User:Caulde/caption

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)

Ok I understand Darlie. Consider this.

Over a decade ago there was a crisis in lebanon. You had these factions all fighting mainly Christian VS Muslim. This american diplomat went over there to mediate the dispute. A news reporter informed him that both sides think he is biased against them. He said "In a situation like this....If both sides think you are working for their opposition then it means you are neutral. He was latter kidnapped and killed by one of the factions.

What this has to do with the current dispute is that this controversy while non violent is just as passionate. Both sides hold entrenched viewpoints and will not budge. In a truly neutral light (like tht found in the article I wrote about the controvrsy) you can see everyone's warts. Such, I suppose, is why neither side likes it and wants it to go away. As soon as their summary is done. The other moral of that story is that anyone, like me, who tries to be neutral and listens to both sides will get branded as working for the other team, or have one team think I am working for them. Let me say publically I have yet to get my monogrammed "Team Bailey" starter jacket and cap yet so I am not in team Bailey yet. :-?

Basically what I am trying to get ALL of you to understnd is that no writing of this will be satisfactory to both sides. One side or the other will feel slighted in some way. Jokestress is doing good work here. If she were not I would post a notice on the COI notice board about her. She has been reasonably neutral in her edits and proposals so I do not do that. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not I agree with you even though I am branded "anti-Bailey". Jokestress is actually a a dear friend and as you notice she could be branded "Team Bailey" herself , yet she is not. This is a person I highly respect and admire and yet our dispute is merely this, I feel that we are including pointless positive reviews for the sake of the "appearance" of balance when NONE address the issues of the controversy. If we are short of direct rebuttal on an academic scale then include Baileys own defense if you must but not reviews of moms "book of the month " club. Does that make sense ? I've worked on this edit since way back to get it to neutral ground and was uninformed of the "consensus "poll . I wonder why ? The unfortunate thing is that even if we create "pretend" neutral ground it will be just that if they aren't equal peer reviews. Again, what is the " controversy to you" ? Please define it ? The alleged conspiracy or the negative reviews ? If it is the former then direct rebuttal to the "conspirators" charges are the only respnse from credible sources. If it is the latter and merely the fact the responses were negative then Alice Dreger's charges should be removed as well because those are supposedly a direct response to charges of an alledged "conspiracy". This artical DIRECTLY charges three academic transsexuals with "conspiracy" . I would like our new Mod to directly answer that and to judge whether that allegation violates "Do no harm ". --DarlieB (talk) 15:10, 10 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)

My point is we can wipe every single reference to the positive out. The "controversy" has nothing to do with balanced reviews. It has to do with charges made by the transsexual community the books methods of sales, methodology and conclusions were poor. Bailey was attacked in an academic forum for it by high profile members of that community. The main reason for the resistance to criticism seems to be that they are the victims of Baileys book. In fact I think I can state without reservation that if it were not for their gender issues people would take the criticism at face value. Posting positive opinions doesn't address those charges so they are completely irrelevant. The balance is Dreger is allowed to state her ridiculous theory that Bailey should be protected from academic and economic repercussion of statements unlike every other academic out there. Example Steven Jones who was fired in the same method as Bailey for a controversial theory. Why should anyone have to negotiate the truth ? If WhatamIdoing can't post a response directly related to the controversy charges then no response is appropriate .--DarlieB (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, DarlieB, we cannot just "wipe every single reference to the positive out". We cannot say that "[a]cross the board the reaction from the entire transsexual community was totally negative". We can't say these things because they are not true. Most transsexuals object. Some do not. Silencing the minority view is a violation of Wikipedia's policies on a neutral point of view.

It is perfectly obvious to everyone that you personally disagree with the Blanchard taxonomy. That is very different from every single transsexual on the planet having the same opinion.

The reason I reverted your earlier changes was solely because you carelessly and completely disregarded the hours of work on this talk page that were put into them. I assume that you did this through ignorance of that work, but now you know that each sentence has been carefully discussed half a dozen times by half a dozen editors. You are welcome to join the discussion, but you are not welcome to impose your own version over the objections over everyone else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. A controversy by definition is a dispute involving strong disagreement. It's not fair to present just one side in a controversy in the article, and we are working hard to present both sides in a manner that is representative and neutral, per policy. We welcome your input on the proposed controversy section, but it's necessary to represent all points of view proportionally. Jokestress (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes you can wipe out every positive review if they are unrelated to the controversy (which by the way is the alleged "conspiracy of transsexuals" trying to destroy Bailey, not the reviews). Virtually every transsexual I know saw Baileys book as the opportunistic exploitation of an unrepresented minority. What transsexuals do you know WhatamIdoing ? I live in the community so you saying because Anne Lawrence was happy about her own theory is ridiculous. The transsexual community reacted negatively PERIOD. Yes, I disagree with the "taxonomy" but that doesn't mean you should be prefacing the controversy discussion with babble like anonymous reviews from Kirkus ! Reviews that don't even deal with the controversy !. What is that ? Academics and PhDs vs webnerds ? So lets see your "transsexual support" .--DarlieB (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Again WAID, show me your transsexual support ? You made this statement "We can't say these things because they are not true". Lets have it. --DarlieB (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you try reading what's already on this page on that subject? Look at several of the proposals above. No, that's probably too hard for you. Read this:

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 fact that your personal friends dislike the idea is not just unimportant, it's a violation of the No Original Research policy. Positive reviews by people that publicly identify as transsexual have been published. The unanimity of "the transsexual community" on this issue is a myth. The transsexual community is made up of many individuals. It's just as offensive to stereotype "all transsexuals" as thinking alike as it is to say that "all black people" or "all Latinos" think alike. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 11 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)

This long version has two paragraphs of positive reviews and two paragraphs of negative reviews. As far as WP:UNDUE, in terms of politics, negative response was proportionally higher than positive response. I asked you to take a look because of the revert war in article space, which removes a lot of information negotiated by consensus. I believe WhatamIdoing's revert was correct and appropriate, but do not want to revert it myself a second time. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was incorrect to add as the positive reviews have nothing to do with the actual controversy. None of these "positive" reviews even deal with the issues raised. None ! Jokestress is trying to compromise to overcome WhatamIdoing's obsessive compulsive need to defend Bailey ( notice I do not say the book ) no matter how unrelated his support material. This article is about the book and not a courtroom defense of it's author . Neutrality does not mean you have to toss in ANY material to balance.--DarlieB (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets start Bearian by clearly identifying the controversy because rebuttal in this article depends on what is being discussed. Is it the negative critical response by the transsexual community or the "alleged" conspiracy of a few transsexual academics to destroy Baileys career as Alice Dreger claimed ? By the way, have you read The Man Who Would Be Queen  ? --DarlieB (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the negative reviews are overweighed. Specifically, it is the reviews that appear in high-end sources that merit mention in WP articles, not blogs and opinions in non-RS's. This is particularly the case for controversial topics, such as this one. The high-end reviews of this book have been much more positive than those in non-professional sources. (For the record, my own review of the book appeared in a non-RS.)

— James Cantor (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please post a link to your review Cantor and support of your assertion "the high-end reviews of this book have been much more positive" . Thanks. --DarlieB (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and WhatamIdoing , please stop editing in Bearian's name unless he directs you to. The point of having him here is to settle the disputed text. Oh and could you please stop lying in your reversion explanations ? You were not restoring "Bearian's" edits because none of "Bearian's" edits were changed. In fact , you actually "reverted" the things he had just corrected ! --DarlieB (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

@James Cantor: Your glowing book review is used in the publisher's marketing materials and has been mentioned in other published sources, so your prominent involvement as a major stakeholder in this has been well-established since the earliest days of the controversy. In fact, your review is also notable because the National Academies changed the attribution from "American Psychology Association" to your name in the wake of complaints. Your ongoing attempts to downplay your significant role in promoting the book and attacking its critics fly in the face of the published record and your edit history on Wikipedia. Your attempts to eliminate the extensive published criticism by claiming it's not "high-end" are part of the pattern of intimidation and suppression of opposing views that you and Dreger are well-known for in this debate. You and your employers are notorious for casting a chill on open discussion, where psychologists and sexologists and former patients are afraid to use their real names for justifiable fear of retribution from CAMH-affiliated psychologists. If you have concerns about a source in the article, please specify so we can discuss its merits. Jokestress (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record I disagree with Dr. Cantor on this one. Those "non-RS" "low end" reviews come from people like professors Conway and McCloskey. They are both academics, they are both transsexuals. They (and jokestress, Darlie and I) know more about actually being a transsexual than any of those so called high end reviewers can ever know. As I recall Conway and McCloskey raised some legit points. The book reduces all of the complexity of being a transsexual down to a one or two dimensional map. That alone tells you it's at least a grave oversimplification. (McCloskey also had to take a swipe at those individuals who in the book were labeld "homosexual transsexuals" As if they were not or could not also have been directly injured by what's in the book. I digress..) For those reasons I believe and will argue at length that the concerns of the likes of Conway and McCloskey should be here if the reviews of James Cantor and such are here. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

DarlieB, I made no edits in Bearian's name. I reverted your anti-consensus change, and because of the limitations of Wikipedia's software, which couldn't remove your massive deletion without deleting Bearian's recent changes as well, I manually retyped Bearian's recent changes. You are being offensive and making unfounded accusations. I would appreciate it if you at least pretended to show respect for the other editors working on this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly unfounded WAID ." DarlieB's anti-consensus changes again; restore Bearian's edits"-WhatamIdoing. You reverted a mods revisions ! Who are you to do that ? Bearian being here was entirely to sort the dispute. Once he is up to speed on the issues I'm fine with him deciding what's to be included. As for "consensus" I was not told or informed of any changes by wiki even though this is watched so to say it was "consensus" is just sneaky. By majority , if the KKK decides they want to edit Barrack Obama's profile here is that ok ? I mean , they would have a "consensus right ? And that's the point of having a mod here. This already has neutrality tags so it was never finished. I agree on Hfarmer's "middle east war " scenario , where no one will be happy in the end but we will reach a proper compromise. If there is such an issue it can;'t be resolved then I suggest removing the entire controversy section and Dregers accusations. I feel the structure of that controversy section was compromised from the beginning. Since when do you identify positive reviews before you even discuss the "controversy" the section is about ?!. Is that some new age right wing Fox Propaganda defensive measure ? Let the mod do his job and stop doing it for him !And just so you know, that massive deletion was first done by another editor , the same person who put the neutrality tags on this article. Not that you have been right yet. --DarlieB (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Click here to see Bearian's edits. They were:

• Removal of wikilinking to one instance of the word autogynephilia
• Wikilink transpeople to the Transgenderism article.
• Add a comma, followed by the words ", which may have amounted to sexual exploitation" to an existing sentence.

That's it. If you look at the changes I made, I removed just your edits, and manually re-typed all three of Bearian's changes. The evidence plainly shows that I did not revert Bearian's changes; I carefully preserved them. I removed your edits because they were contrary to the carefully worked out consensus on this page. It is hardly my, or any other editor's, fault if you didn't manage to notice the many thousands of words in discussion on this page over the last couple of weeks.

I suggest that you take your own advice, and quit reverting to your preferred version. If you really believed in allowing the moderator to take the lead, then you would have left that decision to Bearian. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

IT WAS HIS ! You altered his edit! I don't care if you polished his shoes and wiped his bottom the last edit was his AND YOU* REVERTED* IT! There was NO consensus because it was only you Dr Dreger and Bailey doing the editing ! Oh I've been back many times to check the responses. These are recent . And since you feel that way about my not noticing I'm here now so lets get to that consensus. Stop your stalling anprovide proof of "transsexual support " for this book or apologize for saying otherwise.--DarlieB (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

---

• Liking a book and saying so in a newsletter does not give one "prominent involvement as a major stakeholder." I neither expected nor received any benefit from expressing my opinion. Filing actual complaints against Bailey (as Jokestress has) gives one prominent involvement as a major stakeholder.
• Regarding whether my review is notable: Jokestress, like everyone else is entitled to their opinion. I point out only the WP policies, which (in my opinion) restricts page content to reviews that appear in high-end outlets, which my review did not.
• To correct an error of Jokestress': The National Academies did not change their attribution in "a wake of complaints." They changed their attribution because *I* asked them to use my name instead of the name of the groups that published my review. I have no idea on what basis Jokestress thinks that it was complaints that had any effect...except that Jokestress was one of the complainers.
• My expressing my interpretation that WP policy is for using high-end sources in the discussion of controversial issues is not an "attempt to eliminate the extensive published criticism." To the contrary, it is more than plausible that Jokestress is pushing for the inclusion in WP of low-end reviews because those are the ones she agrees with. Regardless of which of those explanations is correct, the question for WP and Bearian is: Which course of action best meets WP's needs and policy, including or excluding reviews in non-professional sources?
• As for Dreger, me, or anyone else trying to intimidate anyone, one can always tell when Jokestress is making things up by when she says things like "are well-known for," etc. but provides no actual evidence beyond 'someone said so'. I can recommend to Bearian only to read the New York Times coverage of Jokestress (Andrea James) posting on her website photos of other people's children with obscene captions and then deciding if it is actually Jokestress to uses intimidation as a political tactic. (Incidentally, I have no idea what power Jokestress thinks I have that I could use against anyone.)
• I appreciate Hfarmer's desire to deem Conway's and McCloskey's opinions relevant, because those two people are highly educated and openly transsexual; however, neither of those criteria pertain to whether their comments should appear on a WP page. That is, WP policy does not say that greater weight should be given to opinions from people just because they are members of a relevant demographic group or because they have a PhD in a non-relevant field (Conway is an eletrical engineer and McCloskey is an economist). (Incidentally, I appreciate Hfarmer's willingness to disagree; I have never met two people who agree on everything.)
• I agree with Hfarmer that the reviews by Conway and McCloskey have no greater qualification to be on this page than mine does. I am saying only that the standard for including reviews here should be the same as the standard for including reviews anywhere else...those that were published in high-end, professional outlets by a person with relevant knowledge of the topic.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr Cantor- ". Psychologist -"His clinical activities focus primarily on the assessment of persons dealing with illegal or clinically significant sexual behaviours and interests." Your work is in PEDOPHILES ! Not transgendered or transsexuals ? And Ray Blanchard associate and collaborator ! No bias huh ? Tell me Dr, was using the name "MarionTheLibrarian" your way of experiencing the transsexual world or was it merely to invoke the empathy in critics that a woman would ? =) It would be embarrassing if this book was discredited wouldn't it since you are one of the people used to promote it's wholesome goodness and value . You have been editing this from the day I got here sir and now I know why. It's seems to me I am virtually the only one here without direct ties , well, I'm gender variant so I must be one of two kinds of transsexual right ? Guess which wont you Dr,? . By the way , have you ever cured anyone ? Ever ? --DarlieB (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, my clinical activities are as described in the bio of mine that you have quoted; and yes, at the moment, I am in a clinic with specialized expertise in pedophilia.
2. Yes, I do some clinical work with people with gender dysphoria, but not as much I have in the past.
3. Yes, Blanchard and I work together on several projects. I have never said anything of Blanchard that is not already part of some public record where anyone may check it.
4. No, I used the name "MarionTheLibrarian" because (1) a lot of my editing was about adding sources from medical libraries that most people don't have access to, (2) "Marian The Librarian" is from a famous Broadway musical (I am a fan), and (3) I changed the spelling of "Marian" to "Marion" in order to masculinize it without losing the rhyme.
5. I publish professionally on several topics in sexology on a regular basis. It is unlikely that every word that any scientist writes will be correct. I have no issue whatsoever with anyone disagreeing with anything I say or think. However, people should disagree only with what I actually say or think rather than disagree with some misinterpreted version of what I say or think, but don't.
6. You are not the only one here without ties. Moreover, there is no rule against editors having opinions; it is our edits that must remain neutral. If you have a particular edit of mine you would like to discuss, you have not referred to it.
7. I have no idea who you are. Your next sentence is too agrammatical for me to interpret.
8. Finally, neither transexuality nor paraphilias change after any known intervention. People who have come to me with other concerns, however, have had those concerns alleviated over the course of treatment. However, I do very little treatment. As it says in your quote from my bio, most of my clinical work is in assessment, not treatment.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alleviation of symptoms isn't isn't a "cure" , correct Dr ? Though , yes , I note you mostly do assessment . So what would be your area of expertise in gender dysphoria that makes your review noteworthy  ? Have you established some relationship between pedophiles and transgenders ? Yes, I'm familiar with The Music Man and that Shirley Jones was the character you changed the gender on. Fascinating with so many male names to choose from you chose to gender change a known female character =) It's ok, I simply asked you to guess which of the two Bailey/Blanchard type transsexuals I was =) Humor , you wrote a positive review after all. I find nothing wrong with you having an opinion , nothing at all. Could you post a link , or could someone post a link to Dr Cantors review ? I'm not that smart Dr, I'm a cartoon animator so I'll have to struggle with the terminology I'm sure. Please WAID , post those positive reviews by transsexuals. --DarlieB (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave it at this. Anyone who wants to read about James Cantor's tactics can do so here, or they can email Dr. Madeline Wyndzen or call up Kyle Scanlon at the 519 in Toronto. Or look at his Wikipedia contributions under each of his three names. They all promote the work of his employers and attack their critics. Every single one of them. Or just ask around among psychologists you know to get the scoop. Anyone who wants to read about Dreger's tactics can read the Anderson-Minshall and Hendrick reports sourced in the proposal above, or pretty much any commentary on her paper. Bailey has been replaying his narcissistic injuries on his site since 2003, so anyone who wants to read about my tactics can go there for his take on things. To read about Bailey's tactics, I recommend the reports on his 2003 Emory and Stanford lectures, his mockery of "Juanita" in his book, and his various threats to critics. I think that covers all the accusations, etc.

Now that that is out of the way, does anyone have comments on the proposed draft while we await ProudAGP? I'd love to get this back on track and focused on improving the article. If anyone has a counterproposal, please put it up for discussion. Jokestress (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr Cantor. "Cantor refers to transsexuals based on their birth gender. Therefore, what any modern, reasonable person would refer to as a transsexual woman (a woman who was assigned the gender "male" at birth), Cantor and the CAMH refers to as a "transsexual man", or even, later, a "male homosexual transsexual.""

My my Dr. you are a little devil aren't you !

"Cantor's primary claim in this lecture is that, in contrast to the theories proposed and explored by gender theorists, sex and gender are two separate concepts, and that there is actually a causal link between the two. His analysis is based on the study of trans women, which is problematic because (among other things) he has no control group to which to compare, and restricts his study to a small part of the population. He briefly mentions trans men, as somewhat of an afterthought, and says (we shit you not), "Female to male transsexuals are pretty simple to understand. They’re all very similar. For one thing, 98% of them are exclusively attracted to women." Sorry dudes, you are too boring and simple to mention, and transfags, you just step away from the boys right now! This absence of trans men is very telling: first, it indicates the complete lack of clinical interest in a very diverse client population; second, it homogenizes all trans men and basically dismisses them; third, it’s a totally incorrect assessment of trans men’s lives; and finally, trans men clearly aren’t included in the analysis because it really screws up the nice neat model."

Tsk tsk, no control group. Why is it you , um..... people , always focus on MTF Dr ? Is it because you feel FTM's are not sexual enough for you ? At leat with FTM's you have testosterone driven masturbation in common so you must know them like the back of yoru hand , or front (no seriously ).

"Fundamentally, Cantor's theory hinges on the bifurcation of trans women into two definite groups: androphilic trans women, who fit into the role of feminine straight women, and autogynephilic, who might be understood as trans dykes, but with numerous significant differences (we’ll expand on these later). Of course, confusion and indignation results as Cantor persists in referring to these groups as, respectively, "homosexual male transsexuals" and "heterosexual male transsexuals.""

Ahh, you do work with Blanchard don't you. I suppose ProudAGP ( I already know he is posting from Illinois ! Check the server sig ) is Dr Bailey , who is Alice Dreger ? WAID ? How nice of you to come here Dr Cantor and edit on your own supported theory. I propose to Bearian that this is a conflict of interest. Dr Cantor is an agent of Dr Blanchard and Dr Bailey. Apparently the KKK can edit Obamas bio =). --DarlieB (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The key issues

Below are what I believe are key points that should be covered:

• TMWWBQ reviews (pro and con)
• LGBT political response (pro and con)
• NAP/JHP marketing and response
• CAMH employees and colleagues/supporters
• IASR incident 2003
• NU response and investigation
• HBI connection of reviewers (SPLC commentary)
• WPATH response and counter-response (letter to NU, resignations, etc.)
• LLF nomination and recission
• ASB involvement in Dreger sub-controversy (NYT, commentaries)
• Bailey's response
• Publication status of the book

That's what I tried to cover in the proposal so that we might condense it. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)