Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Review: The Man That Would Be Queen

I have to admit I found it very difficult to read this book. In so many ways I found it extremely hurtful and so wrong on so many levels I doubt I will be able to put most of it into words. Below is a link to a free copy of the book as supplied by Bailey on another website so I feel I have the right to post it here. My personal conclusions will follow at the end of the book under the Title conclusions and I have left my comments as is. That means they were what I wrote and how I felt when I read that particular chapter.

You will have to excuse me at times because the only way I can relate to some of what is said is from my personal experiences and those of the kids I have helped and talked with plus some friends just like me. That is my bias and I admit it which is more open and honest than Bailey has ever been.

I do apologize for the length but I decided not to break it into multiple parts.

Link to the The Man Who Would Be Queen free version.

The following is my review of the book below done chapter by chapter.


The Man Who Would Be Queen

Preface


Bailey begins with the discussion of Edwin in a Preface that would probably cause every gay man in America to want to shoot him. Edwin is a gay man that works at the cosmetics counter and because he works there and has shaved his head bald Bailey comes to the brilliant deduction that are totally based on his intuitions.

Although I am virtually certain that my conclusions are correct, they fly in the face of mainstream academic opinion. If a current textbook discussed the basis of my intuitions—which many people share it would do so in the context of stereotypes. It would neglect to explain that my intuitions are probably correct, and it wouldn't discuss why. My book aims to do better.


Bailey does not need to speak with Edwin about his life because his "intuition" tells him Edwin did certain things. He assumes he played with dolls and his best friends were girls. In one paragraph he states that most gay men are feminine or at least they are feminine in certain ways. He tries to couch this by blaming the stigmatizing effect of male femininity.  He then states at the beginning of the next paragraph the following.

To say that femininity and homosexuality are closely bound together in men may be politically incorrect, but it is factually correct, and it has been known for a long time.
All of this is an attempt to make the claim that Karl Ulrich was correct when he said some males are women's souls in men's bodies. I think everyone can see where this leads. Bailey throws around the word Scientist when mentioning various sexologists and Psychiatrists but none are scientists. Neither Psychology or Psychiatry is a science.

He then makes the jump that if he was to ever see Edwin again he may have a woman's name and appearance and that Edwin is too feminine for gay men to date and would stand out in a gay bar, I think that is the silly, but his primary reason he would change his sex is LUST. He then incorrectly links this directly to transsexualism with the following statement.

The attempt to separate sexuality from gender has been especially misleading for transsexualism. Supposedly, male-to-female transsexuals are motivated solely by the deep-seated feeling that they have women’s souls.

He then states the following.

One cannot understand transsexualism without studying transsexuals’ sexuality. Transsexuals lead remarkable sex lives. Those who love men become women to attract them. Those who love women become the women they love. Although transsexuals are cultural hot commodities right now, writers have been either too shallow or too squeamish to give transsexual sexuality the attention it deserves. No longer.

Of course the simple fact he misses what it means to be transsexual completely is lost on him. To J Michael Bailey Transsexualism is all about sex and lust which is arguably the most sinister concept I can think of and at the same time about as logical as claiming a fence post has an IQ. Bailey and his ilk are one of the reasons some people frown on the use of the word transsexual and prefer transgender. Bailey has a comment on them later on.

The shallow person here is Bailey and the Blanchard's of the world. To claim that those opposed to them are just being politically correct is silly. To those of us that were young transsexuals our lives did involve thoughts of sex once we became aware but that sex required us to be girls. Some kids can get trapped into the gay scene even if they are transsexual but since gay men are not pedophiles there is no real chance for gay sex until one reaches a certain age or one encounters someone gay in your same age range. I find his views shallow and baseless and we are just getting started.

Bailey then lists those who assisted him which is a who's who of the dumb and dumber of transsexual/transgender assholes.

Completing this book required substantial assistance from many other people. Several scientists and scholars spent a good deal of their time discussing ideas with me: Ray Blanchard, Khytam Dawood, Anne Lawrence, Simon LeVay, Rictor Norton, Maxine Petersen, Bill Reiner, and Ken Zucker. Anjelica Kieltyka introduced me to the Chicago transsexual community and taught me a great deal by being honest and open.
If there was or is a rogues list for those born transsexual who should be damned in hell, that is it.



Chapter One:  The Boy Who Would Be Princess


This is a chapter I really found difficult to deal with. I was one of those feminine boys and I know I never thought the way Bailey thinks we do. In Bailey's world if you disagree then you must be lying. The entire chapter is based around a boy named Danny Ryan, personally I believe no such person exists, who Bailey met once later in life in male mode and never once sat down and talked with. Everything he knows about Danny came from his mother Leslie and Danny's babysitter Jennifer who was supposedly a student of Bailey's at Northwestern.

Bailey talks endlessly about the child in a form that gives underlying impression he was the interviewer or had special insight but it was all heresay and anecdotal based on the observations of a baby sitter and of the mother, neither of which had a clue what was going on inside this child. That is akin to telling you that you need a Psychiatrist and sending your mother or your babysitter to the Psychiatrist or Psychologist so you can be helped because your babysitter has "observed" you and talked with you and there is no need for you to meet the shrink. This is not even junk science, it is much worse.

In my mind I am glad Bailey never met Danny because my gut feeling is simple. If Danny was transsexual, it is not known, then talking to a Bailey could lead him to suicide like the 5 Psychiatrists did to me when they told me I was just a gay boy and a homosexual when I didn't even know what that was. All I knew was quite simple. I was a girl and I didn't understand why others could not understand that or see it.

Personally I was never completely like Danny but I have friends that were. My childhood was more that of a tomboy which did put me on the feminine side and as I got older, 12, I became more feminine physically and stopped any effort to be what I was not. It had nothing to do with boys but it was the simple fact I could not be something I was not any longer plus I can be really stubborn and pigheaded.

This chapter is a hodgepodge of anecdotal claims and third party observations that are bizarre. Danny bossed girls around and stood up to boys that teased him in kindergarten and somehow that is gay. Bailey slickly tries to link gay with feminine transsexualism with this line when talking about the worries of Leslie the mother.

Even if she could handle Danny becoming gay, the possibility that he would get surgery to become a woman was not something she could tolerate.
He contradicts that very statement later in this bad "science" project that seems like it was done by a homophobic 6th grader.

Being gay and being transsexual are mutually exclusive and somehow Bailey misses this. Gay men love their penis and transsexuals cannot wait to get rid of it and somehow they are the same? With that kind of logic 1 + 1 equals 3 but then these people do not deal with logic or science. At first I thought it was hatred of homosexuality but I think something else is at play with J Michael Bailey.



Chapter 2:    Growing Pains



Jennifer, Danny's babysitter talked about Danny to Bailey because she thought this idiot could possibly help. This of course quite conveniently falls into Bailey's little world with the following.

Danny’s mother had three general questions: Most importantly, What is the best way to raise feminine boys to be happy boys? For the sake of curiosity, Where do boys like Danny come from? For the sake of both curiosity and helping Danny, What becomes of feminine boys? I could easily answer only one of her questions. I have a good idea what Danny will be like when he grows up.

How convenient is that??? Bailey is correct with this statement.

Many people believe that feminine boys become gay men.
That is true because they actually are gay and not transsexual. Transsexuals stay transsexual which is a concept Bailey cannot grasp.

And here comes J Michael Bailey trying to make sure he enforces that idea in everyone. He is correct that nobody knows how to raise feminine boys. I know that from personal experience. Until I pushed the boundaries they were clueless but they did love me.

Several scientists have followed nearly 100 feminine boys from childhood into early adulthood. Because of their work, we can make educated predictions regarding Danny’s adult sexuality. Most likely, Danny will become a gay man. It is also possible, although less likely, that he will grow up to be heterosexual. The final possible outcome is that Danny will decide to become a woman, and in this case, he will also be attracted to men.

The thing that gets me here is the claim that Danny will "decide" to become a woman. Nobody decides to become a woman or a girl, well unless they are stark raving mad. It is one of my pet peeves with these idiots and the DSM where one only has to have gender identity for a few years to qualify which fits the above bogus claim. Isn't it ironic Zucker was on that draft committee. I think not.

He mentions Richard Green the noted quack from UCLA. Green gave the gay boys and a group a test that is silly to be honest because there actually are decent tests that are more complicated but give a better idea about these types of things. I know I have taken them about ten times.The questions are so slanted towards feminine concepts it makes the test not relevant. The questions should be mixed in with many other questions not related to what they are looking for so as not to contaminate the data. That is part of correct data sampling. The test is on page 18 of the book.

Bailey takes this data and somehow manages to take this back to childhood and label boys gay or straight which is humorous because most have no idea what you are talking about. Again Bailey makes the assumption that one can become transsexual which is an absurdity. Children have NO clue about sexuality.

Green's study had one of the boys "become" transsexual when we all know the child was transsexual from the beginning and mislabeled by an complete idiot like Richard Green. Bailey gave advice to David's mother Leslie about David which in my mind is malpractice except Bailey is not a qualified Doctor.

Bailey then gets into GID as discussed in the DSM-IV-TR and says the following.

According to the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV-TR)—which represents a kind of official list of mental disorders—Danny has a mental illness: childhood gender identity disorder (or GID for short). “Gender identity” refers to the subjective internal feeling that one is male or female. Most of us rarely, if ever, think about our gender identities. But if we imagined that others were treating us as the opposite sex—insisted
that we were the opposite sex—most could get an idea of the mental anguish a child with GID may feel.

Yet Bailey happily diagnoses him as homosexual but next makes this invalid statement. How the heck can a 4 or 5 year old child be gay or homosexual? That is absurd.

The current controversy in the mental health professions regarding what to do with boys like Danny is strongly related to attitudes toward the GID diagnosis. Some experts think that it is obvious that boys like Danny have mental problems that need to be treated. In contrast, an emerging group of mostly (but not entirely) gay thinkers believe that the childhood GID diagnosis should not exist. They believe that the diagnosis does far more harm than good. The two groups of experts would give very different recommendations to Danny’s mother.

What about those that realize this is a medical condition. The gay thinkers are our radfem haters but who cares about them and why are they considered relevant? Bailey waffles on this concept of nature verses nurture throughout the book.

I will give him credit for objecting to the aversion therapy of those that feel they can "cure" gay. Blanchard and Zucker do not give that same decency to transsexuals who make the mistake of going to Toronto. He discusses the Rekers side of things but what he references EVERYWHERE is strictly in relation to homosexuals and not one thing is relevant for transsexuals. That in itself is a big problem. It is why transsexual children lumped in with feminine boys that are NOT transsexual are denied hormones at facilities like Boston Children when they reach puberty. They can have a blocker but no estrogen. They treat them like gay boys because they think they will "revert".  The Dutch study blows that out of the water and is discussed in this blog.

He considers Ken Zucker a moderate on GID which is actually kind of pathetic. It is why Bailey considers Zucker's position balanced. It took me a while to stop laughing about that. Zucker of course believes transsexualism needs to be treated with psychoanalysis yet he has never cured anyone. Odd isn't that but the following comment about Zucker says it all.

Zucker thinks that an important goal of treatment is to help the children accept their birth sex and to avoid becoming transsexual.
This is on page 30 and 31 of the book. Zucker like Bailey believes you become transsexual and that with his therapy of the family and the child and corrective behavior modification through said therapy works. It doesn't since by my best count I went to at least 10 Psychiatrists and I know it does not work but then I am a lot smarter than the shrinks I went to. If therapy does not work it increases the chances for transsexualism in adults according to them. That is absolute and complete bullshit and Zucker in his own way believes in aversion or reparitive therapy.

Somehow Bailey and Zucker particularly believe one "grows" into transsexualism. He mentions the Dutch study where 26% of feminine boys request SRS at 12 when they are legally allowed to "ask" for it. What would they do if one asks for it at 11? He relates this to Green's study who treated feminine boys as gay while the Dutch are intelligent enough to closely watch the children and recognize very early on who is and who is not transsexual. It is kind of easy if the kids are allowed to be themselves cause they will figure it our correctly.

Bailey actually believes a transsexual can be bullied out of being a transsexual adult. They can be bullied into keeping their collective mouths shut but transsexualism DOES NOT GO AWAY and one does not grow into it or out of it. Those adults that are transsexual and decide to get help were transsexual as children and if they were not then they are frauds.

Bailey actually claims Zucker's therapy seems kinder and more consistent and thus more likely to succeed. The following says all that needs to be said on page 34.

Zucker believes that it is, although he is the first to acknowledge that no scientific studies currently support the effectiveness of what he does.
Duh!!!!!! Wakeup and smell the shit you are claiming works. There is no science that backs up anything they push yet somehow they are taken seriously or they take themselves seriously.

After this Bailey gets into his one true obsession. Gay Sex!!! Does make one wonder.



Chapter 3:  The Boy Who Would Not Be A Girl



This chapter deals with children born with indeterminate sex characteristics or those with problems converted to female at or near birth. What is odd about this entire chapter is that Bailey basically contradicts everything he said and everything people like Zucker and John Money said because he admits it does not work. He discusses the Reimer case and of course says it diverges because he lost his penis in a surgical accident at 8 months and was not living as a girl until 17 months. He of course makes the invalid assumption that somehow a child barely cognitive "learned". about his sex at those times.

Bailey claims Money was one of the most important scientists of the 20th century which is odd considering he was a total and complete fraud and a pedophile to boot which I know from personal experience. Money believed we are born psychosexual neutral at birth while Reiner also of Johns Hopkins thinks otherwise but is controversial in his own way.

Bailey mentions the nature verses nurture argument but cannot seem to connect the dots that the nurture argument has failed every time it was tried.

Just a pile of non-science put forth as fact with no basis for its validity.



Part II:  


Chapter 4:  The Man He Might Become


Well we are back to J Michael Bailey's favorite subject, gay men. It is kind of an obsession. He is obsessed with gay men's feminine behavior as children and relating it again to transsexual children. To Bailey if one is feminine and not gay one must be a woman. Kind of insulting to women actually.

He makes the following statement which is absolutely not backed up by science.

Initially, I found this odd, because the link between childhood gender nonconformity and adult homosexuality is one of the largest and best established associations regarding sexual orientation.

He makes up the term femiphobia to represent the unwillingness of gay men to talk about their feminine ways as children. He makes the following comment and claims he is a scientist but I know of not a single straight male that would go to a gay bar called Boy's Town or Cocktail but Mr Bailey is not gay of course.

I live in a section of Chicago called “Wrigleyville,” due to its proximity to Wrigley Field, the home of the Chicago Cubs. I live between two major streets. Half a block to the west is Clark Street, which borders Wrigley Field, and which contains scores of singles bars filled with young heterosexual people. Half a block to the east is Halsted Street, which is the central artery of “Boy’s Town,” Chicago’s historic gay district. Halsted is lined with gay bars, filled mainly with gay men. (My favorite names are “Manhole” and “Cocktail.”) I visit with friends in both places, sometimes during the same evening, and it is difficult for me to do so without my scientist hat. On some nights I am struck by the differences between gay and heterosexual men. On other nights I am impressed by their similarity. It all depends on which aspects of behavior I am focusing on.

He again claims that gay men's brains are a mosaic of male and female parts as proposed by Psychologist Sandra Wilson. There is no scientific evidence to back this up but this is where he gets some of his base for homosexual transsexuals.



Chapter 4:  Gay Feminity


The following was a set of questions used to rate "gayness" by Zucker and Bailey.


Rate your agreement with each item, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). 
As a child I was called a “sissy” by my peers.
As a child I sometimes wished I had been born a girl rather than a boy.
As a child I preferred playing with girls rather than boys.
As a child I often felt that I had more in common with girls than boys.
As a child I sometimes wore feminine clothing (such as dresses), makeup,
or jewelry.
As a child I disliked competitive sports such as football, baseball, and
basketball.
I was a feminine boy.



Does it look familiar??

He continues on about gay stereotypes and gayness and I must assume this is leading up to his conclusions on transsexuals. Very bizarre. It is full of his views about what is stereotypical gay behavior and reactions and actions in life and 100% total bullshit.They rate jobs by feminine interests. In so many ways it is derogatory and demeaning to the variety of men the make up the gay population. Bailey shows how shallow and out of touch with the real world he truly is.

Every reference he uses supports a view that somehow gay men are midway between heterosexual men and women in their sex-typed interests such as jobs  and hobbies. He of course covers his butt by admitting no definitive study has actually EVER been done by why let that stop you from making bad assumptions on no scientific data. I have to admit this is the most bizarre chapter I have ever read in a book about transsexualism.

It turns out if you enjoy the opera that is a gay thing. I love it. If you like the ballet it is a gay thing. I love it. I was introduced to both by a man that was as straight as it came and when I could not tell him and he found out he kind of had a shitfit. Accounting is a gay business. Never knew that.

He brings his son up to prove how male and masculine hos son is and how male and masculine Bailey is. Interesting but the way his son and he talk about gays borders on ignorant.There is a gay accent, the lisp, that I have never heard in anyone truly born transsexual.Attempting to tell if someone is gay based on how they talk is just downright ignorant and nasty and borders on homophobic behavior. Bailey revels in that and did a study at Northwestern, not scientific and not published of course.

For the non-linguists among us, there are three main ideas here. First, gay men might pronounce vowels with their tongues more for ward and to the top of the mouths than straight men do. Second, gay men might speak more precisely, articulating the sounds that straight men pronounce lazily

I think I am left speechless by that.

Later he qualifies it to cover his ass.

However, it is unclear at this time what the gay accent is, much less whether it is feminine.

Next he can tell if someone is gay by how they walk. According to him he has good "gaydar" so what does this have to do with transsexuals. Gay men do not have either gender or sex identity issues period. Where is the relationship. Anecdotal bullshit from fellow quacks is not proof considering there is nothing scientific.

Bailey again links gay men and their mental illness to women and their mental illness and claiming a similarity. They have the same types of mental illnesses. There is no definitive study or science that backs this claim up. This will be a recurring theme. No science to back up much of what he spouts.

I reference you to page 75 for the masculine and feminine walking, standing and sitting traits. Somehow the movie the Birdcage is used as a reference in this chapter on gayness or in Bailey's mind was not representative of gays because gay men do not like feminine men. I have some gay friends that would beg to differ. It begs the question be asked why drag clubs are often gay hangouts or certainly a 50-50 mixture?

He then makes the claim that learning why gay men are more easily depressed than "real" men might tell us why women are also. I guess women are so inconsequential in his mind that gay men are better barometers for us than we are. Fuck me!!! Oops I am being sexual I must be gay. No scientific research to back it up again but he says we should keep our minds open until science proves it. Does he sound like his mind is "open"? I thought he was supposed to prove it in this book?

Gay men who are receptive to anal sex are of course imitating women with vaginal sex. What the hell any of this bullshit has to do with transsexuality is beyond me except he is trying to link transsexuals as gay feminine men.




Chapter 5: Gay Maculinity



Gay men have lots of sex partners.

Gay men tend to not be monogamous.

He claims straight men and women have basically equal numbers of sex partners during their life as in casual. He must be the dumbest fuck in America because straight men will fuck anything and they have many more partners than most women. What planet is he living on but then I doubt he is interested in women nowadays.

He goes into the idea that gay men and gay feminine men have unusually larger numbers of casual sexual encounters than straight people. I know where this is going.

He frequents gay clubs for research purposes only of course. Just where is that research???


Bailey is steeped in his personal beliefs and stereotypes. He is obsessed with it in men and particularly gay men. To Bailey it is all about gay men. He is the master of the obvious but it means something different to him.

Gay men also respond to pornography very much as straight men do, and very differently from how women do. Show men two erotic video clips: one showing only men and the other showing only women. If they are straight, they become much more sexually aroused by the clip showing women than by the one showing men.

Bailey frequents gay clubs supposedly for research but it is more than that. His obsession becomes more and more apparent. Everything relates to gay men whether it be straight men or women. Rather bizarre.

If it is justified, then it reflects another way that gay men are like
straight men—in being most sexually attracted to younger adults. This
contrasts with women, who tend to prefer older mates.

He makes the claim it is evolutionary but contradicts himself. If women are interested in fertile men then they should prefer younger men. It is really all the same old horseshit repackaged and somehow he is going to relate this to transsexualism?

He continues to equate gay men with straight women every chance he gets. Kind of obsessed about that. He again goes into gay men having far more sex partners than men and he claims it is always true. I guess he has never heard of certain men.

Second, men feel much less psychic conflict than women about casual sex. That is, most women are not only less interested in casual sex but actively avoid it, because it makes them feel cheap and used.

What does this gibberish have to do with transsexualism?




Chapter 6:  Danny's Uncle



Okay here we go again. What does this have to do with the supposed subject matter?

Leslie who is Danny Ryan's mother has a brother who came out as gay.  So what!! He links Leslie into his personal views about a "sissy" gene which is downright nasty without any basis in science

Again this is about gay men and gay sex which is basically redundant and repetitive and not scientific.He began his obsession with gay men in graduate school in Austin Texas in 1986. This is almost like a personal ego trip.He started a "research project and this comment comes from that.

I also had fun meeting my subjects, many of whom were intensely curious about the science of homosexuality. At first I was a little uncomfortable being a heterosexual man studying gay men. Not because gay men made me uncomfortable, but because of inferences people often made about why I was doing the research.

Obviously other people have noticed his obsession from day one.There is one freudian slip by Bailey and here it is.

I know most of the scientists who do substantial research on homosexuality,
and there is certainly a correlation between this research preoccupation and sexual orientation. Perhaps half of us are gay, a much higher percentage than would be expected by chance.

I think he should have said, Perhaps half of them are gay. Using us kind of implies he is gay and not happy about it in my opinion. I could be wrong but my "gaydar" and "intuition" have as much validity as his.

Back on the gayness crap with mentioning his studying of twins and how identical twins, monozygotic from one egg, and fraternal twins, dizygotic or two eggs, are different because identical twins seem to both be gay while fraternal can have one gay. His "scientific" study  showed 52% of identical twins, 24 percent of fraternal twins, and 11% of adoptive brothers were also gay if the other was. He assumes from this that there is a gay gene.

These results are consistent with a substantial, but incomplete, genetic effect. Gay genes apparently exist.
This is scientifically not substantiated and in fact he admits is has been refuted.

He continues with his false impression that all gay men had feminine traits and were lying if they denied it. He then makes the claim that environmental conditioned, nurture, are the reason that some gay twins with gay brothers are not gay. A stretch of monumental proportions.

We then get a Blachardism or more bullshit.

So far, only one environmental factor has been related to male homosexuality: birth order. Psychologist Ray Blanchard has found that gay men tend to be later born sons in a series of brothers. In other words, gay men have greater numbers of older brothers than straight men do. Blanchard has obtained this same result in more than 10 studies, so we can have confidence in it.
Blanchard is lucky he can spell research and scientific and none of his were either. There was no mention of anything to back up this mythical research.

This next "fact" of Blanchard's is absurd.

He theorizes that the “older brother effect” is a biological one, caused by the mother’s immune system, which reacts increasingly to a succession of male fetuses. This immune response affects brain development and, in particular, the sexual differentiation of the brain. Blanchard is in the early stages of testing the immune hypothesis, so we don’t yet know if it’s true. And there are numerous firstborn gay men, so obviously birth order can’t be the whole story.

Now that is pure weird science working for mankind, NOT!! Didn't they make a movie about Weird Science?

He mentions certain research by Hamer about gay gene on X chromosome but then admits the study cannot be replicated and doubtful. The question is why mention it  if it is unsubstantiated. Bailey does this everywhere in this book up to this point and many are by his buddy Ray Blanchard. The first rule of science is bad science is science that cannot be replicated and thus should never be referenced. Well I was told that by my Graduate school advisers for my masters degrees but then I was dealing with actual science and not bullshit.

The gay gene leads to the abort the gay child genetic check which leads to eugenics which should not be mentioned in a piece of work such as this, but it is without using the term eugenics of course. He then sort of gets into reproductive rights which is odd.The reason the gay gene assertion is bullshit is because evolution would weed that out and he mentions that and admits it is unanswered. He honestly believes he is as he calls himself a "gay positive person". With friends like that who needs an enemy.

He then goes into the Lippa study on finger length of the 2D:4D digits and its relationship to gay feminine men and women. I have provided a link so read this chapter if you want, personally it is a waste of time.


Chapter 7:  Is Homosexuality a Recent Invention



Good lord this is getting repetitive and boring. Everything is gay men, gay boys, gay feminine men.

What about the Greeks? This is the other question (with the evolutionary one) that is asked nearly every time I talk about homosexuality. It would be asked even more often, except that a lot of people who believe that they already know the answer to the question don’t show up to my lecture. These people think that I am wasting my time trying to learn about the nature of homosexuality. They think that homosexuality has no nature. To them, homosexuality is a “social construction.”

Yes a lot of us think you are but I am betting your bullshit will lead to linkage later on.

Again I have provided a link to the book and I am sick of pointing out the same crap chapter after chapter as Bailey continues his obsession with all things gay male. He should just bend over and enjoy it.

I hope the Brits enjoy his comments about them having much higher rates of homosexuality because of all boys schools. The rest of it is rubbish.

Enjoy the history of gayness.

Well, well we get a mention of "Transgender Homosexuality" on page 134 of the book.

Transgender homosexuality occurs when one man takes on a feminine role, often dressing as a woman and taking a woman’s name, and has sex with masculine men. Transgender homosexuality is probably the most common form of homosexuality found across cultures. It occurs in the West (although it is much less common than egalitarian homosexual relationships), and has been documented in a number of other societies.

Doesn't that fly in the face of Bailey's assertions that gay men dislike feminine gay men in dresses? Of course it is different in US! Sure it is. He discusses the berdache of the Crow and the hijras of India.

Furthermore, Whitam has found that within homosexual communities, the more important distinction is between conventionally masculine gay men and the very feminine drag queens and transsexuals. Despite particular cross-cultural wrinkles, Whitam has recognized several cross-culturally universal characteristics among the latter. Invariably, drag queens and transsexuals were highly feminine boys who exhibited low levels of athletic interest and high levels of interest in activities considered feminine. As adults, they use female pronouns to talk about themselves, and they adopt female names. They tend to dress in a theatrical, glamorous manner. All drag queen and transsexual communities of any size produce conspicuous entertainment forms, and the most appealing occupations to the members are entertainment-related (primarily singing, dancing, and acting). Transgender homosexual men often work in occupations that are viewed as traditionally female or “gay,” such as prostitution, hair styling, sewing, housekeeping, or manicuring. They have high levels of interest in having sex with men, and their partners tend to be heterosexual or bisexual, rather than gay men. 

That is funny because I don't know very many people born transsexual that ever considered themselves part of the "gay community". I know many transsexuals that were young and never could express their feminine side. All of this is such crap and so full of holes and in many ways homophobic.

Here is another weird comment by Bailey.
Egalitarian homosexuality is the type of homosexual relationship most common in the contemporary West. Egalitarian homosexuality occurs when two individuals of similar age and class form a homosexual relationship. For some reason, during the second half of the twentieth century, this has become the predominant form of homosexuality in the West, while transgender homosexuality has become rare. However, these two forms of homosexuality are not as different as they appear.
Okay he we go. Linkage.
The main difference between transgender and egalitarian homosexuality is that in transgender homosexuality, only one of the partners is truly gay. The partner in the feminine role is gay because “she” wants men. Furthermore “she” wants men who are masculine.
So men who date "pretend" girls who do not want SRS and are functioning males are not gay? That is absurd unless the pre-operative individual is looking for SRS and the man somehow understands and accepts her as a girl. I know men that have been that way but it is very difficult on them but they do exist, thankfully. These men WANT a "girl" with a penis. Last time I checked that is gay.

Despite these pressures, a few males resist. They are reluctant to give up their ambition to become women, and they decide to pursue their dream. The rest of the book is about them.
Pressures? He has no clue what we go through. I am astounded by that comment but then I should not be.


Part III


Women Who Once Were Boys


It is 2 AM Sunday night (actually Monday morning) at Crobar, and I am tired. I have had only limited success tonight recruiting research subjects for our study of drag queens and transsexuals and am cruising the huge club one more time before leaving.

He cruises drag bars???? Actually it was Sunday Night or gay night at Crobar.

Most people—even those who have never met a transsexual— know the standard story of men who want to be women: “Since I can remember, I have always felt as if I were a member of the other sex. I have felt like a freak with this body and detest my penis. I must get sex reassignment surgery (a “sex change operation”) in order to match my external body with my internal mind.” But the truth is much more interesting than the standard story.

That is Bailey's opinion and not that of many others

He believes in degrees of transsexualism which I do find odd but he gets that part kind of wrong. He is lumping the transgendered in with those born transsexual and does not realize it.

“Transsexual” is not an either-or label. Even if we were to restrict the use of that word to those who take medical steps to change their sex, there would still be considerable variability. Some transsexuals merely undergo electrolysis; others take hormones; others get breast implants; and of course, others get an operation to simulate the genitalia of the other sex.

I would beg to differ with Mr Bailey. It is simple, you either are born transsexual or you are not. His view sits with Zucker, Blanchard and that ilk and he paints too broad a picture but then I expected this. This was an introduction I guess.




Chapter 8:  Terese and Cher



These are Bailey's type of transsexuals.We are about to get the homosexual transsexual and the autogynephile. Here we begin his gay feminine transsexual world where only Bailey and a few other non scientists, none of whom know a thing about transsexuality because it is biased by their gay male issues and I do believe it is an issue for all of them including Lawrence.

To anyone who has seen members of both types and who has learned to ask the right kinds of questions, it is easy to tell them apart. Yet the difference has eluded virtually everyone who cares about transsexuals: talk show hosts, journalists, most people who evaluate and treat them, and even most academics who have studied them. One reason is that the superficial similarity of the two types is so striking— both are men, usually dressed and attempting to act like women, who want to replace their penises with vaginas—that it prevents us from noticing more subtle, though also more fundamental, differences. An other reason is that the two types of transsexuals rarely show up side by side, where they would be easily distinguishable. In the United States in the third millennium, they do not use the same “gender clinics,” and although they often associate with other transsexuals, this is nearly always with their own type. The most interesting reason why most people do not realize that there are two types of transsexuals is that members of one type sometimes misrepresent themselves as members of the other. I will get more specific later, but for now, it is enough to say that they are often silent about their true motivation and instead tell stories about themselves that are misleading and, in important respects, false.
The invalid rhetoric begins. There will never be a single scientific linkage between any of this because there is no science behind it. Since when does Bailey actually care about transsexuals.

The two types of transsexuals who begin life as males are called homosexual and autogynephilic. Once understood, these names are appropriate. Succinctly put, homosexual male-to-female transsexuals are extremely feminine gay men, and autogynephilic transsexuals are men erotically obsessed with the image of themselves as women.

They are most certainly NOT appropriate. Bailey has absolutely NEVER talked with a child transsexual. He has only met and interviewed several who were in early 20's and claimed they were feminine and very few have called themselves gay feminine transsexuals. I am not naive enough to think this cannot happen but because Bailey is stuck in this world of gayness he seems to relate everything to it.

I often have to think hard about whether to write “he” or “she,” for example. In this case, there is scientific precedent—“homosexual transsexualism” was proposed by the scientist who first discovered that there were two types of transsexuals. The term also is conceptually revealing, because one type of transsexual man is a kind of homosexual man. Read on; you’ll get used to it.)

Bailey is so obsessed with gayness and gay men and gay feminine men and cannot grasp the concept that a transsexual child is not and has never been a gay boy or man. They may end up a lesbian but they never were gay anything.

Terese is a feminine child and because she had a gay boy period at 13 Bailey makes the attempt to equate this to all feminine boys that were born transsexual. It is a preposterous jump. It happens because we are lonely and lost and until we learn we are transsexual and can be helped kids will do dumb things sometimes. This rarely happens today if the child is openly feminine because the family can get help. If they do not the child will do what she thinks will help her. Some of us get caught but the vast majority absolutely do not.
In important respects, Terese’s story is the story of all homosexual male-to-female transsexuals. Her early, extreme, and effortless femininity, her unambiguous preference for heterosexual men as sex partners, her (however brief) attempt to live as a gay man, and her difficulty in securing the right kind of guy prior to surgery, are almostuniversal among this type of transsexual. There are some differences among them, to be sure. For example, although Terese disliked her
penis, some homosexual transsexuals not only like, but also use, their penises while they have them. Some, like Terese, alternate between unsatisfying and limited sexual relationships and self-imposed isolation; others earn good livings as she-male prostitutes (more on this later). These differences reflect differences in personality styles. Fundamentally, all homosexual transsexuals are similar, and after a bit of experience, easily distinguishable from the other type of transsexual.
A generalization based on one transsexual. Amazing. We are not she-male prostitutes nor do we all sell ourselves. If a transsexual is selling herself she may use her penis but by in large it is not something they like to do, but for enough money maybe. The majority of us disappear, like Harry said we should, and try and live and function as girls and then women. Is Bailey transphobic? Not really, but he really has little insight into what Type VI transsexuals do after they get SRS because before SRS we do what we have to do to get by. I realize to some Type VI is a horrible term but I need to go back to Harry to keep my sanity reading this bilge.

Now we get to Cher the supposed autogynephile who I would classify as a Type IV or possibly a weak Type V. Cher is an acquired taste

Look I find myself squeamish reading what "Cher" did so I will leave that to youall to read. Her tale begins at the bottom of page 151. Yuck and arg!!!!!!!!!!!




Chapter 9:  Men Trapped In Men's Bodies


This single comment says it all about Bailey.

Ray Blanchard, Head of the Clinical Sexology Program of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, knows more about transsexualism than just about anyone else.

I would beg to differ on that assumption. This second quote is beyond belief.

A rat psychologist by training, his first job was as a clinical psychologist at the Ontario Correctional Institute.

It is somehow fitting that Blanchard is by training a rat psychologist. What a freaking fraud. A rat psychologist. Now we know where he got his penchant for aversion therapy the sick sadistic sack of shit. He was not trained to deal with people but rats or animals which is kind of how he sees transsexuals.
Blanchard is irreverent, cynical, and politically incorrect. During the opening ceremony of the International Academy of Sex Research, during the eulogies for members who died during the previous year, he regularly engages in wickedly entertaining whispered commentary about the deceased, unsentimentally recalled.
That about sums up an arrogant asshole. Blanchard believes he is better than everyone when he is far from that. A rat psychologist, how fitting. I cannot stop laughing.

It Is here that we learn Blanchard is claimed to have definitively pushed the homosexual autogynephile transsexual into the limelight and proved its validity. Where has he proved anything. He has never published a scientific research paper on the subject that was not trashed by everyone in the same community he resides in except for his lackeys.

He discusses Stephanie who is Don most of the time and a heterosexual crossdresser that is sexually aroused by it. How is that new or interesting?

Isn't it ironic that two men obsessed with gay men somehow lump those born transsexual and feminine under the gay banner? Doesn't it bother anyone that Blanchard tries to cure the gay feminine transsexual and it is not with milk and cookies but a form of reparitive or aversion therapy for the young while trying to discourage children that are truly transsexual by telling them they are not and then totally denying them any kind of early care?
Ray Blanchard’s contribution to transsexual science was of the lumping variety. Distinguishing “homosexual,” “heterosexual,” “bisexual,” and “asexual” transsexuals diagnostically makes sense only if the different types have fundamentally different causes.
He lumped those three together to create two groups. Homosexual and non-homosexual. Everything has to be referenced in terms of homosexual. Blanchard called it auto gynephilia or self arousal at the attraction of being a woman.

If I get this right autogynephilia covers both transvestites and transsexuals which is a rather broad brush even for these assholes. I really find this autogynephilia even a broader brush than the one he paints me with. If you do not fit his paradigm he simply claims the interviewed lied. The real liar here is Bailey. I cannot deny I have seen those that are autogynephile on T-Central and they are later transitioners. I have a simple rule. If you have had SRS, you are my sister but I might not agree with you on certain views.
Blanchard hypothesized that the type of autogynephilia that a man has should predict whether the man would become transsexual.
Again with the become a transsexual line which is why Zucker and others changed the DSM to make it broader and less restrictive while the transgender crowd pushed to remove the word transsexual. What a weird alignment that is. One does not grow into transsexuality. The ones that do and get SRS are certainly autogynephiles but they are really not transsexual but super transvestites. They are hurting nobody most of the time but themselves. You cannot legislate against stupidity.

Then Blanchard contradicts himself.
This suggests that autogynephilic transsexualism is not merely a progression from cross-dressing. If it were, the patients who fantasized about cross-dressing should have been younger, not older (because by the incorrect interpretation, they would not have yet advanced to the “nude fantasizing” stage of their condition).
Okay which one is it? And then we get to Freud and the Id and the Self.

Blanchard believes that autogynephilia is best conceived as misdirected heterosexuality. These men are heterosexual, but due to an error in the development of normal heterosexual preference, the erotic target (a woman) gets located on the inside (the self) rather than the outside. This is speculative, and what causes the developmental error is anyone’s guess.
Notice how Bailey tries to couch this comment by Blanchard that he rephrased and used himself. If this was a scientific effort shouldn't Bailey try and resolve this developmental error so it is not a guess?

Then comes the Anne Lawrence reference.
Autogynephiles are not “women trapped in men’s bodies.” (Anne
Lawrence, a physician and sex researcher who is herself a postoperative
transsexual, has called them “men trapped in men’s bodies.”) Homosexual
transsexuals, so naturally feminine from early on, can make this
claim more accurately, but as we shall see, it is not completely true
even of them. Autogynephiles are men who have created their image
of attractive women in their own bodies, an image that coexists with
their original, male selves.
Lawrence is no longer a physician. Her license was revoked and having a medical license revoked in the US is akin to being labeled a monster. It almost never happens. As for a sex researcher that only plays on Comedy Central. Lawrence is a pervert and possible sex offender and that was why his/her license was suspended.

Okay here is something I did not expect.
Regarding the fundamental question of whether autogynephiles are born or made, my intuitions are with “born.”
I guess we homosexual transsexuals are just gay. It seems we can be cured but autogynephiles cannot. There is a reason for this. Blanchard, Lawrence, and his pals, not sure about Bailey, all suffer from various paraphilias.

Okay we might agree on something but where is the study proving this point? It is also more than likely that a large percentage do not because they are Type V transsexual. Rather than do an accurate assessment Bailey does his typical cursory look without any attempt to do something to prove it. His proof is some wingnut like Cher who crosses lines I never knew could be crossed.
Today, public statements by those who call themselves “transgendered” (who are almost all autogynephiles rather than homosexual transsexuals) rarely acknowledge any erotic component of “transgenderism.”

Well , he has nailed our fraud intersex pal Zoe Brain perfectly. Braub is about as intersex as a fence post.
Cheryl Chase, the intersex activist, told me that transsexuals frequently join intersex groups because they are convinced that they are also intersexual. In most cases, they are not. I assume that these are autogynephilic transsexuals who want to believe that there is a real biological woman inside them as well as a real psychological woman.

Hopefully I will be in my grave before they use the term homosexual. I have heard Blanchard and Zucker proposed that and were squashed in their attempt. You of course need to understand they do not consider being gay and feminine a mental disorder, it is only being transsexualism that is a disorder and in order for it to be a disorder one must have the ability to catch it or grow into it I guess. I gather being a gay feminine man and taking it up the ass is sane and those of us that are straight girls are mental. Kind of convenient for men whose life is driven by an obsession with gayness.
And although Blanchard’s ideas are fundamental to an understanding of transsexualism, they might not matter that much for helping transsexuals, which most clinicians have as their first priority. With luck, the next revision of the DSM will distinguish “homosexual” from “autogynephilic” transsexualism.



Chapter 10:   In Search of Womanhood and Men



Now he deals with the homosexual transsexuals and he has only met them through the autogynephile Cher or possibly while cruising!

He actually asked Cher to tell him the difference between transsexuals and of course Cher says 'gay transsexuals are boy crazy which fits perfectly into his silly paradigm.. I seriously doubt Cher would call her friends gay transsexuals but after SRS are they still "gay".

Here is the statement of statements and his reason for gay linkage.
One implication of Cher’s assertion is that homosexual transsexuals are like gay men. Many of the facts discussed in the last section on gay men apply to homosexual male-to-female transsexuals. For example, the causes of homosexual transsexualism are largely the causes of homosexuality.

Okay maybe he does not believe gay is born into you, Now that is a crock of shit. There is no "cause" for homosexuality because it is not in the DSM and thus not a mental disorder. I am in error because they obviously feel it can be cured if it has a cause yet later they say otherwise.

The following comment from Richard Green says it all. They are trying to validate their own false beliefs.

Richard Green began his important study of feminine boys (discussed in the last section) precisely to see if he could predict which boys would become transsexual adults. Sensibly, after hearing the memories of transsexual patients, he sought extremely feminine boys. In adulthood, most of these boys were gay men, and only one of the sixty in his study was clearly transsexual. Evidently, something prevents most very feminine boys from becoming transsexual. In order for a feminine boy to become transsexual, something extra must happen.

Even for these idiots that is bizarre and without merit without a single scientific research project that supports it legitimately. Of course they have no answers because there is no answer just there continued lunacy.

Now we get to Zucker and his loony bullshit. I have to read some of this crap multiple times to wrap my head around its absurdity.

Ken Zucker, whom we met in Chapter 2, has tried to predict which boys with gender identity disorder (GID) would still have the disorder when they become adolescents. Adolescents with GID are much rarer and presumably much closer to being transsexual. Zucker found several predictors of adolescent GID: lower IQ, lower social class, immigrant status, non-intact family, and childhood behavior problems unrelated to gender identity disorder.

On the IQ part I am not giving mine but I have multiple graduate degrees and several are from famous technical schools. All the kids I have worked with and helped through this process were all way above average IQ wise. All my friends like me eventually went to college if they got the chance and are smart. In fact the Dutch study characterizes the transsexual children as above average IQ wise. This is typical Zucker, Blanchard, and Bailey bullshit based on a small sample with poor to deliberate misrepresentation of the data. I defy them to prove otherwise. As for lower social class anyone with a dime would avoid that asshole like he carried the plague. Actually he does in some ways.
When I have discussed the theory that homosexual transsexuals are a type of gay man, I have met resistance.
It is because we were never gay you stupid shit. All your science is anecdotal and not scientifically obtained. People expect proof like I had to provide for four thesis' I had to defend to get my graduate degrees and it was rigorous and difficult but then it was science like Astrophysics, Astronautics, Electrical Engineering, and Software Engineering. Oops, I was a gay feminine boy with tons of proof so that kind of flies in the face of your bullshit.

This comment is not only inaccurate it is a lie.
Nearly all homosexual transsexuals go through a stage in which they are “gay boys,” feminine to be sure, but not distinctly more feminine than many gay boys who will become gay men.
There is not a single transsexual feminine child in the Dutch study that is even remotely gay and none of them are considered "gay". Because you are transsexual and like boys before SRS is not a gay lifestyle. I know some who have sold themselves to survive but I know of none that were "willingly gay" or lived a gay lifestyle or frequented gay clubs unless they had no clue about transsexuality and gave in to frequent propositions.

We went to clubs where our fellow tranny friends hung out but that wears thin after a while. The only reason you do it is because you are lonely. A feminine transsexual wants to be with a man as a girl but then Bailey and his ilk know that but somehow manage to pervert that into "gayness". The above comment is a blatant lie and I again defy them to provide the scientific proof it is not. They cannot.

I find the following line beyond disingenuous.
Some drag queens are transsexuals who have not yet accepted it.
A drag queen is a gay man in drag. They are gay men and they like it and they hurt nobody but they do not decide to accept being transsexual. He is implying here that drag queens and his gay feminine boys are one and the same in other words drag queens equate to transsexuals. Wow, that is so beyond stupid it is ludicrous.

Bailey constantly mentions his studies but they are no where to be found and are not accepted as rigorous or valid by anyone except the same characters he calls friends. I want verifiable public research that is accepted as valid.

They mistake the desire of any woman to attract a man as somehow a gay thing in those born transsexual after they have SRS. Bailey has not a single clue about women, not a single one.

This comment is so wrong on so many levels.

I have begun asking the homosexual transsexuals I meet whether, if they had looked awful as women, they would have transitioned to full-time females. Most have said “No,” and no one has answered with an unambiguous “Yes.”

His sample size is very small and in general it is not a realistic question but it is why many young transsexuals kill themselves but he asked the wrong question. Most of us just were girls and that was it. He should have asked what would have happened if surgery was denied. Death is a better alternative. The question should have been the following.

If you had the choice to be beautiful as you are or plain to ugly woman and far from pretty but be a complete and functioning woman, as in genetic women, would you accept that? I would be the plain to ugly genetic woman in a heart beat. Now I might save up for my local plastic surgeon but the chance to have everything I should have been born with cannot be refused. Bailey just does not understand transsexuals. Are there some that would answer as he implies? Yes there are and I would be hard pressed to consider them transsexual but then again there are very shallow women also.

Bailey mentions a beautiful transsexual who fell in love with a gay man and was thinking of transitioning back to male since she had not had SRS. He could not accept her as a woman. That is not a transsexual and even before that Kim was hesitant about SRS. She is happy as a she-male and that is her right but that does not make her transsexual because she is wearing a dress and happened to be a feminine boy. Bailey is clueless. I have never met a transsexual that would put a man before her SRS because they would not let that happen because SRS is the most important thing. Life will take care of itself after that.
Kim’s story shows that sex reassignment is not necessarily an inevitable, unwavering goal for the homosexual transsexual. Rather, sex reassignment has a rational choice component: “Can I make it? Will I be happier as a female? Will I be more successful getting straight men as a woman than I am at getting gay men as a man?”(The last decision has to be weighted by a particular transsexual’s degree of preference for straight versus gay men. Most vastly prefer straight men.)

This is absolutely and unequivocally untrue. All of my friends had the same attitude I had. Get that fucking thing off me and I will take care of my life after I recover. At least I would be as I should have been. I have never in my nearly 68 years ever met a young transsexual that preferred a gay man to a straight man. That is a non sequitur and flies in the face of what Bailey has even said himself since he does know we want straight men. A gay man would decide to cut off his pleasure member so he could attract a straight man is an absurdity.

Bailey also makes the assumption that somehow feminine boys start out looking like transsexuals which is part of the problem young transsexuals face in these clinics that are clueless. By the time they reach 10-12 the gay boys slide away from the transsexuals and it is rather obvious but not to some.

Bailey says 60% of the homosexual transsexuals and drag queens "we" studied were Latina. I would suggest he has not found a good cross-section of transsexuals but then that is kind of obvious. How in the hell can anyone make a statement like that? That is literally DUMB.


The following generalization is interesting.
Most homosexual transsexuals have also learned how to live on the streets. At one time or another many of them have resorted to shoplifting or prostitution or both. 
That is blatantly false. Some do as described but it is a lot smaller percentage than one would think and it is certainly not how it is today. I resent the implication and the generalization about criminal behavior because most young transsexuals from my time drove it deep inside or pushed as best they could like me but we would have been arrested for dressing as girls because it was illegal and I have my letter from Harry to prove it.

Many of us had to work hard to save the money for SRS and most of us were very smart, including the street kids, because a stupid kid does not last on the streets and you do not earn the scholarship I won by being of low IQ and those many of my friends did. Once you knew you could get SRS you lived as best you could and did what had to be done to get SRS. It was the driving force behind your life and the one and only goal. If it was not then your were not a Type VI transsexual nor likely a Type V either.

Would Bailey dare go on a television show today and tell Jazz she is a homosexual transsexual? I seriously doubt it and anyone that calls that fuckwit about transsexuals needs their head examined or removed for a waste of precious oxygen.
Prostitution is the single most common occupation that homosexual transsexuals in our study admitted to.
This is a clear indication the demographic he used is invalid. If it was not so hideous it would be humorous. Plus, where is this supposed study. I certainly have not read it or heard about it nor is it listed in the back of the book or referenced as it should be in the writing.

When we ask transsexuals about their level of interest in casual sex, they respond pretty much like gay men and straight men, all of whom are more interested than either lesbians or straight women, on average.Although Juanita is so feminine in some respects, even some behavioral respects, her ability to enjoy emotionally meaningless sex appears male-typical. In this sense, homosexual transsexuals might be especially well suited to prostitution.

Another invalid male assumption. Women are not interested in bad sex with men and you can certainly include me in that contingent of women. Assumption after bad assumption after misleading stereotyping. It is like a bad example on how NOT to write something supposedly scientific. Modern women enjoy good casual sex as well as men do when they are young. We do like relationships but wanting sex is not a male or gay male thing. That is just downright insulting.

Living on the edge is more out of necessity than desire. Most of the homosexual transsexuals I talked to had similar dreams for the future. They wanted to get their surgery (if they had not yet had it) and meet a nice, attractive, and financially stable heterosexual man who would marry and take care of them. This is obviously similar to the hopes of many non-transsexual women. When I was conducting my study of homosexual transsexuals, I routinely asked them if they knew anyone who had realized this dream. No one did.

Lord this idiot does not have a clue but then he just doesn't realize how many of us just got on with our lives and live. His attitudes are certainly biased by his obsession about homosexuality.

Bailey also believes that most if not all female impersonators are transsexual because he claims they all tell him they are. I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale Michael. In your case it will cost more.

Bailey then gets into she-males and tranny chasers or Blanchard who calls them gynandromorphophiles and I gather he did an extensive study of them. He must have posed as one. Blanchard poses that about 50% of the tranny chasers are cross-dressers and I think he might be right about that one.

There is an interesting bit about trying to tell or should you tell a guy you are dating after SRS. I have no clue on that one since I have failed miserably on that one.


Autogynephilic and Homosexual Transsexuals:How To Tell Them Apart


This is bizarre. Bailey has a list which he claims diagnoses one as either homosexual or non-homosexual transsexual. Things are just not that black and white.



Chapter 11L Becoming a Woman



Just more stereotyping and misinformation about homosexual transsexuals. It seems all the homosexual transsexuals he knows work as escorts but then they are the only ones that would talk to him and he is either too stupid to realize it or it is deliberate because they support his bogus theories.

There is just a general rehashing of all the same crap he spewed in previous chapters which is in an anecdotal non-scientific style where his "gaydar" and "intuition" and amazing knowledge about who and what we transsexuals are and want misses the entire point.

You do not find many transsexuals in groups. He has absolutely never talked with a child transsexual about how they feel and his image of what non-heterosexual transsexuals truly are is biased completely by his obsession with gay men or gay feminine men. If your life does not agree with his view then you are obviously lying.

Is it difficult to find a man to love you? Absolutely, but if he went by what he believes then we would never have SRS because we would not be able to find straight men. After my first divorce, disaster actually, I went back to not telling but I have only had a single one night stand in my life. If I dated a guy it went on for a while and then I usually broke it off because I knew he could not accept me. All the while I raised my stepdaughter. According to my girlfriends, all natal women, my life is normal for a woman with a child who was divorced. Half the men left when they realized my daughter was more important to me than they were.

Bailey is in my humble opinion so totally uninformed and so obsessed with gayness he misses the entire experience we kids born transsexual live through. Again he has never interviewed one of us but then what idiot would take a child to that man. He either does not understand the trauma not being a girl causes us or believes we are lying. That by itself is insulting.

We act the way we do because we are girls. He basically claims that gay feminine men are very much like women except in sex partners. He has no clue. Feminine child transsexuals DO NOT primarily change sex so they can find a sex partner. It is ludicrous to make such an assertion and Bailey does it without one shred of evidence other than his intuition and gay references. Was I interested in boys and was I interested in sex with boys after SRS? You are damn right I was, just like every girl in America in her 20's and looking good. I knew before my SRS there were no assurances about any part of the surgery and it did not matter. I was not capable of having sex the way I needed it to be before SRS.

Bailey seems to think we enjoy taking it up the ass like gay feminine boys because that is how he views us. Dr. Person viewed us that way and she looked at my anal rape at 14 as some indicator of "gayness" even though I was unconscious and have never really enjoyed taking it in the butt. Sometimes I think his view of us is a personal fetish and his obsession with gays is one of two things. He is either homophobic and will not admit it or he is a latent homosexual and just cannot admit that either. That is my "intuition" and my "gaydar" at work.


There is some truth to the following but how does he know. He has never interviewed any one that leads a semblance of a normal life.
Autogynephilic transsexuals tend to lead very different sex lives than homosexual transsexuals, both before and after surgery. Autogynephiles are more likely to seek one single partner. A few remain with their wives, though much more often, wives divorce them. A significant number of autogynephiles find lesbian partners. It is not uncommon for autogynephilic transsexuals to pair up with each other.

The problem I have is I know late transitioners that totally contradict his beliefs. He generalizes about everything and then makes invalid assumptions based on his generalizations, intuition, and bogus friends. Most of the book is based on second to third hand comments by others about other transsexuals.

His autogynephile post-op friend Cher has no clue about what it means to be a Type VI transsexual which is what his homosexual transsexual means. What would or could she possibly know about girls being "boy crazy" when she has no clue what it means to be a girl who is attracted to men. Cher cannot even operate in public without being "clocked, Bailey's words and not mine.


My Conclusion


I fully understand the outrage everyone had with this completely unscientific look on transsexualism which is really about Bailey's obsession with gay men. Benjamin's book The Transsexual Phenomenon is how you correctly write a book about us. He studied us and has the charts and scientific papers to prove it and one can read the book without wondering what planet he came from. He rarely mentioned young transsexuals because in those times few of us made it to him and if we did  he did not include us in his writings for fear of hurting us.

Harry understood the pain transsexuals of all ages deal with. There is not a single mention of the nightmare those of us born transsexual live with on a daily basis until we have our SRS.  The horror if not knowing what we are when young but absolutely knowing we are NOT gay. Bailey brushes all of that aside like it is meaningless and it is not.

He never mentions the high suicide rate young transsexuals have although that is a difficult number to quantify, although Harry mentions the poignant loss of one of his. I have had a dear and close friend commit suicide. I have buried friends that were murdered. I have identified a friend in the NYC morgue who was butchered by her boyfriend who did not know, but found out. Sometimes we do stupid things.

I can really only speak for myself and for the children we have helped but the most important thing in my life and their lives was SRS. In a rather horrid way Bailey trivializes SRS which must make the haters happy, like the radfems. It is easier nowadays because we can transition them younger which is a major value in socialization but it is never easy. It takes a great deal of courage to transition in front of family and friends at a young age.

The virtual blowjob Bailey performs on Blanchard and Zucker when writing about them is kind of sickening. Instead of moving ahead Blanchard and Zucker want to return to the dark ages and how they treat children is damning. What is rather sickening is how Bailey glosses over the transsexual childhood and trivializes it with his Danny Ryan example which cannot be his real name because not even Bailey is that stupid. He NEVER talked to the child, not once, yet he made an assumptive jump by using Danny as a classic gay feminine boy yet he never talked with him once. I find that astoundingly unprofessional.

The boy who pushed his way into my life had a terrible struggle with his feelings for me, which I certainly didn't help by pushing him away. By Bailey's standards he would be gay and that is what his parents thought at first. He was confused about me because he once told me, "you are the nicest girl I know", and that could not have been easy for him to say. He even asked Benjamin whether he was gay and Harry said, "of course not she is so obviously a girl anyone can see that", but my problem was before that everyone but Kevin didn't see it and his parents got involved because his mom was my mom's best friend in high school and in all honesty I think they wanted answers like my mom wanted answers. We never had sex although we planned on getting married after SRS in December 31, 1963 when I turned 18 in Casablanca. He died before anything could happen.

I was too afraid to let boys in because I was not gay and I know some will say that is easy to say but I never was. I had little self confidence and thought I was ugly like most girls that age. I could point out all my faults and the biggest one was down there. Bailey trivializes all of what it means to be transsexual by claiming transsexual children are gay feminine boys. Can some of us end up in relationships? Yes we can and some can even get into gay relationships if they have no clue they are transsexual. It happens and it is not the usual for most of us but Bailey takes a demographic that is so non-diverse it is obvious he chose it to prove his thesis although calling this drivel a thesis is sacrilegious to the word thesis as it is not scientific nor a research work of any form. It is again anecdotal and devoid of any basis in fact.

The first time I ever had sex in my life was 5+ months after my SRS and I was a virgin unless one considers my rape sex, but I do not. After my divorce I did have casual sexual relationships and one in particular that lasted off and on until he got married. After SRS I did have a casual sexual relationship with my guitar god friend and in fact he was the first to ever see my new equipment when he visited NYC in Spring of 1971. Getting his seal of approval seemed like a good idea at the time.

Like everyone I know or once knew after a while I just simply got on with my life as a girl because that was what it was all about. My interest in sex was no different than any young girl my age. I just melted into the real world and lived and I highly recommend it. Just being another girl and then another woman and a stepmother are highly recommended. It is what we should do with our lives because it is who and what we are, We are simply girls and women and our thoughts and wishes vary little from other girls our age. Bailey misses that because it holds no value in proving his falsehoods so he tries to link us to gay feminine men, his obsession.

Do some of us end up escorts or prostitutes? Absolutely and so do natal women. Sometimes it is by choice and sometime they are forced into it. In Bailey's world I am just a gay boy that had a sex change and that trivializes my life and the lives of everyone like me. It is untrue and neither Bailey nor his dipshit friends have a single piece of verifiable evidence that backs up their assumptions, intuition, and bad science.

How would Bailey handle a kid like me that simply said "I am a girl". I just knew I was a girl but I knew physically I was not even though that took a while. I was a smart and happy child. I was reading by the time I was three and my grandfather let me help him with his New York Times Sunday crossword puzzle sitting beside him on the couch. I wasn't much help but I never knew that. According to Bailey I should not have been good in math and science but I was. Bailey is stuck in the past where women do not have careers in science and engineering. He believes in stereotypes and typical behavior patterns that stigmatize and label people by their sex or gender. In many ways he is extremely misogynistic.

Does he score a few minor points? Yes he does but that kind of goes with even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. In Bailey's case it is rarely. The problem with generalization and anecdotal evidence and bad science is the simple fact it means you have nothing to prove your theories and Bailey falls into that category and he admits those issues at times but still jumps to his assumptions and bad conclusions.  Maybe that is why he lost the Chair of his Department at Northwestern.

People think so little of his work that he would be lucky to draw anyone to his outside lectures on this book and he admits it.

One of things that gets to me is he just does not understand a kid like me and the others like me. I was always a girl regardless of the physical defect I was born with. I tried to fit in, like most kids did back then, but I never did fit in. I was never a girl in a boy's body I was a girl stuck in this Neverland where everyone was who they should be and how they should have been born, except me.

I knew I had the wrong parts although I was not sure for quite some time what parts I should have. I was just told I had boy parts and I could never understand how that could happen since I was a girl. Why did I believe I was a girl? I have only had one person answer that question and it was Harry Benjamin. His answer was simple and precise. Some people just know and that is how it is.

I always felt like I was in a world where I did not belong. I had a very difficult time and have never really understood why I was just not born a girl. To kids like me it is so obvious to us we find it incomprehensible that others cannot see it. I remember the first time a Psychiatrist told me I was probably gay so I learned what gay meant and chastised him because I was a girl and not a boy. The irony of this was he invariably called me she and her much to his consternation. He hurt me so badly I tried to kill myself because he told me I would always be a boy. Suicide seemed like a better option since I could not be a boy. That is a lot for an eight year old to handle and I was very fragile and did a very stupid thing.

My brothers protected me but in retrospect they did not want me hanging around with them when we were younger. My older brother realized I needed protection, so he did it. When I realized I like boys I was to be honest scared and puzzled. I kept it to myself out of fear because more shrinks had told me the same thing about ending up a gay man or transvestite and I had more suicide attempts. I knew I like boys but only if I was a complete girl which I now had some clue about.

Despite all this and even a boy that saw past the walls and realized I was a girl I never did fit in. I didn't fit in in high school, or college, or even in Houston. Houston was the worst because I needed the money and had to pretend to be a boy which according to the man who hired me and who was my mentor was a total waste of time. The funny thing is there were two gay men there but nobody ever thought I was gay according to those I have kept in touch with.

I have always been rather shy and men pursued me and not me them even before SRS. I never fit in to the world around me because I was uncomfortable with myself physically which is the transsexual difference that Bailey and his ilk will never understand. Even after I transitioned and moved to NYC I still felt I did not fit in and the transsexual girlfriends I was close to all felt the same way. We were the round pegs in the large square hole. They could try to make us fit and they might force us into the square, if it was big enough, but we never did fit in.

After my SRS in early 1971 I felt like I fit in and that is why most of us do what we can to obtain our SRS, so we can fit in. It was not for sex nor to search for straight men as a gay feminine boy or transsexual. I felt cured and that meant I fit in but to fit in I had to live a reasonably normal life and that was what I wanted. If others chose otherwise that was their wishes but not mine. In Bailey's world he will simply label me a liar.

He does the same thing to many late transitioners who were simply trapped in a living nightmare that played like Groundhog Day every day of their lives. It is insulting to make those kind of assumptions about people he has never met yet Bailey and his crowd think that is their right because they are the purveyors of some truth nobody wants to read or hear about. This despite not a single reputable scientific work that supports their myopic views. Their support comes from the same crowd including the likes of the discredited Anne Lawrence, Blanchard and Zucker of Toronto infamy and a litany of suspect science that has been refuted by all reputable people in the same field. They will claim it is left wingers or right wingers depending on the push-back but in reality it is scientists that believe in science and not innuendo, anecdotal evidence, Freudian lunacy, and non scientific research.

I could write about this for days because this book irritated me and it is harmful to transsexual children because it places a label on them that they do not deserve. There is nothing wrong with being gay and gay men accept that and live happy and productive lives. That is something being born transsexual can never give you. If not corrected it can lead to suicide or an adult life of misery and mental anguish.

Funny how they never and I mean never discuss that part of being transsexual. It is glossed over and pushed aside for their weird science and bad assumptions. Using the term quack on them insults the quacks of the world but sadly they will have their fans which is really sad.








8 comments:

Just Jennifer said...

I read Bailey's book when it first came out. The local library had a copy, and to be honest, I found it kind of amusing in the same way I find those weird little self-published tomes that claim to proof things like Einstein's Unified Field Theory to be good for a laugh. Or books about bizarre conspiracy theories telling me how the Freemasons and the Roman Catholic Church are both fronts for the Illuminati and are the cause of all the world's problems.

As you say, it is bad science. But yes, I also found it a bit irritating. It is not taken all that seriously, outside of a small bubble of kooks who buy into this sort of silliness.

I had a similar reaction to "The Transsexual Empire." I read it, and unlike some transgender extremists, I did not go to pieces because some radical feminist didn't like me. I quickly realized that the book had little impact on my life, and moved on. But then again, unlike certain transgender extremists, I actually live as a woman, and not a "transwoman." I don't feel the need to rub people's noses in my history.

The people Bailey describes, do, to some degree exist. There are certainly those who can be described as "autogynephiles." They are not, however, a form of transsexual. And the sort of people who would more closely fit what Bailey calls a "homosexual transsexual" rarely, if ever, actually seek out surgery.

I worked for a research project that targeted "transgender people" and I encountered people like Bailey describes. The "homosexual transsexuals" are largely immigrants from places where there is cultural pressure of gay men to assume a female role. They have no desire to give up their penises, and they have no real desire to be accepted by their partner as a woman. But, to avoid being harassed and even murdered, they took a culturally acceptable role, which they continue in.

They are no more "transsexual" than the autogynephiles. They may give lip service to the idea of surgery, as part of their role playing, but the idea of actually having surgery terrifies them. As some of them put it, "Why would I want to stop being 'special?'"

Anonymous said...

Bailey's book isn't science. Nor is the root rubbish by Blanchard and Zucker. Read papers by actual men of science, such as Milton Diamond, if you want modern science on the subject.

- an old aunty

Anonymous said...

The problem always has been the TS and Tee-Gees reluctance to stop giving the book attention, it is crap and cannot stand up to peer review. Ardenia James led the initial fight against this book, in part for the attention value it would give her and her website. When confronted about this James posted falsified emails and photoshopped pictures of a friend, someone I helped to transition.

James uses her site TSroadmap as a place to discredit anybody who questions what she writes. Any discussion of BB&L cannot be complete without bringing the TG and TS moths who were drawn into the light for their 15 minutes of fame, now matter how low they would go to get it.

NYF.

Elizabeth said...

@NYF

I have no idea what James and others did but I can see fighting the contents of this book since most if not all of the so called data Bailey uses is junk.

I do not know much about James or others that criticized this book and I actually knew the man that coined the phrase "15 minutes of fame".

I actually had my 15 minutes and in retrospect did not find it very enjoyable.

Personally I would NOT recommend anyone read this book if you were born transsexual. I found the book deeply disturbing and dishonest but then that is just me.

Black Swan said...

@NYF

In defense of Andrea James and TSroadmap.com back in 1999-2002, when I was in law school, if you did an internet search of "transsexual" you would yeild pages and pages of porn sites before you got to the sparse few support sites.

By about 2004, when I began to transition, the definitions, wikipedia and support sites were ranking at the top. Now TSRoadmap.com is on the first page. Fame and noteriety serve a purpose to suppress unwanted messages. Its a double edge sword.

I read Bailey's book when it first came out but I didn't relate to it, yet it does contain very dangerous messaging that isn't accurate at all, yet designed to persuade the ingnorant.

Anonymous said...

Well Black Swan
How can my friend get the lies about her removed from TS roadmap?
She has emailed James, asked nicely and has received no reply.

Have any ideas?

NYF

Anonymous said...

Try enlisting the help of someone James trusts or admires.

- an old aunty

Anonymous said...

I have suggested to my friend that a lawyer letter might be a suitable alternative, and a public apology.
The problem is James thinks she is doing a service by attacking people legitimate TS or not on her page, she calls fakes. It does her a discredit to publish that garbage truth or not, and in the case of my friend what she says simply isn't true.

NYF