Saturday, October 5, 2013

Michael Bailey and The Man That Would be Queen

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.

J. Michael Bailey
I loved your book. So refreshingly honest and insightful. You had the courage to keep your eyes open. In contrast, in the NY Times this week there is a lukewarm review of a sister’s account of her financier brother’s transformation. Sounds like the same ol’.
If you are interested in learning more about the motivations of heterosexual men who become women, you can read my book (third section most relevant) here:
Some transsexual women tried to suppress the book by attacking me. (Talk about male privilege dying hard.) You can read about their attempts to ruin my life here:
I could not figure out how to email you. But hope you find this comment relevant.
J. Michael Bailey

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.


Just Jennifer said...

The simple problem with Bailey's, and Blanchard's, supposed science is that their hypothesis (it really does not rise to the level of a theory) is simply not falsifiable. Put in simpler terms, within the parameters of their claim, you cannot show that what they claim to be true is not true. Now, that might sound like that verifies what they say, but that is a misunderstanding. To use a simple example, let's start with the hypothesis that gravity will make a pencil released a foot above a table, fall to the table. Now, you might say, "Whoa, that cannot be falsified." But that is where the misunderstanding is. I can do an experiment and observe the results, and the pencil will either fall, or not. In another words, it would be falsifiable if I can find an example of the pencil not falling under proper circumstances.

Now, to get back to Bailey, and Blanchard, and their their "scientific" method, they survey a group of transsexuals, and then look at their responses. If the transsexuals say something that verifies their theory, they use it as evidence. If the transsexual contradicts their theory, they throw out the answer on the grounds that the person is "obviously" lying, and the data is therefore invalid. So, only the data that supports their theory is allowed, and surprise, surprise, their theory is perfectly "confirmed."

That is not science, it is not valid, and it only proves that Blanchard and Bailey are trying to prove something they really can't find evidence for.

Yes, autogynephila does exist. I would not call an autogynephiliac a transsexual. The rest of their theory, about "homosexual" transsexuals is just bunk. It is intended to show that transsexualism is not a valid concept, and that all transsexuals are either fetishtistic crossdressers who just get carried away, or gay men, who are just too gay to be men.

Anonymous said...

The way that B,B, & L approach this is in the same manner a few writers of the last 200 years approached their belief that a black man was of lower intelligence, the same level of bigotry, the same false science, just a group of whores who are living off public monies teaching their crap and sucking off the root of the government for money in the form of grants.


Anonymous said...

The significant and growing body of evidence for the organic origin of transsexualism, the prejudice-serving prattle of Blanchard, Bailey , Zucker, Lawrence and their ilk just doesn't cut the mustard of medical science. They hate that. All they can do in response is ignore and deny the evidence.

- an old aunty

Rosenkreuz said...

You mean this Bailey right?

AND he apolgizes for pedophilia. Man this is rich.

Anonymous said...

As you might guess, I have done very little reading on this whole trans* "sub-culture". The writings of BLZ&B are the main reason that I have avoided such reading as ALL of their so called "research" is based on the false premise that their is some "connection" or relationship between sexual orientation and sexual identity.

None of these men have even the slightest inkling of what it means or feels like to be born transsexual.

This was made abundantly clear to me when as a young child of about ten or eleven, I was brought to UCLA and "studied" by none other than Dr. Richard Green. Yes I was subjected to the usual tests. Did I prefer girl toys or boy toys? I found that whole exercise extremely boring and meaningless and just simply wanted these fools to understand that I really was a girl and what could they do to fix those parts of me that did not match.

Their "learned" and totally clueless prognosis was that I would either outgrow this or..."grow up gay". they were totally wrong on both counts.

It is this false paradigm, that effeminate boys/men are necessarily gay or trans* that causes such great harm for those few born with a psycho-sexual inversion.

As a very young child, I was never particularly effeminate. What bullying I experienced in primary school was more due to my mixed race than any misperception of being gay, and was dealt with the old fashioned way.

These effeminate gay men who masquerade as women for fun and profit, (drag performers and sex workers) are a totally different breed. They are quite simply gay men, who parody women.

Your basic premise, that those of us who actually were so unfortunate to have been born with this psycho-sexual screw-up, simply want our physical bodies corrected so that we might have normal lives as women, is 100% correct.

If any or all of these so called "trans-genders" really were women, they would do exactly what we did and move heaven and earth in order to make things right. They would NOT, as so many insanely do, try to change society to accept their personal delusions and definitions of "womanhood".

Disgusted in Ohio