Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Proposed first paragraph

Shortly after the book was published, computer scientist and transgender activist Lynn Conway began publicizing her opposition to the book on her webpage. She primarily objected to the third section of the book, especially its sympathetic exposition of Blanchard's taxonomic theory of male-to-female transsexualism. She also objected to its "stamp of approval of the National Academy." Transgender activist Andrea James simultaneously began to attack Bailey and the book on her own website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudAGP (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of that looks OK. I'd suggest dropping the word "theory," since it hardly rises to the level of a scientific theory. One main issue about the way it's presented above is that it suggests only two people had problems. We need to note that a lot of critical reports came in that month, like the one about him showing up smelling of alcohol at Emory and boasting about how outrageous and scandalous his book was, physician Becky Allison's article "The National Academy Meets The National Enquirer," Roughgarden's report of Bailey's lecture at Stanford (which James Cantor immediately defended), and the outpouring of letters to the National Academies, which they eventually started responding to with a form letter until the executive editor finally published a defense of NAP's actions. So Conway and I were not just publishing our opposition, we were publishing all responses (pro and con). We were just trying to catalog everything for historical purposes, because we saw (and see) this book as a watershed moment in trans history, the beginning of the end for a cottage industry of pathologizing gender variance. I'll propose a revision later today. Jokestress (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How's this:

Shortly after the book was published by the National Academies Press, prominent transgender people protested, including computer scientist Lynn Conway, biologists Joan Roughgarden and Ben Barres, physician Rebecca Allison, economist Deirdre McCloskey, writers Dallas Denny and Andrea James, Christine Burns of Press for Change, Karen Gurney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, Monica Casper, Executive Director of the Intersex Society of North America, and faculty members of leading universities. Criticism focused on Bailey's endorsement of Ray Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism, on the National Academies Press for publishing and marketing it as science, and on what they saw as Bailey's exploitation of trans children.

(updated and expanded with refs per request)

Thoughts? Jokestress (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, I took a look at some of the 2003 press releases, and I find no marketing claim that the book is science. I see that Bailey is a researchers, that the book is "scientifically accurate" and "grounded in science" -- but something that has to be described as "grounded in" <anything> is automatically not <anything>. The idiom does not permit something to be grounded in itself.

The closest I saw was a publicist's e-mail message that asserts that the book "talks about the science behind homosexuality and transsexualism", which is not exactly the same thing. Where, exactly, does NAP claim that the book is science? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In the subtitle. Jokestress (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Titles and subtitles for books are the author's responsibility, not the publisher's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides the "science" in the book subtitle, the JHP also promotes the book by quoting a glowing review saying "Bailey examines the science behind sexual orientation and identity, using original and rigorous research." This is right up on top of the page on the book. But this is quite beside the point; it is not up to us to investigate how the book was promoted, but rather to support the claims made in the article; the relevant claim here is about what the publisher was criticized for; if there's also a refutation of the claims in that criticism, we can report that, too. Jokestress, again I have to request that when you propose a new paragraph, you include the relevant citations that support it; otherwise there's no easy way to assess whether it's verifiable. And move the references section to the bottom when you do, otherwise it won't work right. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the refs. I'm sure some of those talk about the reasons for the protests, but you don't cite any of them on the sentence summarizing the reasons, so it's still hard to know where to look to try to verify that summary. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops... added refs for the chief criticisms now. The article that mentioned "faculty members at leading universities" was referring to academics like Barbara Nash, Eli Coleman, John Bancroft, Vernon Rosario, etc. Jokestress (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks reasonably verifiable to me now. I'm sure you'll get some quibbles, though. Dicklyon (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Roughgarden review/opinion piece does not assert that NAP marketed it as a work of science -- just that the book was promoted as being about science, i.e., "scientifically accurate". Roughgarden does seem personally insulted that a publisher that she respects has published a book she hates, but that's irrelevant.

I realize that the distinction between "being science" and "being about science" may seem pedantic to those outside the hard sciences, but it is an important one to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and WhatamIdoing is correct that this is more than mere pedantry. Jokestress et al. have a strong politico-legal reason for asserting that the book is science rather than about science: In order to accuse Bailey of having committed a violation of research ethics (which they do), they have to say that the book conducted science (which they do). Otherwise, the book is outside the federal guidelines for research ethics (which is jsut what the admin at Northwestern said).

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 19:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, too, with WhatamIdoing's suggestion to stick closer to the source, quoting "scientifically accurate". I'm not sure of the point of the rest of the discussion that does not seem to address the paragraph at hand. Thus:

Shortly after the book was published by the National Academies Press, prominent transgender people protested, including computer scientist Lynn Conway, biologists Joan Roughgarden and Ben Barres, physician Rebecca Allison, economist Deirdre McCloskey, writers Dallas Denny, Pauline Park, and Andrea James, Christine Burns of Press for Change, Karen Gurney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, Monica Casper, Executive Director of the Intersex Society of North America, and faculty members of leading universities. Criticism focused on Bailey's endorsement of Ray Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism, on the National Academies Press for publishing it and marketing it as "scientifically accurate", and on what they saw as Bailey's exploitation of trans children.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs)

(outdenting) Roughgarden has been pretty consistent in her statements over the years: "The book by Bailey was initially advertised as science, and there’s no doubt about this. For example, The National Academy of Sciences letterhead had an advertisement that read “Gay, Straight, or Lying? Science has the answer,” and conclusions were promised that “may not always be politically correct, but are scientifically accurate, thoroughly researched, and occasionally startling. And the bottom headline to the cover of Bailey’s book says “The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism.” But in point of fact, there is no science in the book, as they’re apparently now agreeing. And on the whole, the book as a work of science is fraudulent." (emphasis added).

We should avoid original research in interpreting Bailey's marketing materials and stick to reliable sources. It's clear that one group has asserted the book was marketed as science. Perhaps the best way to proceed is to note that side, as well as note that Team Bailey backed off the science claims when it looked as if he might get in some trouble for selling the book as such. Now that group asserts the book is "about science" rather than "the science" as described in the book title. The article should present both views.

Speaking of which, if we are to list the critics, we should list the males from a specific demographic who endorsed the book: John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer, James Cantor, Steven Pinker, Daniel Seligman, David Buss, Simon LeVay, etc. Certainly a clear commonality among all of them, and we should include them for balance. Jokestress (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dick, I think that's a better choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the paragraph Dicklyon suggests:

• "Prominant" is a peacock word.
• Because of the controversial nature of the topic, sources should be high quality ones, as described in WP:RS.
• Because portions of the book were available before the formal publication by NAP, the phrase "Shortly after the book was published by the National Academies Press..." would be more accurate/complete as something like "Shortly after the online version of book was published in hardcopy by the National Academies Press..."

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Prominent" is an artifact from the current article and can go. If you have specific references you'd like to discuss, please list them. There was never an "online version of the book" before NAP. Bailey published a draft of the third section of the book in 1999, the part that he claims caused the uproar in 2003. That's why it's clear that something changed between 1999 and 2003 that caused a different response; namely, that NAP had the book "advertised as science," as Roughgarden and others asserted, as well as the title (changed from 1999), the cover, and the framing device, among other things. Jokestress (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Although Dicklyon's suggestion is much better than Jokestress', I have several problems with it. First of all, it ignores Lynn Conway's central role in orchestrating the protest against the book. Second, the whole "exploitation of transchildren" thing is very unclear. Exploitation? Third, I dislike including claims that the book was unscientific without accompanying information about the very low quality of these complaints. Indeed, it is unclear whether some of these people have ever read the book. As just one example, Conway asserted that Bailey got his ideas from studying drag queens in bars, whereas Bailey got his ideas from reading Blanchard's work, and used his informants' stories to exemplify key ideas. I suppose that one approach is a paragraph-by-paragraph "Critics said, but Bailey said" kind of thing. This has the potential to get long and complex though.

Jokestress' continued assertions that there was something wrong with marketing the book as science are silly. The book is a work of popular science. Go to a bookstore and you will see many of them. It is indeed "about science." This is another flaw in the "critiques" of Roughgarden et al., who seem ignorant of Blanchard's work.ProudAGP (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of quibbling about things not in the paragraph, why not provide an alternative, with everything sourced and nothing important omitted, that see as a step toward a better first paragraph? Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear-- and the only difference between Dicklyon's and mine is the assertion that the book was marketed as science, which appears in reliable sources listed in the references (as does the assertion of exploitation of trans children). If that makes it "much better," I think we have identified a key point on which consensus needs to be reached.

This is not a forum for your opinions about this matter. Your opinions about the quality of the assertions and speculation on who read the book are irrelevant and unhelpful. If you have sources that say the quality of the complaints is low or that critics didn't read the book, please provide a proposed version with sourcing so we can discuss its merits. Jokestress (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The only relevant "assertion" is about what the criticism focused on: the National Academies Press for publishing it and marketing it as "scientifically accurate". Whether someone thinks that criticism was misplaced is hardly relevant here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Dicklyon . You are wrong AGP, the assertions the book was "accurate science " were the problem and Bailey and Lawrence caused the problem by not correcting those promoting this hypothesis as "science fact". Whether you find flaws in an argument that you aren't even quoting here is irrelevant (unless you would like to give more space in the article to Joan Roughgardens critique ). It was simply Bailey sitting around trying to fit Blanchard's theories into what he was observing in that gay pick up bar . Sexual people were what he needed and that is what he found. Again, if typical heterosexuals were to have their motives in lives defined by theories applied to a meat market bar I would expect the results to be the same. All of them would look like perverts and Bailey could call them all liars for denying it. DarlieB (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC) DarlieB

Revised intro proposal

It's been a week since the last comment here, so it looks as if we are close. Here is a revised proposal for the first paragraph, and a start on the second paragraph.

Shortly after the book was published by the National Academies Press, transgender people protested, including computer scientist Lynn Conway, biologists Joan Roughgarden and Ben Barres, physician Rebecca Allison, economist Deirdre McCloskey, writers Dallas Denny, Pauline Park, and Andrea James, Christine Burns of Press for Change, Karen Gurney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, Monica Casper, Executive Director of the Intersex Society of North America, and faculty members of leading universities. Criticism focused on Bailey's endorsement of Ray Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism, on its publication by the National Academies Press because it was "advertised as science" and marketed as "scientifically accurate", and on what they saw as Bailey's exploitation of trans children.

The book also elicited strong opinions from helping professionals who work with the transgender community. Psychologist Eli Coleman said the book was "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers." and his colleague Walter Bockting said it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community," Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft said the book was "not science," later adding, "it promoted a very derogatory explanation of transgender identity which most TG people would find extremely hurtful and humiliating—hence the reaction of the TG community was not surprising. Whether based on science or not we have a responsibility to present scientific ideas, particularly in the public arena, in ways which are not blatantly hurtful. But in addition to that, Michael did not support his analysis in a scientific manner—hence my comment." Psychologist Randi Ettner said "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned." Sexologist Anne Lawrence, whose work is featured in the book, said, "This is a wonderful book on an important subject."

Bailey's book was praised by journalists John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer, Daniel Seligman, and Mark Henderson, as well as by academics James Cantor, Steven Pinker, David Buss, and Simon LeVay.

We should pick some representative quotations from reviewers who praised the book. Jokestress (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As a follow-up, another option is not to quote anyone in the second paragraph, and make it similar to the third. I feel it's helpful for readers to see what people were saying (pro and con). Jokestress (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrea, thanks for working toward a well-sourced and balanced intro. Given the lack of feedback here, I'd say it's time to go ahead and put your best shot into the article; if anyone sees specific areas of improvement, they can then go ahead and edit accordingly. I think this talk process has been useful, but as you note, it has settled down, so let's get back to a more typical process. Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been away from WP, and I'm not liking some of the stuff above. I will get a revision proposed soon. In the meantime, please do not proceed with this (except on the Discussion page).ProudAGP (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I added a couple of other positive reviews into the proposed version above. If there are other helping professionals who praised the book, we can add them. Jokestress (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

REVISED INTRO PROPOSAL, VERSION 2

Revised intro proposal, version 2

The book elicited a wide range of reviews. Academics Steven Pinker, David Buss, Simon Levay, and James Cantor all praised the book, although both Pinker and Buss anticipated that the book would upset some readers who held strong assumptions. The book also earned some positive reviews in the gay and lesbian press and among some conservative journalists.

The public response of the transgender community was almost entirely negative. Shortly after the book was published by the National Academies Press, computer scientist Lynn Conway organized a protest against its publication. She and transgender activist Andrea James began criticizing both the book and the author on their webpages. Subsequently, many other transgender people protested, including biologists Joan Roughgarden and Ben Barres, physician Rebecca Allison, economist Deirdre McCloskey, writers Dallas Denny, Pauline Park, Christine Burns of Press for Change, and Karen Gurney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, Monica Casper, Executive Director of the Intersex Society of North America. Criticism focused on Bailey's endorsement of Ray Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism, on its publication by the National Academies Press because it was "advertised as science"[28] and marketed as "scientifically accurate", and on the complaint that Bailey exploited trans children.

The book also elicited strong opinions from some helping professionals who work with the transgender community. Psychologist Eli Coleman said the book was "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers." and his colleague Walter Bockting said it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community," Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft said the book was "not science," later adding, "it promoted a very derogatory explanation of transgender identity which most TG people would find extremely hurtful and humiliating—hence the reaction of the TG community was not surprising. Whether based on science or not we have a responsibility to present scientific ideas, particularly in the public arena, in ways which are not blatantly hurtful. But in addition to that, Michael did not support his analysis in a scientific manner—hence my comment." Psychologist Randi Ettner said "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned."

Although most transgender individuals who took a public stance on the book were critical, there were exceptions. For example, transsexual sexologist Anne Lawrence, whose work is discussed in the book, said, "This is a wonderful book on an important subject." The book was also praised (with some criticism as well) by transsexual Alejandra Velasquez, who asserted that the attack on the book was motivated by autogynephiles' "rage.": "The problem with ""The Man Who Would Be Queen"" for some transsexuals is not that there is so much wrong, but that there is too much right."

This version has the advantages of identifying Conway and James as the leaders of the protest and more balance.ProudAGP (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This version has disadvantages:

• Removing the names and sourcing for the people involved in praising the book: conservative columnists and academics, most of who were connected to Blanchard and Bailey via Steve Sailer. I feel it's important to link and source Sailer, John Derbyshire, Daniel Seligman, Chris Brand and anyone else mentioned in the press, as it helps readers understand where the praise originated.
• This version also bookends the criticism with the few examples of praise. Why not put all the praise together and all the criticism together?
• Transkids.us is not a reliable source, nor is the person writing under the pen name "Alejandra Velasquez."

I'll propose version 3 shortly. Jokestress (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Revised intro proposal, version 3

I feel the meta-analysis should come chronologically. We should discuss how the book was initially received in 2003, then get into all the post-investigation stuff. I have put the praise first, but we could do it the other way, too.

The book elicited a polarized response. It was praised by journalists John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer, Daniel Seligman, and Mark Henderson, as well as by academics James Cantor, Steven Pinker, David Buss, and Simon LeVay. It also received positive reviews by LGBT writers Ethan Boatner and Duncan Osborne. Two people who self-identify as autogynephiles led their community's public response: sexologist Anne Lawrence, whose work is discussed in the book, said, "This is a wonderful book on an important subject," and lawyer Willow Arune said that "Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence and [Blanchard colleague Maxine] Petersen have done more to help transsexuals over years of service than perhaps any other four people in the world."

The public response of the transgender community was almost entirely negative, including criticism from computer scientist Lynn Conway, biologists Joan Roughgarden and Ben Barres, physician Rebecca Allison, economist Deirdre McCloskey, psychologist Madeline Wyndzen, writers Dallas Denny, Pauline Park, and Andrea James, Christine Burns of Press for Change, Karen Gurney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America, and faculty members of leading universities. Criticism focused on Bailey's endorsement of Ray Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism, on its publication by the National Academies Press because it was "advertised as science" and marketed as "scientifically accurate," and on what they saw as Bailey's exploitation of trans children.

The book also elicited strong opinions from helping professionals who work with the transgender community. Psychologist Eli Coleman said the book was "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers." and his colleague Walter Bockting said it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community." Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft said the book was "not science," later adding, "it promoted a very derogatory explanation of transgender identity which most TG people would find extremely hurtful and humiliating—hence the reaction of the TG community was not surprising. Whether based on science or not we have a responsibility to present scientific ideas, particularly in the public arena, in ways which are not blatantly hurtful. But in addition to that, Michael did not support his analysis in a scientific manner—hence my comment." Psychologist Randi Ettner said, "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned."

Then get into all the after-the-fact analysis like Moser's piece on the ties to Sailer's Human Biodiversity Institute, Dreger's "history," Lawrence's "narcisstic rage," etc. Jokestress (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we are making progress. However, you omit mention of some other important reviews such as Kirkus Reviews. On the NAP's collection of reviews, "compassionate" is mentioned several times. I will propose a slight revision with this in mind. Also, I think your characterization of Anne Lawrence and Willow Arune can be better, and I will make it so. Finally, can you tell me why you persist in refusing to acknowledge Lynn Conway's and Andrea James' leadership of this controversy? This article will certainly have to address that at the stage of the Dreger history. I will wait for you to address this before proceeding.ProudAGP (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to mention Dreger's interpretation that the backlash was "largely under the leadership of three prominent transwomen," and name them. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on, or try to use it to push Dreger's interpretation as more than her interpretation though. If there are other sources that say the opposite (including the commentaries if any do so), it should be OK to mention that, too. What's not OK is if Cantor comes back and says again that the Dreger piece is a reliable source but the responses published with it are not. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ProudAGP: Given all the anonymity, secrecy, logrolling, and other sketchiness of the peer review, publication, and fallout, I believe we should only include attributed reviews. For instance, two of the positive reviews used by NAP marketing are by Pinker, but only one is attributed to him. Kirkus has an anonymity policy, and there has been a lot of abuse of review options by both sides (Amazon, the aforementioned NAP sockpuppetry, etc.). The "compassionate" descriptor seems a bit odd given that everyone depicted in the book who shed their anonymity denounced it and/or filed charges. Perhaps we can balance that with "kinder, gentler homophobia" or those sorts of summations. Lynn Conway is listed first; the order this presents people is roughly chronological in terms of references in sources. I think of my own role in this as sort of a content aggregator, collecting and analyzing all the info as it came in, culminating in the end of the Northwestern investigation. Dreger's unhinged attempt to create some sort of unholy trinity of Conway-James-McCloskey is amusing and oddly flattering, but not especially accurate. I have never met Dr. McCloskey or even spoken with her on the phone, though we have corresponded occasionally. I probably wouldn't have done much more on the Bailey stuff if Dreger hadn't obsessed over me after failing to suppress my 2006 Northwestern speech. I'd say I was a key critic and remain very well-versed in the details, but I'd say I was more of a coordinator and analyst. My self-description is not really relevant, though. We should stick to sources. If we have a source that says I was a "leader," that's fine. Dreger said things to that effect, so we can discuss all that in the post hoc analysis.

Dicklyon: Agreed. It's clear that attempting to exclude responses to Dreger that appeared in the same journal is just a POV move, similar to their releasing the Dreger paper to the press a year early and never releasing the (largely critical) responses. Jokestress (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dick, it's worth mentioning again that reliability of sources depends entirely on how you use them. A non-peer-reviewed commentary is presumed to be a reliable source for the view of the author, but not presumed to be a reliable source for for specific facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Revised intro proposal, version 4

The book elicited a polarized response. Among the positive reviews, the words "compassionate" and "fascinating" were used several times. For example, one of the first published reviews, by Kirkus Reviews concluded: "Despite its provocative title, a scientific yet superbly compassionate exposition." The book was also praised by academics James Cantor, Steven Pinker, David Buss, and Simon LeVay. as well as by journalists John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer, Daniel Seligman, and Mark Henderson, It also received positive reviews by LGBT writers Ethan Boatner and Duncan Osborne. and in several other LBGBT publications. Two transsexual women who self-identify as autogynephilic also provided praise: sexologist Anne Lawrence, whose work is discussed in the book, said, "This is a wonderful book on an important subject," and lawyer Willow Arune said that "Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence and [Blanchard colleague Maxine] Petersen have done more to help transsexuals over years of service than perhaps any other four people in the world."

The public response of the transgender community was almost entirely negative, including criticism from computer scientist Lynn Conway, biologists Joan Roughgarden and Ben Barres, physician Rebecca Allison, economist Deirdre McCloskey, psychologist Madeline Wyndzen, writers Dallas Denny, Pauline Park, and Andrea James, Christine Burns of Press for Change, Karen Gurney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America, and faculty members of leading universities. Criticism focused on Bailey's endorsement of Ray Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism, on its publication by the National Academies Press because it was "advertised as science" and marketed as "scientifically accurate," and on what they saw as Bailey's exploitation of trans children.

The book also elicited strong opinions from helping professionals who work with the transgender community. Psychologist Eli Coleman said the book was "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers." and his colleague Walter Bockting said it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community." Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft said the book was "not science," later adding, "it promoted a very derogatory explanation of transgender identity which most TG people would find extremely hurtful and humiliating—hence the reaction of the TG community was not surprising. Whether based on science or not we have a responsibility to present scientific ideas, particularly in the public arena, in ways which are not blatantly hurtful. But in addition to that, Michael did not support his analysis in a scientific manner—hence my comment." Psychologist Randi Ettner said, "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned."

No, I disagree about not using Kirkus Reviews, which WP says "has long been a respected, authoritative pre-publication review source within the literary and film industries." It is important and interesting that so many of the positive reviews think the book was compassionate, and so I included that. We can discuss exactly how to make this point, but please don't waste time with junk such as "kindler, gentler homophobia" in this section (i.e., the paragraph on positive responses).

You would also avoid time-wasting if you would avoid labeling Anne Lawrence and Willow Arune as you tried to. They are transsexual women, just like Lynn Conway and Andrea James.

Finally, please stop trying to get your Blakeslee reference into this in order to link to a criticism of LeVay. It is tiresome and unnecessary and inappropriate, and it destroys the very little trust in you I am able to feel on occasion.ProudAGP (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Revised intro proposal, version 5

The second sentence in version 4 is original research (WP:SYN). I made a couple of other minor changes.

The book elicited a polarized response. Kirkus Reviews concluded: "Despite its provocative title, a scientific yet superbly compassionate exposition." The book was also praised by academics James Cantor, Steven Pinker, David Buss, and Simon LeVay, as well as by journalists John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer, Daniel Seligman, and Mark Henderson. It also received positive reviews by LGBT writers Ethan Boatner and Duncan Osborne. and in several other LGBT publications. Among transgender people who self-identify as autogynephilic, sexologist Anne Lawrence, whose work is discussed in the book, said, "This is a wonderful book on an important subject," and lawyer Willow Arune said that "Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence and [Blanchard colleague Maxine] Petersen have done more to help transsexuals over years of service than perhaps any other four people in the world."

The public response of the transgender community was almost entirely negative, including criticism from computer scientist Lynn Conway, biologists Joan Roughgarden and Ben Barres, physician Rebecca Allison, economist Deirdre McCloskey, psychologist Madeline Wyndzen, writers Dallas Denny, Pauline Park, and Andrea James, Christine Burns of Press for Change, Karen Gurney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America, and faculty members of leading universities. Criticism focused on Bailey's endorsement of Ray Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism, on its publication by the National Academies Press because it was "advertised as science" and marketed as "scientifically accurate," and on what they saw as Bailey's exploitation of trans children.

The book also elicited strong opinions from helping professionals who work with the transgender community. Psychologist Eli Coleman said the book was "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers." and his colleague Walter Bockting said it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community." Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft said the book was "not science," later adding, "it promoted a very derogatory explanation of transgender identity which most TG people would find extremely hurtful and humiliating—hence the reaction of the TG community was not surprising. Whether based on science or not we have a responsibility to present scientific ideas, particularly in the public arena, in ways which are not blatantly hurtful. But in addition to that, Michael did not support his analysis in a scientific manner—hence my comment." Psychologist Randi Ettner said, "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned."

I'll concede the Kirkus Review to facilitate consensus, though I still feel we should only include attributed articles. The self-identities of Lawrence and Arune are a matter of dispute. Under other taxonomies they would be non-transsexuals, pseudotranssexuals, etc. That's why this taxonomy appeals to them. Perhaps people like that seem so "fundamentally different" (Bailey's term) from other transsexuals is because they are not transsexuals. People like that are saddled with much less flattering epithets within the trans community. Lawrence has even noted the similarities in outlook between people like them and "wannabes" in the amputee fetish community. I have tried to present them in an accurate but value-neutral manner. As far as Blakeslee, he quotes LeVay's opinion of Man Who Would Be Queen, so it seems relevant here. Why do you think we should not use it? At any rate, all the above seems workable for me. Now we can get to the after-the fact analysis if this is all OK with everyone. Jokestress (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If Lawrence and Arune self-identify as TS, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, they are TS. I'm sure that every editor on this page is familiar with MOS:IDENTITY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine - just giving context for my wording and for the larger issues. I added "transsexuals" in the proposal above. Re-reading it, I wonder if ProudAGP's wording is a little misleading by using the word "two." To my knowledge, they were the only two whose praise appeared in reliable sources, but there were a couple of other people like them who defended the book in blogs, etc. As it is worded, it suggests they were the only two, when it might be better to preserve my wording, which said they represented the public response of their community. That also parallels the next paragraph, which discusses the public response of the trans community. Jokestress (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Doubtless you mean to refer to "the public response of other parts of the trans community". We've just been over the fact that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Lawrence and Arune are part of the trans community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Other parts of the trans community, sure. I made that suggested change above. We should probably use the umbrella term to avoid a few issues. Jokestress (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with ProudAPG that there has been some progress, the text requires much more work in its balance. For example, to the book’s critics, it provides positive descriptors, but to its supporters, it provides dismissive descriptors or insinuates lack of objectivity.

• Coleman and Bockting are described as “helping professionals who work with the transgender community” even though Lawrence has the much greater right to that description.
• Activists are described with full title of their associations, and other critics are “faculty members of leading universities,” whereas the book’s supporters collecitvely receive merely the word “academics.”
• The text is quite specific regarding what the negative reviews said, but gives only vague statements from what the positive reviews said.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 22:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some organizational options: this one does praise first, then criticism, doing additional organizing within the praise/criticism groups. If you want to do another organizational option, please propose it so we can see. Besides the Kirkus review, the Lawrence review, and the Arune review, what other quotations would you want in there? Please add them. ProudAGP has suggested something with "fascinating" as a representative quotation. The phrase "faculty members of leading universities" was in the original, so we can add more specific titles for the supporters. Please make a proposal and we can discuss its merits. Jokestress (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The main problems left are in the shorter positive paragraph, and some of these I've changed and you (Jokestress) keep changing them back. I suggest that you try to be a little more cooperative here. For now, instead of proposing a new alternative, I'm going to propose particular edits to do to Version 5. Since you proposed it, you can make the edits, or argue why you should not make them:

1. Regarding the end of paragraph 1 ("Among transgender people who self-identify as autogynephilic, sexologist Anne Lawrence, whose work is discussed in the book, said, 'This is a wonderful book on an important subject,'[30] and lawyer Willow Arune said that 'Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence and [Blanchard colleague Maxine] Petersen have done more to help transsexuals over years of service than perhaps any other four people in the world.'"), change to:

Transsexual women who agreed with Blanchard's transsexual taxonomy also reviewed the book positively. Sexologist and therapist Anne Lawrence wrote: "This is a wonderful book on an important subject," and lawyer Willow Arune wrote that "Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence and [Blanchard colleague Maxine] Petersen have done more to help transsexuals over years of service than perhaps any other four people in the world."

2. Make the change suggested by Whatamidoing, beginning paragraph #2 with "The public response of other parts of the transgender community"

3. Change the Blakeslee reference to the NAP page. I believe you are trying to reference Blakeslee because he is critical of LeVay and makes some kind of neo-eugenics case against him. This is not the place for games like that. There is no good reason not to use the NAP page to reference LeVay when it is already being used to reference Kirkus and others. Again, this is "my side's" paragraph, and you should not be trying to subvert it.

4. Regarding the "faculty members of leading universities" in paragraph 2, you should either get rid of it (it's redundant with Roughgarden, among others, because Stanford is surely a leading university) or include it to describe the book's supporters (Harvard is also) as well. I think that will look silly, so I'd delete it.

5. At the beginning of the first paragraph, there should be at least one additional quote from a positive review. I suggest adding Pinker's, right after the Kirkus quote, as follows:

Linguist Steven Pinker wrote: "With a mixture science, humanity, and fine writing, J. Michael Bailey illuminates the mysteries of sexual orientation and identity in the best book yet written on the subject. The Man Who Would Be Queen may upset the guardians of political correctness on both the left and the right, but it will be welcomed by intellectually curious people of all sexes and sexual orientations. A truly fascinating book."

6. Use the following descriptors for the remaining academics: sexologist and psychologist James Cantor, psychologist David Buss, and neuroscientist Simon LeVayProudAGP (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As Jokestress requested, I have used the above proposal, modifying the descriptors to come closer to a balanced version. Before I got had a chance to include more positive quotes to balance the negative ones, ProudAGP appears to have already done so. ProudAGP's suggestions can be integrated into mine. Despite that I am presenting this version, I do not believe it is yet optimal. My intent in writing it was to improve only the specific issues I brought up, not to correct the remaining issues, which have not yet been discussed.

The book elicited both strongly positive and strongly negative responses. Kirkus Reviews concluded: "Despite its provocative title, a scientific yet superbly compassionate exposition." The book received praise from openly gay sexual behavior scientists James Cantor and Simon LeVay, from sex-differences expert David Buss, research psychologist Steven Pinker, as well as from journalists John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer, Daniel Seligman, and Mark Henderson.

The book also received positive reviews in the LGBT press, such as from writers Ethan Boatner and Duncan Osborne. and in several other LGBT publications. Anne Lawrence, an openly transsexual physician and sexologist, wrote, "This is a wonderful book on an important subject," and openly transsexual lawyer Willow Arune wrote, "Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence and [Blanchard colleague Maxine] Petersen have done more to help transsexuals over years of service than perhaps any other four people in the world."

Several transgender community activists decried the book, including computer scientist Lynn Conway, biologists Joan Roughgarden and Ben Barres, physician Rebecca Allison, economist Deirdre McCloskey, psychologist Madeline Wyndzen, writers Dallas Denny, Pauline Park, and Andrea James, Christine Burns of Press for Change, Karen Gurney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America. Activists opposed the book's endorsement of Ray Blanchard's research findings on male-to-female transsexualism, its publication by the National Academies Press by whom it was "advertised as science" and marketed as "scientifically accurate," which the activists felt was untrue. Moreover, activists claimed the book exploited children with gender dysphoria.

Some professionals agreed with the activists. Psychologist Eli Coleman referred to the book as "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers," and his colleague, Walter Bockting, wrote that it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community." Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft referred to the book as "not science," later clarifying that "it promoted a very derogatory explanation of transgender identity which most TG people would find extremely hurtful and humiliating….Whether based on science or not we have a responsibility to present scientific ideas, particularly in the public arena, in ways which are not blatantly hurtful. But in addition to that, Michael did not support his analysis in a scientific manner—hence my comment." Psychologist Randi Ettner said, "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned."

One problem is that I continue to believe that the entire passage should be restricted to reviews that appeared in mainstream sources. (I am aware that my own would also be deleted for that reason.) I have pointed this out previously, but left the non-mainstream sources in so that that issue might be discussed.

Another oddity is that it seems peculiar to me for the mention of me to precede the mention of individuals who are much more prominant than I. I did not reposition my mention so as to avoid misinterpretation for why I did so. I will leave that decision to the rest of you. — James Cantor (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

When you make changes like changing "endorsement of Ray Blanchard's taxonomy" to "endorsement of Ray Blanchard's research findings", you are inserting your own biased POV, rather than sticking to what is supported by the cited source. If you want to change what the article says, please continue to either keep it compatible with the source, or provide a new source for your POV. I haven't checked much of it, but your long history of this kind of POV change is why I can't assume your edits to be at attempt at balance, but rather an attempt at spin. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "research findings" is closer to the source than is "taxonomy." I don't expect you assume my edits are an attempt at balance, but I do expect you to check things before expressing an opinion. I can't help but remember when you insisted that a particular quote from TMWWBQ was necessary in order the remainder of the quote to make sense, only to find out that that quote you were insisting on including wasn't actually from the book in the first place.

— James Cantor (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that James Cantor has weighed in and like his proposal. I'm sure there will be a counterproposal by Jokestress or Dicklyon soon. I would appreciate it if that proposal does not simply ignore the matters I raised.ProudAGP (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I find this format too difficult. If someone would go ahead and edit the article, and someone else would improve it, we could look at diffs to see if the changes are improvements. Arguing about a bunch of versions on a talk page, it's too hard to see what's being done, especially for something of more than a sentence or two. So I'm in favor of seeing any recent version put into the article, and when whoever sees things that need to be improved should do so, etc. See WP:BRD. Dicklyon (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon's suggestion can be followed here, and it probably should be rather than on the article.ProudAGP (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Revised intro proposal, version 6

This integrates my suggestions above, ProudAGP's suggestion, and the suggestion from WhatAmIDoing that ProudAGP referred to.

The book elicited both strongly positive and strongly negative responses. Kirkus Reviews concluded: "Despite its provocative title, a scientific yet superbly compassionate exposition." The book received praise from openly gay sexual behavior scientists James Cantor and Simon LeVay, from sex-differences expert David Buss, and from research psychologist Steven Pinker, who wrote: "With a mixture science, humanity, and fine writing, J. Michael Bailey illuminates the mysteries of sexual orientation and identity in the best book yet written on the subject. The Man Who Would Be Queen may upset the guardians of political correctness on both the left and the right, but it will be welcomed by intellectually curious people of all sexes and sexual orientations. A truly fascinating book." It also received praise from journalists John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer, Daniel Seligman, and Mark Henderson.

The book also received positive reviews in the LGBT press, such as from writers Ethan Boatner for Lavendar Magazine and Duncan Osborne for Out! Magazine, as well as in several other LGBT publications. Transsexual women who agreed with Blanchard's transsexual taxonomy also reviewed the book positively. Anne Lawrence, an openly transsexual physician and sexologist, wrote "This is a wonderful book on an important subject," and openly transsexual lawyer Willow Arune wrote, "Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence and [Blanchard colleague Maxine] Petersen have done more to help transsexuals over years of service than perhaps any other four people in the world."

Several transgender community activists decried the book, including computer scientist Lynn Conway, biologists Joan Roughgarden and Ben Barres, physician Rebecca Allison, economist Deirdre McCloskey, psychologist Madeline Wyndzen, writers Dallas Denny, Pauline Park, and Andrea James, Christine Burns of Press for Change, Karen Gurney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America. Activists opposed the book's endorsement of Ray Blanchard's taxonomy (classification) of male-to-female transsexualism, its publication by the National Academies Press by whom it was "advertised as science" and marketed as "scientifically accurate," which the activists felt was untrue. Moreover, activists claimed the book exploited children with gender dysphoria.

Some professionals agreed with the activists. Psychologist Eli Coleman referred to the book as "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers," and his colleague, Walter Bockting, wrote that it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community." Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft referred to the book as "not science," later clarifying that "it promoted a very derogatory explanation of transgender identity which most TG people would find extremely hurtful and humiliating….Whether based on science or not we have a responsibility to present scientific ideas, particularly in the public arena, in ways which are not blatantly hurtful. But in addition to that, [Bailey] did not support his analysis in a scientific manner—hence my comment." Psychologist Randi Ettner said of Bailey, "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned."

— James Cantor (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall we try Dicklyon's suggestion of editing on this present proposal rather than providing new successive alternatives, so we can look at the diffs? What do you think?ProudAGP (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to be lost by trying it and seeing how it goes.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should leave out mudpslinging. Otherwise, this will get nowhere fast.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What are you referring to? Oh, I see, it was your previous edit re "credibility". I don't think credibility is at issue here, since it's about opinions and everyone is entitled to one; but the close connection between Bailey and Blanchard and the positive reviewers should not be ignored if their reviews are being cited and quoted, should it? It's not like it's disputed or defamatory or anything, is it? Actually, we probably need to also source Sailer, the organizer of that group, and note that he was promoting Blanchard and Bailey even before the book came out. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit that Bailey (or Blanchard) belonged to the same listserv as someone who wrote a review is to insinuate a lack of objectivity on the part of the reviewer. In your own words, you "definitely agree that we need to be careful about implying guilt by association."[1] Moreover, nearly every sex researcher shares membership with nearly every other sex researcher on some listserv or another. (There are listservs of just sex researchers.) That Sailor (or anyone else) previously expressed a like or dislike of a concept does not make them less objective regarding their assessment of a book about that concept. Sailor (or anyone else) could have just as easily liked the concept, but not the book describing it. Moreover, this is a page about the book, not the concept. Finally, if you are going to start bringing in prior expressions of agreement/disagreement, then you are also (re-)starting discussions about Andrea James' prior agreement with Blanchard's ideas. We have made progress, in my opinion, on the above proposal, and it will quickly collapse if you re-enacting the very behaviors that have repeatedly halted all prior solutions.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I don't think belonging to the same email group constitutes a "close connection." And as I said on the Talk:Autogynephilia page, the SPLC report (which is where the description the commentator gave the email group derives from) will be vetted here for inclusion. James Cantor is correct that the kind of "gotcha" clauses you tried to insert are not helpful here. With due respect, since you have as much as admitted it already, you don't know much about these issues (Jokestress knows quite a bit about some of them, despite my differences with her), and I would suggest that you could be more helpful weighing in on the edits of those who do.ProudAGP (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether Bailey and Blanchard being in the same group as four of the positive reviewers is important can be left for the reader to ponder. Certainly having four positive reviewers in the one group led by the guy who was promoting Blanchard's and Bailey's "research" even before the book came out is pretty significant, and we probably ought to get that latter fact in there as well. The "gotcha" characterization of the HBI was from the cited source, but it wasn't clearly enough identified as that writer's opinion, so I've just taken it out. By the way, I don't agree with you that my contributions should be marginalized due to my not being a part of the sexology cabal; I have a long and deep history editing a wide range of wikipedia articles, and I can read the literature and follow up on sources, and that's what this is about; unlike James Cantor, who came in as a WP:SPA to sling mud on biographies, one of which happened to be of a friend of mine and drew me into this mess. Dicklyon (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. For all you know, Sailor, Bailey, and Blanchard all disagreed repeatedly on that listserv on many topics. (Or, for all I know, for that matter. I wasn't on that list.) To cut to the chase, I am not hearing a consensus for including the insinuation, and I doubt there is ever going to be one. I suggest moving on to issues on which we do have agreement. Dicklyon once said he is on "wikipedia's side." This is where to demonstrate it.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no knowledge or opinion of whether they disagreed or not. Why is that relevant to what is being reported? I do know that Sailer promoted them and their ideas on his blogs, but I don't have a reliable secondary source about that, just the blogs themselves, so maybe we won't go there. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly is your objection to my edit? Is anything in it unsourced, irrelevant, defamatory, or otherwise against getting to a full and verifiable story per wikipedia policy? Dicklyon (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already expressed my answers to your question in the foregoing, and you have produced no new information since. Returning to your same questions repeatedly is tendacious. I can only repeat that we focus on the issues for which there is consensus.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed it, which is why I asked. All I see as a reason is "I am not hearing a consensus", which is not big surprise, since only you and I are talking. But before we can talk about your objections, it would be good to know what they are. Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you have also missed where ProudAGP agreed with me. I suggest you read more carefully the edits as well as sources.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe I addressed ProudAGP's objection already, removing the "gotcha" opinion phrase. Are there more? Please get back to commenting on the text instead of on me. Dicklyon (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I did. That you tendaciously refuse to acknowledge my comments about insinuation or ProudAGP's agreement with such does not compel me (or us) to repeat them.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon I am removing the sentence you added for the following reasons:

First, I believe these commentaries were not peer reviewed, and if not, echoing WhatamIdoing: "A non-peer-reviewed commentary is presumed to be a reliable source for the view of the author, but not presumed to be a reliable source for for specific facts." None of the sources you cite but Nichols' commentary says that Buss and others are part of the "Institute." (And four isn't "many" in any case.)

Second, even if they were peer reviewed, and even if Nichols were right (which I have no way of knowing) about who is a member of the email list, I think she is wrong--and it is controversial--whether Bailey and others mentioned are part of an "institute" rather than an email list. The whole SPLC thing appears to have been a sham. We can discuss this as the article develops, and provide reasonable points of view about it. But at this stage, these unsubstantiated accusations should not be used to reduce credibility of Bailey's supporters.

As James Cantor noted, this can work both ways--lots of ways of impugning the reliability of Conway et al. too. And if we're going to have that back and forth at this stage, it is going to be pointless to continue.ProudAGP (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite perplexed at your reaction; first of all, the membership lists can be verified by archived web pages if you need more sources; but why do you consider any of this to be "impugning"? Nothing said in the sentence is negative or derogatory; it simply points out that there is a reliationship between the positive reviewers and the principals. I don't think anyone disputes that fact, and I don't see why you mind mentioning it. Your idea that their membership was nothing more than being on a list is a bit of a stretch given the cozy relationship that's apparent in Sailer's blog archives; should we cite those, too, or just leave it that they were members? You can't suppress this stuff just because you're uneasy with the fact that most of the positive reviewers were part of the same cabal as Bailey and Blanchard; it's just a simple fact, relevant, plainly stated without interpretation, and sourced. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Some professionals agreed with the activists" seems strange to me. Couldn't some professionals have come to their own conclusions, independently of "the activists"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I intended that sentence to mean that the activists were not alone in their opinion, that there were people with relevant credentials who had the same opinion. I am certainly open to other ways of phrasing it.

— James Cantor (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's generally a good idea to stick close to the cited source; Dreger says

"One sexologist who did seem to take the side of Conway is Eli Coleman of the University of Minnesota. In response to the outrage coming from Conway and her allies, Coleman expressed his concerns about Bailey’s book and promised in an email he copied to Conway, ‘‘we will do all we can do to respond to this situation."

I'll put it back for now; there's more than Coleman to consider, but at least it starts out saying more or less what the source says. Dicklyon (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Revised intro proposal, version 7

This is better than what's in the current article, but we have a few key points to discuss. My main concern is presenting things with parallel construction for NPOV. The James Cantor version tries to spin this as scientists vs. activists, but only a few of the people involved on either side are activists. Most are academics, specifically scientists, physicians, etc. We should also use Whatamidoing's suggestion of "parts of the transgender community" for both. There were other kinds of transgenderists besides Lawrence and Arune who praised the book, so we should use the umbrella term.

The book elicited both strongly positive and strongly negative responses. Kirkus Reviews concluded: "Despite its provocative title, a scientific yet superbly compassionate exposition." The book received praise from gay sexual behavior scientists James Cantor and Simon LeVay, from sex-differences expert David Buss, and from research psychologist Steven Pinker, who wrote: "With a mixture of science, humanity, and fine writing, J. Michael Bailey illuminates the mysteries of sexual orientation and identity in the best book yet written on the subject. The Man Who Would Be Queen may upset the guardians of political correctness on both the left and the right, but it will be welcomed by intellectually curious people of all sexes and sexual orientations. A truly fascinating book." It also received praise from journalists John Derbyshire, Steve Sailer, Daniel Seligman, and Mark Henderson.

Some reviews in the LGBT press were positive, such as from writers Ethan Boatner for Lavender Magazine and Duncan Osborne for Out. Those in the transgender community who agreed with Blanchard's taxonomy also reviewed the book positively. Anne Lawrence, a physician and sexologist whose work on autogynephilia is featured in the book, wrote "This is a wonderful book on an important subject," and autogynephilia support group founder Willow Arune wrote, "Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence and [Blanchard colleague Maxine] Petersen have done more to help transsexuals over years of service than perhaps any other four people in the world."

The public response of the transgender community was almost entirely negative. Among other things, they opposed the book's endorsement of Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism, its publication by the National Academies Press, by whom it was "advertised as science" and marketed as "scientifically accurate," which they argued was untrue. They also claimed the book exploited children with gender dysphoria. Among those criticizing the book were computer scientist Lynn Conway, biologists Joan Roughgarden and Ben Barres, physician Rebecca Allison, economist Deirdre McCloskey, psychologist Madeline Wyndzen, writers Dallas Denny, Pauline Park, Gwen Smith, and Andrea James, as well as Christine Burns of Press for Change, Karen Gurney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, and Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America.

Negative responses came from outside the transgender community as well. Liza Mundy in the Washington Post wrote, "I got so bored that I began recreationally underlining passages to decide which was the dullest." Psychologist Eli Coleman referred to the book as "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers," and his colleague, Walter Bockting, wrote that it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community." Kinsey Institute Director John Bancroft referred to the book as "not science," later clarifying that "it promoted a very derogatory explanation of transgender identity which most TG people would find extremely hurtful and humiliating….Whether based on science or not we have a responsibility to present scientific ideas, particularly in the public arena, in ways which are not blatantly hurtful. But in addition to that, [Bailey] did not support his analysis in a scientific manner—hence my comment." Psychologist Randi Ettner said of Bailey, "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned."

I also added the Mundy WaPo review, since she's one of the few people who wasn't a stakeholder in this (HBI people, WPATH people, CAMH people, TG people) and reviewed it before all the fun started. I also added Smith, because the old version suggested the reviews in the LGBT press were uniformly positive when most were negative. As it stands, we have representative quotations in all paragraphs but the third one, so we should probably add a couple there to balance the autogynephilia proponents quoted in paragraph 2. Perhaps that can be done once this is in the article. Jokestress (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at this with a fresh eye and rearranged the third paragraph to avoid duplicating things and to be more accurate. I'll grab a few quotations that we can put in that section later. Jokestress (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any major problems with Jokestress' latest version (7 on September 15). A minor problem I have is with Mundy's review, which seems quite idiosyncratic. (Do other reviews say that the book is boring?) But if no one else opposes the inclusion of the quotation, then neither will I.ProudAGP (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think "negative" is more appropriate than "strongly negative." There is no way to ascertain objectively whether the negative reviews were any more strongly negative than the positive reviews were strongly positive. "Strongly" is in the mind of the beholder. Better balance is achieved, I believe, from removing "strongly" from the negative than from adding it to the positive.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Such interpretations are not appropriate unless they come from a reliable secondary or tertiary source. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "which they felt was untrue" is not appropriate; it's generally not a good idea to try to attribute feelings where describing actions can be done instead. Probably better would be something like "which they argued was untrue", or "which they argued it was not", which is supported by the source; actually, it grossly understates the point of the source, which says

On its letterhead, it declares itself to be "Adviser to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine". Yet, the National Academies recently published a disgraceful book by psychologist Michael Bailey titled The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism , (reviewed last week in The Times Higher ) that in my opinion manages in 230 pages to be racist, misogynist, homophobic and transphobic - a grand-slam home run of prejudice. The National Academies advertises the book on its letterhead and website as "scientifically accurate", "a well-crafted and responsible work on a difficult topic". Yet the book is not scientifically accurate, being based on a tiny and unrepresentative sample of six people who were misquoted badly enough to file formal charges against Bailey. And the book is not responsible because it defames transgender people, claiming they are biologically predisposed to prostitution and sadism, without evidence, and in clear contradiction of the facts.

Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So, are folks as satisfied with the proposal as is likely to be?

— James Cantor (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with someone adding this version to the article (I do not plan to add it, as I limit my edits to the article itself as much as possible). We can discuss additional tweaking once it's in. Next, we can move on to the analysis of the response. Jokestress (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I began to put the above paragraphs into the article but stopped because I don't know what people prefer. For example, I could entirely replace the "Controversy" section of the article with these paragraphs, and we can build from there. But if people don't favor entirely replacing that section, but instead want to modify it selectively, I don't know what to keep or eliminate from the old section. Alternatively, we could just keep going here (and should get going again regardless).

To that end, two questions, I guess to Jokestress: First, what do you see as the domain of the next few paragraphs (which you say as the "analysis of the response?")? Second, which of us should take the first crack?ProudAGP (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and put it in. I'd use the above to replace the content up to the Lambda Literary part. Next we can work on summarizing and balancing the remainder of the response/analysis (what could be called the period from the investigation on). You are welcome to take a fist attempt at the rest of that section. Jokestress (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Remaining problems after putting v.7 into the article

A couple of nits should be fixed:

1. The statement "In 2003, the federal DHHS issued a clarification which formally states that taking oral histories, interviewing people (as if for a piece of journalism), and collecting anecdotes does not constitute IRB-qualified research" floats without obvious connection; it should be sourced, and connected; some like "therefore the ethical charges against Bailey for not getting informed consent from the subjects in the book were dismissed."

2. The statement "Dated e-mail exchanges between Bailey and his ex-wife demonstrate that Bailey was at the home of his ex-wife looking after their children at the time specified by the accusation" is attributed to Carey of the NYT. In fact, that article attributes it to Dreger. It should say "According to Alice Dreger, ..." or something like that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

All that other OR/coatrack stuff will be replaced by the text below once we reach consensus. I agree that what remains is as bad as what used to be in the first half. Jokestress (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

About Rewriting the Controversies

I hope that after the last many many weeks of wrangling over each and every little sentence in this article you all can appreciate the true difficulty of writing a WP article on such a topic. It's not like you can sit back in your comfortable professorial office on Chicago's lakefront have a nice coffee and take your sweet time writing it as Dreger did. Then once submitted it does not change. Ideally what you do with wikipedia is change a few sentences, save, change a few more, save. As you are doing this other people change things, perhaps undo what you did. OR it works like the above working out each and every change in a long painful debate. Which leads to a consensus article that no one is ever 100% satisfied with.

Let me give you all some advice. For a controversial article this is what works and last.

• When it comes to controversial facts, accusations, counterclaims do the following. "According to person C person B had sex with person M (cite), (cite), (cite)

• Do not try to synthesize, contextualize, massage, or weave anything at all. Go at it like Joe Friday "just the facts".

• Facts cannot be argued with but interpretations can. Stick to the facts and endless arguing like above will not occur.

Do those three things and I guarantee you an article that will be good by WP standards. None of you will like it but that's not really the point of this website now is it? --Hfarmer (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)