books removed from the publisher's site in February 2006. The controversy was resurrected that same month after Northwestern professor Alice Dreger unsuccessfully tried to suppress an invited speech given at Northwestern by Bailey critic Andrea James. Dreger released a pre-publication paper about the controversy in August 2007, to coincide with the annual International Academy of Sex Research conference. In it, Dreger, argued that Bailey’s critics were trying to suppress his academic freedom. The paper was published in 2008 with 23 commentaries in the same issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, including comments from John Bancroft, Ben Barres, Ray Blanchard, John Gagnon, Richard Green, Deirdre McCloskey, Charles Moser, Seth Roberts, Julia Serano, and Ken Zucker, That month, an academic panel on trans perspectives about "the Bailey brouhaha" convened despite Dreger's attempt to suppress it by attacking the graduate student who proposed it. The Man Who Would Be Queen went out of print in 2008 but remained available for purchase as a PDF on the National Academies Press website.

Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just added a couple of additional sources and shortened a few sentences. Jokestress (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The part played by Lynn Conway and yourself is conspicuously absent.  :-? Is there a reason for that? I would say that without you gals the complaints would have gone relatively unnoticed. If they were made at all. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide text for your suggested revision with proper citations. Jokestress (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hfarmer's observation is astute. By Jokestress' leaving out her own and Conway's role in the controversy, she makes the events seem like some sort of spontaneous reaction rather than a coordinated smear campaign. Jokestress' nonsequitur in response to Hfarmer above similarly speaks loudest in its silence.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Astute? nonsequitur? Jokestress has invited Hfarmer to turn her observation into sourced article text; this is entirely appropriate. But what she came up with (below) is not: for "A furore was raised by Lynn Conway, Diedre McCloskey, and Andrea James" she cited Conway's site, which says nothing of the sort, and an article that says, Such well known and respected transsexual women as Professor Lynn Conway, University of Michigan; Professor Joan Roughgarden; Stanford University Biology Department, Dr. Becky Allison, MD; and Christine Burns, Vice President of Britain’s Press for Change organization, decry the simplistic Blanchard theory posited as truth by Bailey based largely on his observations of transsexual prostitutes and others who frequent gay bars in Chicago, including Circuit bar. Did they raise a furore? Perhaps so, but where's the source? I haven't checked the next bits, but this is a pretty bad start. And then she follows by a personal insult ("It took allot of effrontery and lack of respect for your readers intelligence to try and pull that one"); Hfarmer could at least PRETEND to be cooperating with other editors; maybe some civil discourse would lead to progress. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

They have expressed concern over the treatment transsexuals could expect if the Blanchard-Bailey position were taught as fact. Conway, Roughgarden and Burns have called on the National Academy of Science to investigate Bailey’s work and to remove the book from under the imprimatur of the national Academies.

OK  It would begin like so...

A furore was raised by Lynn Conway, Diedre McCloskey, and Andrea James. This caused Lynn Conway and Andrea James to create websites slamming the book. Then travel to Chicago to find and speak with the subjects of the book. Conway and James helped with the filing of two complaints from people named in the book (as well as two from persons unknown who claim they were interviewed by Bailey but left out of the book because they did not fit Blanchards theory.

Following those complaints from Anjelica Kieltyka and 'Maria' described in the book, Northwestern University opened a full investigati....

From there on like your version. No mention of your role or Dr. Conway's role is not in the spirit of the WP or it's mission. It took allot of effrontery and lack of respect for your readers intelligence to try and pull that one. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think that it's very strange to ignore the central figures. The Dreger paper addresses it directly and will be a sufficient source for this undisputed fact:

"Largely under the leadership of three prominent transwomen—Lynn Conway (a world-renowned computer scientist at the University of Michigan), Andrea James (a Hollywood-based trans-consumer advocate and an entrepreneurial consultant on trans issues), and Deirdre McCloskey (a Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago)—they organized charges of scientific misconduct against Bailey, including charges that he lacked informed consent from research subjects, that he failed to obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) permission for human subjects research, and that he had sexual relations with a transsexual research subject. They successfully pushed for a top-level investigation of these charges at Northwestern University and for numerous press reports about Bailey’s alleged misdeeds. They successfully arranged a protest against the book’s nomination for a Lambda Literary Foundation (LLF) award and tried to get Bailey’s colleagues (including his closest departmental colleagues) to turn against him or at least distance themselves from him. They devoted elaborate Websites to criticizing and mocking him and his book and anyone with any positive relationship with him. One activist in particular, namely Andrea James, also used the Web to publicly harass Bailey’s children, his ex-wife, his girlfriend, and his friends."

I think that the stuff about HBI is overblown and unimportant. Next thing you know, we'll be smearing people for reading the same blogs as the terrorist du jour. Is there actually any evidence that this book in particular was discussed on this e-mail list? For that matter, is there any evidence that anything was discussed on this e-mail list? It's easy to put up a webpage that lists your favorite hundred celebrities and claim that they're supporters working with you.

In fact, that's not very different from what happened to Alice Dreger, is it? I seem to recall that her name had been listed as a supporter on someone's website without her knowledge or consent.

At minimum the "broke the story" language has to go. It implies not just that there really is a story there, but also that it's an important one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Post-publication summary, proposal 2

Jokestress' version is entirely unacceptable, for reasons others have pointed out and more. It would be a waste of my time to work on it. So I offer this version instead, which is much more balanced. It is quite detailed. I am not opposed to reducing detail, but it should be reduced on both sides:

Originally, the Lambda Literary Foundation nominated the book as a finalist in the transgender award category for 2003. Due to ensuing controversy, the Foundation reconsidered the nomination but decided to keep it on the list. After transpeople protested the nomination with an internet petition, a second reconsideration led to the book's removal from its award finalists. According to the LLF director, removal was due to the belated decision that the book was transphobic.

Besides criticizing the book, some transgender women alleged that Bailey had breached professional ethics. These included the accusations that Bailey had conducted scientific research without proper permission, that he had sex with a research subject (a transsexual sex worker called "Juanita" in the book), and that he had practiced psychology without a license. Northwestern University conducted a formal investigation of the charge that he had conducted research without proper oversight; there is no evidence the other charges were investigated. Although the findings of that investigation were not released, Northwestern’s Vice President for Research, C. Bradley Moore, said, "The allegations of scientific misconduct made against Professor J. Michael Bailey do not fall under the federal definition of scientific misconduct."

Some transgender critics of Bailey attacked him in more personal ways. For example, Andrea James constructed a page of "satire" by taking pictures of Bailey's young children (obtained from his webiste) and placing sexually offensive captions beside them. (James has said that she was echoing the disrespect that Bailey's work shows for vulnerable people, including children.) She constructed webpages attacking or mocking Bailey's supporters, colleagues, and friends (including an ex-girlfriend), questioned Bailey's sexuality, asserted that he hand "abandoned" his family, and sent a message to his colleagues that he suffered from "alcohol abuse and dependence."

The Southern Poverty Law Center published an online report that key figures involved in promoting the book (including Bailey, Blanchard, Buss, Derbyshire, Pinker, Sailer, and Seligman) “belong to a private cyber-discussion group of a neo-eugenics outfit, the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI).”

In 2008 Northwestern University professor and intersex activist Alice Dreger published a historical investigation of the controversy, in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Dreger concluded that Bailey was "essentially blameless." Addressing the specific accusations against Bailey, she argued that he did not conduct scientific research without required supervision, that he probably did not have sex with "Juanita" (and even if he had, there is nothing wrong with it), that he did not illegally practice clinical psychology without a license, and that his membership in the "Human Biodiversity Insittute" merely constituted being a member of an email listserv that included some conservative members. Moreover, Dreger concluded: "the historical evidence indicates that Conway, James, and [Deirdre] McCloskey tried to destroy Bailey’s book and his reputation through these truly extraordinary measures because they didn’t like what he had to say." Dreger's paper was published in 2008 with 23 commentaries in the same issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, including comments from John Bancroft, Ben Barres, Ray Blanchard, John Gagnon, Richard Green, Deirdre McCloskey, Charles Moser, Seth Roberts, Julia Serano, and Ken Zucker, Conway has responded that Dreger's piece was a "bizarrely one-sided history of the Bailey book investigation" and a "hit piece", and that its publication in Archives of Sexual Behavior and coverage by The New York Times reflected pro-Bailey bias by the journal's editor and by a science journalist at the newspaper, respectively. James attributed Dreger's article to a "personal feud" between James and Dreger.

ProudAGP (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jokestress version seems like a much better-sourced starting place. Why do you try to replace it with one with unsourced recollections of history like "Due to ensuing controversy, the Foundation reconsidered the nomination but decided to keep it on the list. After transpeople protested the nomination with an internet petition, a second reconsideration led to the book's removal from its award finalists."? If this is the way it came down, at least a citation or two would be in order. The rest seems to be similarly crafted from a single POV, with no attempt at balance. Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems less balanced to remove all the facts about the book's publication history (which seems relevant to the article on the book) and to add a lot of stuff reinforcing the Dreger mythology of three "activists" masterminding a conspiracy to "ruin" a beleaguered "scientist under siege." It seems to overfocus on Bailey's points of narcissistic injury: the reciprocated mockery of his own core identity, etc. If we are to have that, we should balance it with Bailey's mockery of "Juanita" in the book and after she came forward, and his mockery of others throughout the controversy. Several of the commentaries on Dreger address this tendency by Bailey and Dreger (whose own narcissistic injury was the impetus for her self-aggrandizing narrative in the first place). I'll incorporate some of your stuff, but I plan to add back some of the material you removed, with proper sourcing. Jokestress (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not surprise me that both Jokestress and Lynn Conway's representative, Dicklyon, prefer Jokestress' version to mine. Or that both seek to minimize discussion of Dreger's peer reviewed and objectively important article (3 page article in the New York Times and a Guggenheim for a related book proposal, which needs also to be mentioned). But let me assure them that they will not succeed. Jokestress, you are playing games that you believe are clever, e.g.: "It seems to overfocus on Bailey's points of narcissistic injury: the reciprocated mockery of his own core identity, etc."--which phrasing comes from Anne Lawrence's article interpreting autogynephilic rage. But I find it tedious and time-wasting. I suspect that others (including less involved people such as WhatamIdoing) will find my draft much preferable to Jokestress'. If you proceed with a new draft, you should do a much better job than you did on the first one. ProudAGP (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother. Did any of you bother to read what I wrote in the section above about the interpretation of facts. You are all arguing over the interpretation of facts. Just add in the simple fact that James and Conway had something to do with this controversy. It was preposterous and ridiculous to leave them out. It's like writing about WWII and not mentioning the role of Japan and the Soviet Union!--Hfarmer (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; verifiable facts, to be even more clear. If you think something is a fact because it's obvious to you after reading some primary source like a website, that doesn't really qualify; report what others have reported in reliable secondary sources, and we won't have so much to argue about. ProudAGP, you should also review WP:NPA. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can write this long and then reach consensus on how to tighten it. If we are going to have this level of detail, we need to include the published viewpoints on exactly why Team Bailey wants to spin this as some sort of unprovoked assault on "science" and "truth" and focus on his injuries. I'll work on revision 3 later today. Jokestress (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does one have to be on Team Bailey to get the t-shirt?

— James Cantor (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record I'm not saying that either. Just stick to sentences of the form... Person A (said, did, wrote) Fact B and no one can argue. Yes there are plenty of sources that say TMWWBQ was offensive. Other sources say you and Conway did instigate and/or draw attention to the controversy. M/S/J says she had sex with Bailey, Bailey says they didn't. Some say that Bailey formulated the model based on "Interviewing some uneducated Hispanic drag queens and prostitutes" (practically a quote from the illustrious McCloskey.) Bailey says it was Blanchard's work and he only used their stories as illustrations, dramatizeations of what Blanchard was saying (he says almost exactly this I just don't recall where). Those are all facts. Things that are likley in the "collected References" already. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Post-publication summary, proposal 3

Not sure why version 2 has all the publication history of the book removed, and takes events out of chronological order. As I mentioned, this version is long but includes more reliable sources and a more representative POV on matters. The first paragraph below should probably be added in the existing paragraph after the Ettner quotation.

Psychiatrist Vernon Rosario wrote, "The problem with Bailey is his simplistic approach to forcing people into his classification system. This is nowhere more evident than in his repeated dismissal of people’s experiences that do not conform to his model… Whenever a subject reports something different, Bailey just says, 'I doubt that.'"A commenter summarized the transgender portion of the conflict as such: "Bailey's supporters see themselves as defending unpopular scientific 'truth' against people who won't face a reality that is politically unpalatable and destructive to their self image. Bailey's opponents see themselves as defending their community from sensationalist pseudoscience that sexualizes them as sex starved gay men or neurotic straight men with a sexual obsession."

Following complaints from trans women described in the book, Northwestern University opened a full investigation into Bailey’s research activities in November 2003. The Southern Poverty Law Center printed a report that key figures involved in promoting the book (including Bailey, Blanchard, Buss, Derbyshire, Pinker, Sailer, and Seligman) “belong to a private cyber-discussion group of a neo-eugenics outfit, the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI).” Psychologist and sex therapist Margaret Nichols wrote, “Bailey’s connection to HBI belies his politics and has important bearing on his research in the areas of sex and gender diversity. In my opinion, the HBI connection alone makes Bailey an enemy of queer people.”

The Lambda Literary Foundation nominated the book as a finalist in the transgender award category for 2003. The Foundation then reconsidered the nomination but decided to keep it on the list. After protest of the nomination intensified via an internet petition, a second reconsideration led to the book's removal from its award finalists. According to LLF Executive Director Jim Marks, removal was due to the belated decision that the book was transphobic. After Marks resigned, his successor Charles Flowers stated, “[T]he Bailey incident revealed flaws in our awards nomination process… With the help of the transgender community, we have improved the integrity of our awards, by making them more inclusive and our methods more transparent.”

Besides criticizing the book, some critics alleged that Bailey had breached professional ethics. These included the accusations that Bailey had conducted scientific research without institutional review board permission, that he had sex with a research subject (a transsexual sex worker called "Juanita" in the book), and that he had practiced psychology without a license. Northwestern University conducted a formal investigation of the charge that he had conducted research without proper oversight; there is no evidence the other charges were investigated. Although the findings of that investigation were not released, Northwestern's Vice President for Research, C. Bradley Moore, said, "The allegations of scientific misconduct made against Professor J. Michael Bailey do not fall under the federal definition of scientific misconduct." Physician Charles Moser wrote, "the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct."

Some critics attacked Bailey in more personal ways. Some gay academics made "sarcastic comments about Bailey's own masculinity and sartorial style." Andrea James constructed a page of "satire" by taking pictures of Bailey's children and placing sexually offensive captions beside them, one of which was a quotation from Bailey's book. James has said that she was echoing the disrespect that Bailey's work shows for vulnerable people, including children. James also constructed webpages attacking or mocking Bailey's supporters, colleagues, and friends (including an ex-girlfriend), questioned Bailey's sexuality, asserted that he had "abandoned" his family, and sent a message to his colleagues that he suffered from "alcohol abuse and dependence."

In 2006 Northwestern University professor Alice Dreger unsuccessfully attempted to suppress a speech given at Northwestern by James: "her actions to 'no-platform' James are similar to the tactics she ascribes to Bailey's opponents in their attempts to shut down discussion of Blanchard’s theories." In response, Dreger released her account of the controversy in 2007, a year before it was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. New York Times reporter Benedict Carey reported that Dreger found Bailey "essentially blameless." Addressing the specific accusations against Bailey, she argued that he did not conduct scientific research without required supervision, that he probably did not have sex with "Juanita" (and even if he had, there is nothing wrong with it), that he did not illegally practice clinical psychology without a license, and that his membership in the "Human Biodiversity Institute" merely constituted being a member of an email listserv that included some conservative members. Dreger concluded: "the historical evidence indicates that Conway, James, and [Deirdre] McCloskey tried to destroy Bailey's book and his reputation through these truly extraordinary measures because they didn’t like what he had to say."

Dreger's paper also elicited both strongly positive and strongly negative responses when it was published in 2008 with 23 commentaries in the same issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Commenters included John Bancroft, Ben Barres, Ray Blanchard, John Gagnon, Richard Green, Deirdre McCloskey, Charles Moser, Seth Roberts, Julia Serano, and Ken Zucker. Green said her "meticulously detailed and documented essay is on remarkably even terrain," and told Bailey's critics to "lighten up." Antonia Caretto called it a "thorough review." Lawrence said Dreger's paper gives evidence that the backlash was "a manifestation of narcissistic rage." Dreger received a Guggenheim Fellowship to expand the article into a book. Several critics wrote that Dreger's paper lacked balance, objectivity, and context. Robin Mathy wrote that the trans community response "had nothing to do with Conway, James, or any other high-profile transwomen. They had everything to do with TMWWBQ and Bailey." Elroi Windsor wrote, "Dreger faults these critics for targeting the messenger and not his messages, yet the imbalance within her article suggests that she does the same. This imbalance colors Dreger's conclusions regarding Bailey's infractions." Gender studies scholar Nicholas Clarkson wrote, "By focusing on the complaints of Conway, McCloskey, and James as representative of critiques of Bailey’s book, interspersed far too infrequently by more measured critiques (e.g., from Jamison Green), Dreger represents trans people as a lunatic fringe and marginalizes legitimate trans critiques of Bailey’s book. Indeed, she buries these critiques in short paragraphs, most of which come at the end of her article, thus effectively silencing those legitimate trans challenges." Biologist Julia Serano wrote: "Dreger seems to attribute this [backlash] to a calculated attempt by three trans activists, Conway, James, and McCloskey (CJM), to personally "ruin" Bailey. In Dreger’s article, CJM are portrayed as singlehandedly initiating and orchestrating the entire backlash against the book via personal attacks on Bailey. I would argue that this is a rather myopic view, as it both overstates these activists’ influence within the community and underplays the broad consensus of trans activists, allies, and advocates who found the book to be unapologetically arrogant, crass, stigmatizing, sensationalizing, and a distortion of both trans people’s lives and the scientific literature on the subject. If CJM did not become involved, and if no personal attacks were carried out against Bailey, the backlash still would have occurred and it would likely have been just as contentious. The month Dreger's paper was published, an academic panel on trans perspectives about "the Bailey brouhaha" convened despite Dreger's attempt to suppress it by attacking the graduate student who proposed it.

The Man Who Would Be Queen went out of print in 2008 but remained available for sale as a PDF on the National Academies website.

We may also want to combine the professional ethics paragraph with the existing info already in the article. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As a follow-up, that was very cumbersome and time-consuming to edit in one piece. Maybe we can split out the Dreger part and deliberate that sub-controversy separately if this seems too unwieldy. Jokestress (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture Question

I am a big supporter of the concept that pictures make a huge difference. I think a picture of the dust jacket would say allot about this book and the controversey. I did buy and read a copy of the book... then gave it away. I think I kept the dust cover somewhere.

The question is IF I took a picture of it could I release that picture as a GFDL'd pic and put it on WP. Or would there still be a copyright issue? I am thinking no. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not GFDL, as cover art is copyrighted. But fair use would be OK. See Wikipedia:Fair_Use#Images. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This may be academic since I cannot find the jacket. If it's a issue of "fair use" I would think that an image we could use on a fair use basis must exist somewhere on the net.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's all over the web. How about Bailey's copy [7]? Dicklyon (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bailey's copy is a pre-publication mock-up (old subtitle, no Simon LeVay blurb). The one in the article is the as-published cover from the out-of-print edition. Jokestress (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The one I used is the jacket from my copy (which I read a couple times then gave away). Cropped so that only the cover is visible. I think it adds allot of context to the article. As I have said before; It's one thing to describe an elephant (to someone who has never seen one) and another to show them a picture. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Will we ever know just who's legs those are? If that is a transwoman how must she feel about all of our opinions of her legs? lol. --Hfarmer (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of The Man Who Would Be Queen. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. Jokestress (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh but that was about the book and improving the article. It seems to me that being the sleuth that you are you would have tried to figure out just who that was, or who the cover artist was. The answers to the above questions could be quite illuminating. Since much of the impact of and reaction to this book was based on a.) the cover art, and b.) second or third hand reports of what was in the book. There could be some reliable source somewhere that will tell who did the cover art. I have not been able to find that (perhaps if I had my copy of the book and hand't given it away. That's what I am talking about. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Speculation about the existence of reliable sources discussing cover credits or the identity of the cover model are not appropriate here. If you have a reliable source, please provide it. Jokestress (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't have enough to argue about without this strange tangent? Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a "strange tangent". The cliché a "A picture is worth 1000 words," is so often repeated because it is true. That picture of that cover says allot about why this book was recieved the way it was.

Look at the template for the book info box on this page. It has a space for the cover artist. For the sake of completeness it would be nice to fill that in. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Post-publication summary, proposal 4

This version better identifies who each quoted person is and includes more links to texts.

Psychiatrist Vernon Rosario wrote, "The problem with Bailey is his simplistic approach to forcing people into his classification system. This is nowhere more evident than in his repeated dismissal of people’s experiences that do not conform to his model… Whenever a subject reports something different, Bailey just says, 'I doubt that.'" Ph.D. student Riki Lane summarized the transgender portion of the conflict: "Bailey's supporters see themselves as defending unpopular scientific 'truth' against people who won't face a reality that is politically unpalatable and destructive to their self image. Bailey's opponents see themselves as defending their community from sensationalist pseudoscience that sexualizes them as sex starved gay men or neurotic straight men with a sexual obsession." Philosophy professor Talia Mae Bettcher wrote, “Because Bailey believes transsexual women tend to lie or misrepresent, nothing a transwoman can say contests this theory.”

Following complaints from trans women described in the book, Northwestern University opened a full investigation into Bailey’s research activities in November 2003. The Southern Poverty Law Center printed a report that key figures involved in promoting the book (including Bailey, Blanchard, Buss, Derbyshire, Pinker, Sailer, and Seligman) “belong to a private cyber-discussion group of a neo-eugenics outfit, the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI).” Psychologist and sex therapist Margaret Nichols wrote, “Bailey’s connection to HBI belies his politics and has important bearing on his research in the areas of sex and gender diversity. In my opinion, the HBI connection alone makes Bailey an enemy of queer people.”

The Lambda Literary Foundation nominated the book as a finalist in the transgender award category for 2003. The Foundation then reconsidered the nomination but decided to keep it on the list. After protest of the nomination intensified via an internet petition, a second reconsideration led to the book's removal from its award finalists. According to Executive Director Jim Marks, removal was due to the belated decision that the book was transphobic. After Marks resigned, his successor Charles Flowers stated, “[T]he Bailey incident revealed flaws in our awards nomination process… With the help of the transgender community, we have improved the integrity of our awards, by making them more inclusive and our methods more transparent.”

Besides criticizing the book, some critics alleged that Bailey had breached professional ethics. These included the accusations that Bailey had conducted scientific research without institutional review board permission, that he had sex with a research subject (a transsexual sex worker called "Juanita" in the book), and that he had practiced psychology without a license. Northwestern University conducted a formal investigation of the charge that he had conducted research without proper oversight; there is no evidence the other charges were investigated. Although the findings of that investigation were not released, Northwestern's Vice President for Research, C. Bradley Moore, said, "The allegations of scientific misconduct made against Professor J. Michael Bailey do not fall under the federal definition of scientific misconduct." Physician Charles Moser wrote, "the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct."

Some critics attacked Bailey in more personal ways. Some gay academics made "sarcastic comments about Bailey's own masculinity and sartorial style." Andrea James constructed a page of "satire" by taking pictures of Bailey's children and placing sexually offensive captions beside them, one of which was a quotation from Bailey's book. James has said that she was echoing the disrespect that Bailey's work shows for vulnerable people, including children. James also constructed webpages attacking or mocking Bailey's supporters, colleagues, and friends (including an ex-girlfriend), questioned Bailey's sexuality, asserted that he had "abandoned" his family, and sent a message to his colleagues that he suffered from "alcohol abuse and dependence."

In 2006 Northwestern University professor Alice Dreger unsuccessfully attempted to suppress a speech given at Northwestern by James: Lane wrote, "her actions to 'no-platform' James are similar to the tactics she ascribes to Bailey's opponents in their attempts to shut down discussion of Blanchard’s theories." In response, Dreger released her account of the controversy in 2007, a year before it was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. New York Times reporter Benedict Carey reported that Dreger found Bailey "essentially blameless." Addressing the specific accusations against Bailey, she argued that he did not conduct scientific research without required supervision, that he probably did not have sex with "Juanita" (and even if he had, there is nothing wrong with it), that he did not illegally practice clinical psychology without a license, and that his membership in the "Human Biodiversity Institute" merely constituted being a member of an email listserv that included some conservative members. Dreger described the controversy as suppression of academic freedom and concluded: "the historical evidence indicates that Conway, James, and [Deirdre] McCloskey tried to destroy Bailey's book and his reputation through these truly extraordinary measures because they didn’t like what he had to say."

Dreger's paper also elicited both strongly positive and strongly negative responses when it was published in 2008 with 23 commentaries in the same issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Commenters included John Bancroft, Ben Barres, Ray Blanchard, John Gagnon, Richard Green, Deirdre McCloskey, Charles Moser, Seth Roberts, Julia Serano, and Ken Zucker. Green said her "meticulously detailed and documented essay is on remarkably even terrain," and told Bailey's critics to "lighten up." Psychologist Antonia Caretto called it a "thorough review." Lawrence said Dreger's paper gives evidence that the backlash was "a manifestation of narcissistic rage." Dreger received a Guggenheim Fellowship to expand the article into a book. Several critics wrote that Dreger's paper lacked balance, objectivity, and context. Anthropologist Robin Mathy wrote that the trans community response "had nothing to do with Conway, James, or any other high-profile transwomen. They had everything to do with TMWWBQ and Bailey." Sociologist Elroi Windsor wrote, "Dreger faults these critics for targeting the messenger and not his messages, yet the imbalance within her article suggests that she does the same. This imbalance colors Dreger's conclusions regarding Bailey's infractions." Gender studies scholar Nicholas Clarkson wrote, "By focusing on the complaints of Conway, McCloskey, and James as representative of critiques of Bailey’s book, interspersed far too infrequently by more measured critiques (e.g., from Jamison Green), Dreger represents trans people as a lunatic fringe and marginalizes legitimate trans critiques of Bailey’s book. Indeed, she buries these critiques in short paragraphs, most of which come at the end of her article, thus effectively silencing those legitimate trans challenges." Biologist Julia Serano wrote: "Dreger seems to attribute this [backlash] to a calculated attempt by three trans activists, Conway, James, and McCloskey (CJM), to personally "ruin" Bailey. In Dreger’s article, CJM are portrayed as singlehandedly initiating and orchestrating the entire backlash against the book via personal attacks on Bailey. I would argue that this is a rather myopic view, as it both overstates these activists’ influence within the community and underplays the broad consensus of trans activists, allies, and advocates who found the book to be unapologetically arrogant, crass, stigmatizing, sensationalizing, and a distortion of both trans people’s lives and the scientific literature on the subject. If CJM did not become involved, and if no personal attacks were carried out against Bailey, the backlash still would have occurred and it would likely have been just as contentious. The month Dreger's paper was published, an academic panel on trans perspectives about "the Bailey brouhaha" convened despite Dreger's attempt to suppress it by attacking the graduate student who proposed it.

The Man Who Would Be Queen went out of print in 2008 but remained available for sale as a PDF on the National Academies website.

Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Where to begin?

• You leave Dr. Conway's role completely out of the story. In particular when it comes to making the initial complaints to NU.
• You seem to have, by what quotes you choose, shaded the subject just a bit (that's me being charitable).
  • You do not mention any of the initial good reviews of the book.
  • The opening two quotes are both negative quotes with out any context.
• The structure of the compositon is a bit confused. I cannot say weather it is topically organized certainly not chronologically organized.

On the plus side.

• You remembered my golden rule : quote qoute qoute cite cite cite.
• You did mention your own role in the controversy

Try to put more about Dr. Conway's role into it. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The materials already edited by consensus and added to the article last month address your concerns. This section would replace the part of the current article from the LLF nomination to the end. Jokestress (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus by who ? The article should be kept concise as this is not a courtroom and there is not enough space . If you delete one of my comments from this discussion page there will be problems. If we cannot have neutrality in this article I suggest reducing it down to the absolute minimum. I am transsexual and while I disagree with Dr Bailey I agree to his right to speak and publish books . Academic consequences are his own responsibility and unless there is factual verification of a conspiracy then I suggest you stop trying to create them . "Do no harm " is in play here for both sides. No matter how offensive or wrong I feel his ideas are Bailey has a right to speak them . DarlieB (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus by the editors who have been working on this since you yourself participated in August, including James Cantor, me, WhatamIdoing, Hfarmer, Dicklyon, etc. No one is deleting your comments. No one is denying Bailey's right to speak, and no one is denying his critics' right to speak. Can you explain what you mean by "factual verification of a conspiracy"? Conspiracy by whom? I am not going to revert the changes you made to the article again, but your re-emergence after several weeks' absence and the edits and comments you are making are disrupting what has been a relatively calm discussion toward reaching consensus. I apologize if reverting your edits to the article upset you, but we are trying to find a balanced version that everyone can live with, and your changes tip that balance. Removing information we all agreed on last month is going to derail the discussion. You are welcome to discuss this on my talk page if you prefer. Jokestress (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A comment was deleted here whether by accident or intention. I see no discussion here other than you few and I see no agreement . Is consensus an "assumed" conclusion ? And even then just your collection of comments on the book and sketchy assumptions of timeline . When does opinion become fact ? This article, as I understand it is to present the basis of the book , to present the facts , not defend or besmirch Baileys career or his critics through multiple sources of "opinion" . For example , we can include Dregers comments as a professor but to include "as quoted in the NYT's" is little but trying to add some credibility to an otherwise weightless opinion (equal to all Baileys supporters and critics ) . The viewer is put in the position of trying to wade through a sea of opinions rather than investigate themselves. This again, is not a court room, the article is about his book , not about Bailey and the NWU's investigation was closed door so we can't answer those questions.

Personally I don't like Bailey , I do not agree with his conclusions , his research methods are incomprehensible as are his ethical standards , but all these things are best kept to proper articles with better research than we can do. As this article sits now, it outlines the books premise, covers the basic chapters , defines the basis of the controversy and gives Dreger her chance to defend Bailey's right intellectual freedom . Do we really need to go and pull all the rebuttal articles to Dreger's statements ? I would love to but it makes this article harder to read. If we can't have a clear statement, lets have a simple one. DarlieB (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Complete proposed controversy/academic freedom section, version 1

To make it clear what the whole controversy section would look like, I have compiled the previously-agreed part with the proposed revision. The "Academic freedom" section would be folded into this.

Controversy

The book elicited both strongly positive and strongly negative responses. Kirkus Reviews concluded: "Despite its provocative title, a scientific yet superbly compassionate exposition." The book received praise from gay sexual behavior scientists James Cantor and Simon LeVay, from sex-differences expert David Buss, and from research psychologist Steven Pinker, who wrote: "With a mixture of science, humanity, and fine writing, J. Michael Bailey illuminates the mysteries of sexual orientation and identity in the best book yet written on the subject. The Man Who Would Be Queen may upset the guardians of political correctness on both the left and the right, but it will be welcomed by intellectually curious people of all sexes and sexual orientations. A truly fascinating book." It also received praise from journalists John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer, Daniel Seligman, and Mark Henderson.

Some reviews in the LGBT press were positive, such as from writers Ethan Boatner for Lavender Magazine and Duncan Osborne for Out. Those in the transgender community who agreed with Blanchard's taxonomy also reviewed the book positively. Anne Lawrence, a physician and sexologist whose work on autogynephilia is featured in the book, wrote "This is a wonderful book on an important subject," and autogynephilia support group founder Willow Arune wrote, "Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence and [Blanchard colleague Maxine] Petersen have done more to help transsexuals over years of service than perhaps any other four people in the world."

The public response of the transgender community was almost entirely negative. Among other things, they opposed the book's endorsement of Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism, its publication by the National Academies Press, by whom it was "advertised as science" and marketed as "scientifically accurate," which they argued was untrue. They also claimed the book exploited children with gender dysphoria. Among those criticizing the book were computer scientist Lynn Conway, biologists Joan Roughgarden and Ben Barres, physician Rebecca Allison, economist Deirdre McCloskey, psychologist Madeline Wyndzen, writers Dallas Denny, Pauline Park, Jamison Green Gwen Smith, and Andrea James, as well as Christine Burns of Press for Change, Karen Gurney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, and Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America.

Negative responses came from outside the transgender community as well. Liza Mundy in the Washington Post wrote, "I got so bored that I began recreationally underlining passages to decide which was the dullest." Psychologist Eli Coleman referred to the book as "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers," and his colleague, Walter Bockting, wrote that it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community." Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft referred to the book as "not science," later clarifying that "it promoted a very derogatory explanation of transgender identity which most TG people would find extremely hurtful and humiliating….Whether based on science or not we have a responsibility to present scientific ideas, particularly in the public arena, in ways which are not blatantly hurtful. But in addition to that, [Bailey] did not support his analysis in a scientific manner—hence my comment." Psychologist Randi Ettner said of Bailey, "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned." Psychiatrist Vernon Rosario wrote, "The problem with Bailey is his simplistic approach to forcing people into his classification system. This is nowhere more evident than in his repeated dismissal of people’s experiences that do not conform to his model… Whenever a subject reports something different, Bailey just says, 'I doubt that.'" Ph.D. student Riki Lane summarized the transgender portion of the conflict: "Bailey's supporters see themselves as defending unpopular scientific 'truth' against people who won't face a reality that is politically unpalatable and destructive to their self image. Bailey's opponents see themselves as defending their community from sensationalist pseudoscience that sexualizes them as sex starved gay men or neurotic straight men with a sexual obsession." Philosophy professor Talia Mae Bettcher wrote, “Because Bailey believes transsexual women tend to lie or misrepresent, nothing a transwoman can say contests this theory.”

Following complaints from trans women described in the book, Northwestern University opened a full investigation into Bailey’s research activities in November 2003. The Southern Poverty Law Center printed a report that key figures involved in promoting the book (including Bailey, Blanchard, Buss, Derbyshire, Pinker, Sailer, and Seligman) “belong to a private cyber-discussion group of a neo-eugenics outfit, the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI).” Psychologist and sex therapist Margaret Nichols wrote, “Bailey’s connection to HBI belies his politics and has important bearing on his research in the areas of sex and gender diversity. In my opinion, the HBI connection alone makes Bailey an enemy of queer people.”

The Lambda Literary Foundation nominated the book as a finalist in the transgender award category for 2003. The Foundation then reconsidered the nomination but decided to keep it on the list. After protest of the nomination intensified via an internet petition, a second reconsideration led to the book's removal from its award finalists. According to Executive Director Jim Marks, removal was due to the belated decision that the book was transphobic. After Marks resigned, his successor Charles Flowers stated, “[T]he Bailey incident revealed flaws in our awards nomination process… With the help of the transgender community, we have improved the integrity of our awards, by making them more inclusive and our methods more transparent.”

Besides criticizing the book, some critics alleged that Bailey had breached professional ethics. These included the accusations that Bailey had conducted scientific research without institutional review board permission, that he had sex with a research subject (a transsexual sex worker called "Juanita" in the book), and that he had practiced psychology without a license. Northwestern University conducted a formal investigation of the charge that he had conducted research without proper oversight; there is no evidence the other charges were investigated. Although the findings of that investigation were not released, Northwestern's Vice President for Research, C. Bradley Moore, said, "The allegations of scientific misconduct made against Professor J. Michael Bailey do not fall under the federal definition of scientific misconduct." Physician Charles Moser wrote, "the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct."

Some critics attacked Bailey in more personal ways. Some gay academics made "sarcastic comments about Bailey's own masculinity and sartorial style." Andrea James constructed a page of "satire" by taking pictures of Bailey's children and placing sexually offensive captions beside them, one of which was a quotation from Bailey's book. James has said that she was echoing the disrespect that Bailey's work shows for vulnerable people, including children. James also constructed webpages attacking or mocking Bailey's supporters, colleagues, and friends (including an ex-girlfriend), questioned Bailey's sexuality, asserted that he had "abandoned" his family, and sent a message to his colleagues that he suffered from "alcohol abuse and dependence."

In 2006 Northwestern University professor Alice Dreger unsuccessfully attempted to suppress a speech given at Northwestern by James: Lane wrote, "her actions to 'no-platform' James are similar to the tactics she ascribes to Bailey's opponents in their attempts to shut down discussion of Blanchard’s theories." In response, Dreger released her account of the controversy in 2007, a year before it was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. New York Times reporter Benedict Carey reported that Dreger found Bailey "essentially blameless." Addressing the specific accusations against Bailey, she argued that he did not conduct scientific research without required supervision, that he probably did not have sex with "Juanita" (and even if he had, there is nothing wrong with it), that he did not illegally practice clinical psychology without a license, and that his membership in the "Human Biodiversity Institute" merely constituted being a member of an email listserv that included some conservative members. Dreger described the controversy as suppression of academic freedom and concluded: "the historical evidence indicates that Conway, James, and [Deirdre] McCloskey tried to destroy Bailey's book and his reputation through these truly extraordinary measures because they didn’t like what he had to say."

Dreger's paper also elicited both strongly positive and strongly negative responses when it was published in 2008 with 23 commentaries in the same issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Commenters included John Bancroft, Ben Barres, Ray Blanchard, John Gagnon, Richard Green, Deirdre McCloskey, Charles Moser, Seth Roberts, Julia Serano, and Ken Zucker. Green said her "meticulously detailed and documented essay is on remarkably even terrain," and told Bailey's critics to "lighten up." Psychologist Antonia Caretto called it a "thorough review." Lawrence said Dreger's paper gives evidence that the backlash was "a manifestation of narcissistic rage." Dreger received a Guggenheim Fellowship to expand the article into a book. Several critics wrote that Dreger's paper lacked balance, objectivity, and context. Anthropologist Robin Mathy wrote that the trans community response "had nothing to do with Conway, James, or any other high-profile transwomen. They had everything to do with TMWWBQ and Bailey." Sociologist Elroi Windsor wrote, "Dreger faults these critics for targeting the messenger and not his messages, yet the imbalance within her article suggests that she does the same. This imbalance colors Dreger's conclusions regarding Bailey's infractions." Gender studies scholar Nicholas Clarkson wrote, "By focusing on the complaints of Conway, McCloskey, and James as representative of critiques of Bailey’s book, interspersed far too infrequently by more measured critiques (e.g., from Jamison Green), Dreger represents trans people as a lunatic fringe and marginalizes legitimate trans critiques of Bailey’s book. Indeed, she buries these critiques in short paragraphs, most of which come at the end of her article, thus effectively silencing those legitimate trans challenges." Biologist Julia Serano wrote: "Dreger seems to attribute this [backlash] to a calculated attempt by three trans activists, Conway, James, and McCloskey (CJM), to personally "ruin" Bailey. In Dreger’s article, CJM are portrayed as singlehandedly initiating and orchestrating the entire backlash against the book via personal attacks on Bailey. I would argue that this is a rather myopic view, as it both overstates these activists’ influence within the community and underplays the broad consensus of trans activists, allies, and advocates who found the book to be unapologetically arrogant, crass, stigmatizing, sensationalizing, and a distortion of both trans people’s lives and the scientific literature on the subject. If CJM did not become involved, and if no personal attacks were carried out against Bailey, the backlash still would have occurred and it would likely have been just as contentious. The month Dreger's paper was published, an academic panel on trans perspectives about "the Bailey brouhaha" convened despite Dreger's attempt to suppress it by attacking the graduate student who proposed it.

The Man Who Would Be Queen went out of print in 2008 but remained available for sale as a PDF on the National Academies website.

As I mentioned, this is going to be very difficult to discuss all in one piece, so I propose we split it into three parts for discussion: The initial response, the response starting with the investigation, and the Dreger sub-controversy (split here by hard returns). Since Wikipedia is not constrained to specific lengths for articles, we can make this as long as necessary to cover the topic in a balanced and neutral manner. Jokestress (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This satisfies me. This right here right now is good enough that I think that the top or bottom half of the controversy article could be replaced by it. This hit's basically all the bases. It's long but this is a complicated mess. Good work. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I must be honest, it's ponderous and boring. It has nothing to do with the controversy . I reduced it back down to identifying Baileys critics and the controversy. Do we need to get everyones opinion on the planet , gay or straight to comment on it ? Unless this has DIRECT bearing on the controversy there is no point. KISS DarlieB (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My summary and reasoning for keeping this concise

Baileys book is a one source experiment to verify some of Blanchard's theories. It was "researched " at a gay fetish/pick up bar and what he observed was real but only in one sense. To explain that statement let us imagine this was an article on heterosexuals and was researched at heterosexual sex/fetish club . Can we assume that observations made at such a club validates sweeping observations that could be applied to all heterosexuals ? Can they be divided into just two categories ? Of course not, yet Bailey said that there were only two classifications of transsexual and if any transsexual disagrees with his theories they must be lying. It's not a scientific statement so no matter who argues pro or con what remains is merely opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) DarlieB (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Team Bailey have been trying to establish a simple revisionist master narrative where three "rage"-filled transsexuals masterminded a conspiracy to "ruin" a "scientist under siege," concluding that Bailey is some sort of brave Gallileo-type martyr speaking "scientific truth" in the face of "identity politics." They ignore Bailey's many personal attacks on the people he wrote about and focus on his own narcissistic injuries, when the tables were turned and his own identity was examined by gay and trans critics in academia and beyond. They seem to believe it's "science" when he attacks vulnerable communities and people, and "rage" when done to him. The story is much more complicated than their version of things, which is why this draft is written long. We are in the process of editing this down to a summary right now. I hope you will join us in the discussion. I believe each of the three sections above can be made into one paragraph each, per Wikipedia:Summary style. I'd like to include references with all the reliable sources listed, so anyone interested can look it all up themselves. The main reason this is so detailed is because a couple of editors here seem to think Dreger's hatchet job is some sort of authoritative final word on the matter, when she merely repeats the same tactics and strategies as Bailey in his problematic book. This kind of nonsense will always play well to people in positions of institutional power with little knowledge on the topic, because it is written in a style that is familiar to them, and uses buzzwords that get them all tingly.

I agree the multi-month debate process is ponderous and boring (as is the draft above), but I believe it will ultimately lead to a better article, by gathering all the facts and POVs (including those ignored/suppressed by Dreger) and then summarizing them, versus heavy reliance on the version profferred by Bailey's supporters. Jokestress (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand the need to balance by and that it was not a " 3 person conspiracy" as alleged by Dreger . Across the board the reaction from the entire transsexual community was totally negative and I left the other names in simply because they were were well respected activists who made publicly sourced statements on the book. I think that will be clear to the reader but here is our problem , we cannot allow Baileys personal attacks to become an issue or it opens the door to members of our communities emotional attacks on him. Objectivity can't be reached by posting the heated words of someone simply because they are an intellectual on either side , it must have more than just an entertainment value and deal with real issues in the controversy . The Andrea James section, in real context , portrays Bailey badly so they were not going to challenge it's deletion . Dr Bailey has responded like a spoiled child who was punished for stealing cookies and Dreger has been defending the right to publish silly assumption without any consequences. This never was an "intellectual freedom " issue because every academic that proposes theory will suffer these social/academic consequences or rewards due to it . And while I've removed at least 4 of the five hidden Dreger quotes she needs to be mentioned simply for her single handed revival of the issue in the public eye .

And yes, I noted that the Bailey Forces had made this article completely bias. At first I worked hard simply to put balance in it , but once I had the original editor chopped it all down to near nothing , threw on the neutrality tag and walked away in a huff . Now you know me as someone who never shies from argument or debate so know that this is incredibly hard for me to be neutral but I have. My hope is that whatever summary you create is "balanced". It serves no ones purpose and especially not ours to deal with the hostile reaction to an obviously imbalanced or bias article. We need to walk a higher road here so lets start with a tight , concise and neutral view.I look forward ton the summary. Yes, I will participate.--DarlieB (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Need to archive

At almost 400K, this may be the longest talk page on Wikipedia. Can we set up autoarchiving to remove old materials? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I hand-archived materials up through the last response by ProudAGP. I will archive the remainder once we hear back about the latest version. Proposal 2 outlines ProudAGP's objections and suggestion, so I didn't want to archive that until we hear back about the latest proposal. Jokestress (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's Reversion

What is the intent, to post every "opinion" one can on this article ? How has that anything to do with the contraversy and why do these reviews carry any weight whatsaoever  ? I'm totally fine with putting this up for review because I've read what you discussed and STILL see no reason for including it. Please, one by one of you would , what would reviews like Kirkus have to do with anything when the issues were solely the reaction of the transsexual community ? How exactly does a book reviewers "opinion" mean anything. The Witches Hammer in it's time was a very well reviewed I'm sure!--DarlieB (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Since your involvement in August, we have been working toward consensus by writing a detailed account of the controversy that contains a well-sourced survey of all the responses and key events. From this, the intent is to condense all of it into a summary. Various editors have claimed that this or that event was not relevant, so we have been adding citations from reliable sources to back up the relevance. Once we have an unabridged version that includes everything people consider relevant, the plan is to use that as a starting point for a tight version. For instance, I think the Kirkus review is worthless because it is anonymous and for all we know written by one of Bailey's pals. But in order to reach consensus, we are leaving it in for discussion. Another editor thinks Bailey's involvement with the human biodiversity group is unimportant, so we've included a quotation from a psychologist who considered it very important. It's critical to take our time and make sure everyone is OK at each step when reaching consensus on touchy topics. I have had many similar negotiations, such as the race and intelligence article which involves some of the same academics. I support WhatamIdoing's revision of your changes to the article, because it's important that we respect the process and negotiate changes here first. Jokestress (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Keeping calm

Hello folks! An editor involved in this article has asked me to help resolve any disputes. It seems as though the major issue is undue weight may be given to controversy, or more specifically, criticism of the book. Is my summary correct? Are there any favorable reviews extant? I seem to recall that Quality Paperback Book Club offered this an an option. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)