It's a shame trees had to be sacrificed in order to print J. Michael Bailey's controversial new book "The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism."
Bailey takes a perfectly interesting and reasonable question - what is the relationship between childhood femininity in boys and gay men, and transgenderism - and succeeds only in writing a bunch of speculative and insulting nonsense.
Don't be fooled by the "science" in the title: There is very little science in this book. It's not science calling up a two-decades-old research study and declaring it the truth for all time. It's not science without documentation - there are no footnotes, no references listed and no bibliography.
It's not science sitting at a bar in Chicago's gay neighborhood of Boystown talking to gay men and transgenders about their childhoods. It's not science when someone answers your questions and you don't like the answers or don't believe them, so you dismiss the insight as lies, or internalized "femiphobia."
It's not science when you write pages about what "perfect" studies would need to be conducted to prove your wanted findings, and then write that, of course, these studies could never be done because of their length and complexity.
It's not science to simply quote small studies and surveys with no context. It's not science taking an 8-year-old boy's cross-dressing issue and basing an entire book on the question of what he may or may not become later in life. And it's not science or scholarship to praise your son's ability to spot gay men on the street. It's not science to base your knowledge of transgender and gay lives on what they say they are seeking in personal ads.
This book is not science. A discussion of ideas, yes. One straight man's look into an unfamiliar world, yes. Science, absolutely not.
Bailey's thesis is that there is a connection between femininity in boys and gay men and the desire to change gender. In investigating this he takes a long detour through covering gay masculinity and femininity, stereotypes of gay men and whether gay men are actually more like straight men or women.
Then he declares there are exactly two types of transgenders: homosexual and autogynephile. The former are men who want to change gender because they identify as women and the latter are men who are erotically charged by switching gender. In his limited exploration, Bailey paints an ugly picture of transgenders' alleged sexual perversity, confusion and relationships. And he makes no effort to consider transgenders who carry on "normal" jobs, friendships, sexual desires, lives, etc.
While the argument Bailey makes is pretty bad, the writing and organization of the book aren't much better. He never adequately connects the several different strands he's weaving into a cohesive whole theory. And his personal anecdotes are annoying, not to mention credibility-busting.
This book is not worth reading, even for the controversy. You'd learn a lot more reaching out to someone in the trans community and having a friendly and honest discussion with them about their lives than reading this ridiculous concoction of speculation.
What's also mystifying is that some reputable authors (Steven Pinker, Anne Lawrence) and literary establishments (Kirkus Reviews, Publisher's Weekly, Out magazine) gave the book positive quotes, since it doesn't take much analytical ability to slice through Bailey's arguments, speculations and assumptions. Also confusing is how an author of Bailey's apparently reputable credentials can get away with a shoddy publication like this. He is a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, has written for The New York Times and is a well-known sex researcher.
Wisely and appropriately, the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition has called for the National Academy of Science to investigate the book and remove it from under its banner.