In a rather unusual move J Michael Bailey, of "The Man Who Would be Queen" infamy, has resurfaced in a comment on Christine Benvenuto's blog in the comment section. The item below was his first of two comments made on a post about male privilege.
You will notice Bailey still considers himself the victim which is ironic. Since he could not sell his book based on his "intuition" and his supposedly innate ability to instantly recognize what type of transsexual one is which is amazing considering he has met very few, despite what he claims.
The reason I am mentioning this is quite simple. For the first time, ever, I intend to read the free version of the "Man Who Would be Queen" and to review it. The problem with being retired is it is easy to get bored when one is accustomed to the activities my life in engineering and science brought about. The irony is that simple admission of employment would allow Bailey to label me as one type of transsexual but my life would label me as another.
My initial impression is Mr Bailey would not understand rigorous science even if it bit him in the ass. One of the things required of all research and truly scientific works is the ability to link your results and hypothesis with facts and other research that backs up your position including those you paraphrase or quote.
Other research documents or studies mentioned or referred to also must be referenced and all of your research that has been published must be correctly referenced. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single reference inside the document that provides a direct link to the research used to form Mr. Bailey's opinions. Mr. Bailey does not provide access to his research or a reference to it so one could read it or purchase it if necessary.
I have read about half of it so far and his evidence is primarily anecdotal, in my opinion, and if there is one thing I have learned over the years it is those of us born transsexual that walk away and live normal lives rarely, if ever, talk with people like Bailey, Blanchard, Zucker, Lawrence, etc. and you will find them referenced by name throughout the book. Mr. Bailey has a high opinion of them all and particularly of himself.
I did invite Mr Bailey to comment here so he can discuss his positions in an open forum but somehow I doubt he will do that. Bailey is totally obsessed with homosexuality and based on his own comments about where he hangs out with "friends" in Chicago I could make the claim Bailey is gay but then I would be doing what Bailey does which is use anecdotal evidence and my "intuition" and my "gaydar" to label someone.
Is this book a work of "fiction" or work that lives somewhere in the middle between truth and fiction? Is this work a written contradiction where he pose one point of view and then later in another paragraph contradicts himself?
I will have my opinion shortly.