Jump to content

Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

My summary and reasoning for keeping this concise

Baileys book is a one source experiment to verify some of Blanchard's theories. It was "researched " at a gay fetish/pick up bar and what he observed was real but only in one sense. To explain that statement let us imagine this was an article on heterosexuals and was researched at heterosexual sex/fetish club . Can we assume that observations made at such a club validates sweeping observations that could be applied to all heterosexuals ? Can they be divided into just two categories ? Of course not, yet Bailey said that there were only two classifications of transsexual and if any transsexual disagrees with his theories they must be lying. It's not a scientific statement so no matter who argues pro or con what remains is merely opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) DarlieB (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Team Bailey have been trying to establish a simple revisionist master narrative where three "rage"-filled transsexuals masterminded a conspiracy to "ruin" a "scientist under siege," concluding that Bailey is some sort of brave Gallileo-type martyr speaking "scientific truth" in the face of "identity politics." They ignore Bailey's many personal attacks on the people he wrote about and focus on his own narcissistic injuries, when the tables were turned and his own identity was examined by gay and trans critics in academia and beyond. They seem to believe it's "science" when he attacks vulnerable communities and people, and "rage" when done to him. The story is much more complicated than their version of things, which is why this draft is written long. We are in the process of editing this down to a summary right now. I hope you will join us in the discussion. I believe each of the three sections above can be made into one paragraph each, per Wikipedia:Summary style. I'd like to include references with all the reliable sources listed, so anyone interested can look it all up themselves. The main reason this is so detailed is because a couple of editors here seem to think Dreger's hatchet job is some sort of authoritative final word on the matter, when she merely repeats the same tactics and strategies as Bailey in his problematic book. This kind of nonsense will always play well to people in positions of institutional power with little knowledge on the topic, because it is written in a style that is familiar to them, and uses buzzwords that get them all tingly.
I agree the multi-month debate process is ponderous and boring (as is the draft above), but I believe it will ultimately lead to a better article, by gathering all the facts and POVs (including those ignored/suppressed by Dreger) and then summarizing them, versus heavy reliance on the version profferred by Bailey's supporters. Jokestress (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I totally understand the need to balance by and that it was not a " 3 person conspiracy" as alleged by Dreger . Across the board the reaction from the entire transsexual community was totally negative and I left the other names in simply because they were were well respected activists who made publicly sourced statements on the book. I think that will be clear to the reader but here is our problem , we cannot allow Baileys personal attacks to become an issue or it opens the door to members of our communities emotional attacks on him. Objectivity can't be reached by posting the heated words of someone simply because they are an intellectual on either side , it must have more than just an entertainment value and deal with real issues in the controversy . The Andrea James section, in real context , portrays Bailey badly so they were not going to challenge it's deletion . Dr Bailey has responded like a spoiled child who was punished for stealing cookies and Dreger has been defending the right to publish silly assumption without any consequences. This never was an "intellectual freedom " issue because every academic that proposes theory will suffer these social/academic consequences or rewards due to it . And while I've removed at least 4 of the five hidden Dreger quotes she needs to be mentioned simply for her single handed revival of the issue in the public eye .

And yes, I noted that the Bailey Forces had made this article completely bias. At first I worked hard simply to put balance in it , but once I had the original editor chopped it all down to near nothing , threw on the neutrality tag and walked away in a huff . Now you know me as someone who never shies from argument or debate so know that this is incredibly hard for me to be neutral but I have. My hope is that whatever summary you create is "balanced". It serves no ones purpose and especially not ours to deal with the hostile reaction to an obviously imbalanced or bias article. We need to walk a higher road here so lets start with a tight , concise and neutral view.I look forward ton the summary. Yes, I will participate.--DarlieB (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I understand Darlie. Consider this.
Over a decade ago there was a crisis in lebanon. You had these factions all fighting mainly Christian VS Muslim. This american diplomat went over there to mediate the dispute. A news reporter informed him that both sides think he is biased against them. He said "In a situation like this....If both sides think you are working for their opposition then it means you are neutral. He was latter kidnapped and killed by one of the factions.
What this has to do with the current dispute is that this controversy while non violent is just as passionate. Both sides hold entrenched viewpoints and will not budge. In a truly neutral light (like tht found in the article I wrote about the controvrsy) you can see everyone's warts. Such, I suppose, is why neither side likes it and wants it to go away. As soon as their summary is done. The other moral of that story is that anyone, like me, who tries to be neutral and listens to both sides will get branded as working for the other team, or have one team think I am working for them. Let me say publically I have yet to get my monogrammed "Team Bailey" starter jacket and cap yet so I am not in team Bailey yet. :-?
Basically what I am trying to get ALL of you to understnd is that no writing of this will be satisfactory to both sides. One side or the other will feel slighted in some way. Jokestress is doing good work here. If she were not I would post a notice on the COI notice board about her. She has been reasonably neutral in her edits and proposals so I do not do that. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Believe it or not I agree with you even though I am branded "anti-Bailey". Jokestress is actually a a dear friend and as you notice she could be branded "Team Bailey" herself , yet she is not. This is a person I highly respect and admire and yet our dispute is merely this, I feel that we are including pointless positive reviews for the sake of the "appearance" of balance when NONE address the issues of the controversy. If we are short of direct rebuttal on an academic scale then include Baileys own defense if you must but not reviews of moms "book of the month " club. Does that make sense ? I've worked on this edit since way back to get it to neutral ground and was uninformed of the "consensus "poll . I wonder why ? The unfortunate thing is that even if we create "pretend" neutral ground it will be just that if they aren't equal peer reviews. Again, what is the " controversy to you" ? Please define it ? The alleged conspiracy or the negative reviews ? If it is the former then direct rebuttal to the "conspirators" charges are the only respnse from credible sources. If it is the latter and merely the fact the responses were negative then Alice Dreger's charges should be removed as well because those are supposedly a direct response to charges of an alledged "conspiracy". This artical DIRECTLY charges three academic transsexuals with "conspiracy" . I would like our new Mod to directly answer that and to judge whether that allegation violates "Do no harm ". --DarlieB (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Need to archive

At almost 400K, this may be the longest talk page on Wikipedia. Can we set up autoarchiving to remove old materials? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I hand-archived materials up through the last response by ProudAGP. I will archive the remainder once we hear back about the latest version. Proposal 2 outlines ProudAGP's objections and suggestion, so I didn't want to archive that until we hear back about the latest proposal. Jokestress (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's Reversion

What is the intent, to post every "opinion" one can on this article ? How has that anything to do with the contraversy and why do these reviews carry any weight whatsaoever  ? I'm totally fine with putting this up for review because I've read what you discussed and STILL see no reason for including it. Please, one by one of you would , what would reviews like Kirkus have to do with anything when the issues were solely the reaction of the transsexual community ? How exactly does a book reviewers "opinion" mean anything. The Witches Hammer in it's time was a very well reviewed I'm sure!--DarlieB (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Since your involvement in August, we have been working toward consensus by writing a detailed account of the controversy that contains a well-sourced survey of all the responses and key events. From this, the intent is to condense all of it into a summary. Various editors have claimed that this or that event was not relevant, so we have been adding citations from reliable sources to back up the relevance. Once we have an unabridged version that includes everything people consider relevant, the plan is to use that as a starting point for a tight version. For instance, I think the Kirkus review is worthless because it is anonymous and for all we know written by one of Bailey's pals. But in order to reach consensus, we are leaving it in for discussion. Another editor thinks Bailey's involvement with the human biodiversity group is unimportant, so we've included a quotation from a psychologist who considered it very important. It's critical to take our time and make sure everyone is OK at each step when reaching consensus on touchy topics. I have had many similar negotiations, such as the race and intelligence article which involves some of the same academics. I support WhatamIdoing's revision of your changes to the article, because it's important that we respect the process and negotiate changes here first. Jokestress (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
My point is we can wipe every single reference to the positive out. The "controversy" has nothing to do with balanced reviews. It has to do with charges made by the transsexual community the books methods of sales, methodology and conclusions were poor. Bailey was attacked in an academic forum for it by high profile members of that community. The main reason for the resistance to criticism seems to be that they are the victims of Baileys book. In fact I think I can state without reservation that if it were not for their gender issues people would take the criticism at face value. Posting positive opinions doesn't address those charges so they are completely irrelevant. The balance is Dreger is allowed to state her ridiculous theory that Bailey should be protected from academic and economic repercussion of statements unlike every other academic out there. Example Steven Jones who was fired in the same method as Bailey for a controversial theory. Why should anyone have to negotiate the truth ? If WhatamIdoing can't post a response directly related to the controversy charges then no response is appropriate .--DarlieB (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
No, DarlieB, we cannot just "wipe every single reference to the positive out". We cannot say that "[a]cross the board the reaction from the entire transsexual community was totally negative". We can't say these things because they are not true. Most transsexuals object. Some do not. Silencing the minority view is a violation of Wikipedia's policies on a neutral point of view.
It is perfectly obvious to everyone that you personally disagree with the Blanchard taxonomy. That is very different from every single transsexual on the planet having the same opinion.
The reason I reverted your earlier changes was solely because you carelessly and completely disregarded the hours of work on this talk page that were put into them. I assume that you did this through ignorance of that work, but now you know that each sentence has been carefully discussed half a dozen times by half a dozen editors. You are welcome to join the discussion, but you are not welcome to impose your own version over the objections over everyone else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing. A controversy by definition is a dispute involving strong disagreement. It's not fair to present just one side in a controversy in the article, and we are working hard to present both sides in a manner that is representative and neutral, per policy. We welcome your input on the proposed controversy section, but it's necessary to represent all points of view proportionally. Jokestress (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes you can wipe out every positive review if they are unrelated to the controversy (which by the way is the alleged "conspiracy of transsexuals" trying to destroy Bailey, not the reviews). Virtually every transsexual I know saw Baileys book as the opportunistic exploitation of an unrepresented minority. What transsexuals do you know WhatamIdoing ? I live in the community so you saying because Anne Lawrence was happy about her own theory is ridiculous. The transsexual community reacted negatively PERIOD. Yes, I disagree with the "taxonomy" but that doesn't mean you should be prefacing the controversy discussion with babble like anonymous reviews from Kirkus ! Reviews that don't even deal with the controversy !. What is that ? Academics and PhDs vs webnerds ? So lets see your "transsexual support" .--DarlieB (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Again WAID, show me your transsexual support ? You made this statement "We can't say these things because they are not true". Lets have it. --DarlieB (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you try reading what's already on this page on that subject? Look at several of the proposals above. No, that's probably too hard for you. Read this:

Some reviews in the LGBT press were positive, such as from writers Ethan Boatner[1] for Lavender Magazine and Duncan Osborne for Out.[2] 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,"[1] 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."[3]

The fact that your personal friends dislike the idea is not just unimportant, it's a violation of the No Original Research policy. Positive reviews by people that publicly identify as transsexual have been published. The unanimity of "the transsexual community" on this issue is a myth. The transsexual community is made up of many individuals. It's just as offensive to stereotype "all transsexuals" as thinking alike as it is to say that "all black people" or "all Latinos" think alike. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
You just named two GAY men and the ONLY transsexual you mention is again Anne Lawrence  ! THAT GIVES YOU ONE TRANSSEXUAL AND SHES AN ASSOCIATE ! You made an accusation yet you have absolutely no proof of ANY transsexual support ! I was not speaking of my "friends " . The community is far larger than my immediate circle ands I saw NO SUPPORT FOR BAILEY WHATSOEVER ! What the heck do you know about MY community ???? You don't even know single transsexual ! You can't even name any other ! My point is proved and you are making baseless statements to support a subject you are completely ignorant of. --DarlieB (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
DarlieB, you are being very inflammatory and disruptive in your comments, which is making it difficult to discuss these issues in a calm and productive manner. Setting aside whether Anne Lawrence is a transsexual (under other nosologies Lawrence is not), we need to focus on content, not on other editors. Please do not make personal attacks on WhatamIdoing. That style of interaction is not allowed here. Writing in all caps and using exclamation points is not necessary. Please review the following policies: WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:NPOV. We have to work to make sure articles summarize all views proportionally, and WhatamIdoing is simply trying to work with others toward that end. Many people here have very different points of view, but we need to work together on reaching consensus. Thanks again for offering to share your views on this article. I hope we can stay WP:CALM and get back on track. Jokestress (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
We can stay calm but the accusations aren't one sided Jokestress. I was told by WAID that I was bias, that it was opinion and that what I said was untrue so I repeatedly asked for proof of that there was any "support" from the transsexual community beyond Lawrence. That has not materialized I think the point has been made that transsexual community reacted negatively. Please feel free to move on to the summary. --DarlieB (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Keeping calm

Hello folks! An editor involved in this article has asked me to help resolve any disputes. It seems as though the major issue is undue weight may be given to controversy, or more specifically, criticism of the book. Is my summary correct? Are there any favorable reviews extant? I seem to recall that Quality Paperback Book Club offered this an an option. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This long version has two paragraphs of positive reviews and two paragraphs of negative reviews. As far as WP:UNDUE, in terms of politics, negative response was proportionally higher than positive response. I asked you to take a look because of the revert war in article space, which removes a lot of information negotiated by consensus. I believe WhatamIdoing's revert was correct and appropriate, but do not want to revert it myself a second time. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe it was incorrect to add as the positive reviews have nothing to do with the actual controversy. None of these "positive" reviews even deal with the issues raised. None ! Jokestress is trying to compromise to overcome WhatamIdoing's obsessive compulsive need to defend Bailey ( notice I do not say the book ) no matter how unrelated his support material. This article is about the book and not a courtroom defense of it's author . Neutrality does not mean you have to toss in ANY material to balance.--DarlieB (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Lets start Bearian by clearly identifying the controversy because rebuttal in this article depends on what is being discussed. Is it the negative critical response by the transsexual community or the "alleged" conspiracy of a few transsexual academics to destroy Baileys career as Alice Dreger claimed ? By the way, have you read The Man Who Would Be Queen  ? --DarlieB (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
My own opinion is that the negative reviews are overweighed. Specifically, it is the reviews that appear in high-end sources that merit mention in WP articles, not blogs and opinions in non-RS's. This is particularly the case for controversial topics, such as this one. The high-end reviews of this book have been much more positive than those in non-professional sources. (For the record, my own review of the book appeared in a non-RS.)
— James Cantor (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Please post a link to your review Cantor and support of your assertion "the high-end reviews of this book have been much more positive" . Thanks. --DarlieB (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh and WhatamIdoing , please stop editing in Bearian's name unless he directs you to. The point of having him here is to settle the disputed text. Oh and could you please stop lying in your reversion explanations ? You were not restoring "Bearian's" edits because none of "Bearian's" edits were changed. In fact , you actually "reverted" the things he had just corrected ! --DarlieB (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
@James Cantor: Your glowing book review is used in the publisher's marketing materials and has been mentioned in other published sources, so your prominent involvement as a major stakeholder in this has been well-established since the earliest days of the controversy. In fact, your review is also notable because the National Academies changed the attribution from "American Psychology Association" to your name in the wake of complaints. Your ongoing attempts to downplay your significant role in promoting the book and attacking its critics fly in the face of the published record and your edit history on Wikipedia. Your attempts to eliminate the extensive published criticism by claiming it's not "high-end" are part of the pattern of intimidation and suppression of opposing views that you and Dreger are well-known for in this debate. You and your employers are notorious for casting a chill on open discussion, where psychologists and sexologists and former patients are afraid to use their real names for justifiable fear of retribution from CAMH-affiliated psychologists. If you have concerns about a source in the article, please specify so we can discuss its merits. Jokestress (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record I disagree with Dr. Cantor on this one. Those "non-RS" "low end" reviews come from people like professors Conway and McCloskey. They are both academics, they are both transsexuals. They (and jokestress, Darlie and I) know more about actually being a transsexual than any of those so called high end reviewers can ever know. As I recall Conway and McCloskey raised some legit points. The book reduces all of the complexity of being a transsexual down to a one or two dimensional map. That alone tells you it's at least a grave oversimplification. (McCloskey also had to take a swipe at those individuals who in the book were labeld "homosexual transsexuals" As if they were not or could not also have been directly injured by what's in the book. I digress..) For those reasons I believe and will argue at length that the concerns of the likes of Conway and McCloskey should be here if the reviews of James Cantor and such are here. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
DarlieB, I made no edits in Bearian's name. I reverted your anti-consensus change, and because of the limitations of Wikipedia's software, which couldn't remove your massive deletion without deleting Bearian's recent changes as well, I manually retyped Bearian's recent changes. You are being offensive and making unfounded accusations. I would appreciate it if you at least pretended to show respect for the other editors working on this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hardly unfounded WAID ." DarlieB's anti-consensus changes again; restore Bearian's edits"-WhatamIdoing. You reverted a mods revisions ! Who are you to do that ? Bearian being here was entirely to sort the dispute. Once he is up to speed on the issues I'm fine with him deciding what's to be included. As for "consensus" I was not told or informed of any changes by wiki even though this is watched so to say it was "consensus" is just sneaky. By majority , if the KKK decides they want to edit Barrack Obama's profile here is that ok ? I mean , they would have a "consensus right ? And that's the point of having a mod here. This already has neutrality tags so it was never finished. I agree on Hfarmer's "middle east war " scenario , where no one will be happy in the end but we will reach a proper compromise. If there is such an issue it can;'t be resolved then I suggest removing the entire controversy section and Dregers accusations. I feel the structure of that controversy section was compromised from the beginning. Since when do you identify positive reviews before you even discuss the "controversy" the section is about ?!. Is that some new age right wing Fox Propaganda defensive measure ? Let the mod do his job and stop doing it for him !And just so you know, that massive deletion was first done by another editor , the same person who put the neutrality tags on this article. Not that you have been right yet. --DarlieB (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Click here to see Bearian's edits. They were:

  • Removal of wikilinking to one instance of the word autogynephilia
  • Wikilink transpeople to the Transgenderism article.
  • Add a comma, followed by the words ", which may have amounted to sexual exploitation" to an existing sentence.

That's it. If you look at the changes I made, I removed just your edits, and manually re-typed all three of Bearian's changes. The evidence plainly shows that I did not revert Bearian's changes; I carefully preserved them. I removed your edits because they were contrary to the carefully worked out consensus on this page. It is hardly my, or any other editor's, fault if you didn't manage to notice the many thousands of words in discussion on this page over the last couple of weeks.

I suggest that you take your own advice, and quit reverting to your preferred version. If you really believed in allowing the moderator to take the lead, then you would have left that decision to Bearian. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


IT WAS HIS ! You altered his edit! I don't care if you polished his shoes and wiped his bottom the last edit was his AND YOU* REVERTED* IT! There was NO consensus because it was only you Dr Dreger and Bailey doing the editing ! Oh I've been back many times to check the responses. These are recent . And since you feel that way about my not noticing I'm here now so lets get to that consensus. Stop your stalling anprovide proof of "transsexual support " for this book or apologize for saying otherwise.--DarlieB (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


  • Liking a book and saying so in a newsletter does not give one "prominent involvement as a major stakeholder." I neither expected nor received any benefit from expressing my opinion. Filing actual complaints against Bailey (as Jokestress has) gives one prominent involvement as a major stakeholder.
  • Regarding whether my review is notable: Jokestress, like everyone else is entitled to their opinion. I point out only the WP policies, which (in my opinion) restricts page content to reviews that appear in high-end outlets, which my review did not.
  • To correct an error of Jokestress': The National Academies did not change their attribution in "a wake of complaints." They changed their attribution because *I* asked them to use my name instead of the name of the groups that published my review. I have no idea on what basis Jokestress thinks that it was complaints that had any effect...except that Jokestress was one of the complainers.
  • My expressing my interpretation that WP policy is for using high-end sources in the discussion of controversial issues is not an "attempt to eliminate the extensive published criticism." To the contrary, it is more than plausible that Jokestress is pushing for the inclusion in WP of low-end reviews because those are the ones she agrees with. Regardless of which of those explanations is correct, the question for WP and Bearian is: Which course of action best meets WP's needs and policy, including or excluding reviews in non-professional sources?
  • As for Dreger, me, or anyone else trying to intimidate anyone, one can always tell when Jokestress is making things up by when she says things like "are well-known for," etc. but provides no actual evidence beyond 'someone said so'. I can recommend to Bearian only to read the New York Times coverage of Jokestress (Andrea James) posting on her website photos of other people's children with obscene captions and then deciding if it is actually Jokestress to uses intimidation as a political tactic. (Incidentally, I have no idea what power Jokestress thinks I have that I could use against anyone.)
  • I appreciate Hfarmer's desire to deem Conway's and McCloskey's opinions relevant, because those two people are highly educated and openly transsexual; however, neither of those criteria pertain to whether their comments should appear on a WP page. That is, WP policy does not say that greater weight should be given to opinions from people just because they are members of a relevant demographic group or because they have a PhD in a non-relevant field (Conway is an eletrical engineer and McCloskey is an economist). (Incidentally, I appreciate Hfarmer's willingness to disagree; I have never met two people who agree on everything.)
  • I agree with Hfarmer that the reviews by Conway and McCloskey have no greater qualification to be on this page than mine does. I am saying only that the standard for including reviews here should be the same as the standard for including reviews anywhere else...those that were published in high-end, professional outlets by a person with relevant knowledge of the topic.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr Cantor- ". Psychologist -"His clinical activities focus primarily on the assessment of persons dealing with illegal or clinically significant sexual behaviours and interests." Your work is in PEDOPHILES ! Not transgendered or transsexuals ? And Ray Blanchard associate and collaborator ! No bias huh ? Tell me Dr, was using the name "MarionTheLibrarian" your way of experiencing the transsexual world or was it merely to invoke the empathy in critics that a woman would ? =) It would be embarrassing if this book was discredited wouldn't it since you are one of the people used to promote it's wholesome goodness and value . You have been editing this from the day I got here sir and now I know why. It's seems to me I am virtually the only one here without direct ties , well, I'm gender variant so I must be one of two kinds of transsexual right ? Guess which wont you Dr,? . By the way , have you ever cured anyone ? Ever ? --DarlieB (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. Yes, my clinical activities are as described in the bio of mine that you have quoted; and yes, at the moment, I am in a clinic with specialized expertise in pedophilia.
  2. Yes, I do some clinical work with people with gender dysphoria, but not as much I have in the past.
  3. Yes, Blanchard and I work together on several projects. I have never said anything of Blanchard that is not already part of some public record where anyone may check it.
  4. No, I used the name "MarionTheLibrarian" because (1) a lot of my editing was about adding sources from medical libraries that most people don't have access to, (2) "Marian The Librarian" is from a famous Broadway musical (I am a fan), and (3) I changed the spelling of "Marian" to "Marion" in order to masculinize it without losing the rhyme.
  5. I publish professionally on several topics in sexology on a regular basis. It is unlikely that every word that any scientist writes will be correct. I have no issue whatsoever with anyone disagreeing with anything I say or think. However, people should disagree only with what I actually say or think rather than disagree with some misinterpreted version of what I say or think, but don't.
  6. You are not the only one here without ties. Moreover, there is no rule against editors having opinions; it is our edits that must remain neutral. If you have a particular edit of mine you would like to discuss, you have not referred to it.
  7. I have no idea who you are. Your next sentence is too agrammatical for me to interpret.
  8. Finally, neither transexuality nor paraphilias change after any known intervention. People who have come to me with other concerns, however, have had those concerns alleviated over the course of treatment. However, I do very little treatment. As it says in your quote from my bio, most of my clinical work is in assessment, not treatment.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Alleviation of symptoms isn't isn't a "cure" , correct Dr ? Though , yes , I note you mostly do assessment . So what would be your area of expertise in gender dysphoria that makes your review noteworthy  ? Have you established some relationship between pedophiles and transgenders ? Yes, I'm familiar with The Music Man and that Shirley Jones was the character you changed the gender on. Fascinating with so many male names to choose from you chose to gender change a known female character =) It's ok, I simply asked you to guess which of the two Bailey/Blanchard type transsexuals I was =) Humor , you wrote a positive review after all. I find nothing wrong with you having an opinion , nothing at all. Could you post a link , or could someone post a link to Dr Cantors review ? I'm not that smart Dr, I'm a cartoon animator so I'll have to struggle with the terminology I'm sure. Please WAID , post those positive reviews by transsexuals. --DarlieB (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave it at this. Anyone who wants to read about James Cantor's tactics can do so here, or they can email Dr. Madeline Wyndzen or call up Kyle Scanlon at the 519 in Toronto. Or look at his Wikipedia contributions under each of his three names. They all promote the work of his employers and attack their critics. Every single one of them. Or just ask around among psychologists you know to get the scoop. Anyone who wants to read about Dreger's tactics can read the Anderson-Minshall and Hendrick reports sourced in the proposal above, or pretty much any commentary on her paper. Bailey has been replaying his narcissistic injuries on his site since 2003, so anyone who wants to read about my tactics can go there for his take on things. To read about Bailey's tactics, I recommend the reports on his 2003 Emory and Stanford lectures, his mockery of "Juanita" in his book, and his various threats to critics. I think that covers all the accusations, etc.

Now that that is out of the way, does anyone have comments on the proposed draft while we await ProudAGP? I'd love to get this back on track and focused on improving the article. If anyone has a counterproposal, please put it up for discussion. Jokestress (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr Cantor. "Cantor refers to transsexuals based on their birth gender. Therefore, what any modern, reasonable person would refer to as a transsexual woman (a woman who was assigned the gender "male" at birth), Cantor and the CAMH refers to as a "transsexual man", or even, later, a "male homosexual transsexual.""
My my Dr. you are a little devil aren't you !I find it to be ridiculous to be here editing this with a Dr who intentionally misgenders me and my community. --DarlieB (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
DarlieB, many of the comments above are violations of our policies here. Please keep comments focused on improving the article. If you wish to share your opinions or have a debate about James Cantor, there are all kinds of public and private places online where you can find others doing just that. I really want to get this discussion back on track so we can move on to some of the other problematic articles on this site. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Then do it Jokestress . I'll opt out and let you all post uninformed opinions as "balance" , innuendo and fabrication as fact and anything else to please the agenda's of the battling sides. --DarlieB (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
That could have been said in a calmer way.  :-/ To be honest perhaps both Jokestress, and James_Cantor should step away. This isn't a "policy" but WP:COI does say...
A good thing to keep in mind.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Several editors here have already had formal COI complaints made regarding this. Everyone here except WAID has stated their interest in this topic. Most editors here are quite knowledgeable about the details, and I believe that is when articles improve fastest: when people with differing views and high levels of expertise in a topic work to negotiate a version based on consensus. ProudAGP and I are the two most directly involved editors, followed by Hfarmer and James Cantor. I feel it's important we all contribute to the discussion, even though we all have a clear stake in the outcome. We have been making good progress until things got a little far afield this week. If we can all agree on the key elements of the controversy, I believe we can take the unabridged version and condense it into a clear explanation of the issues. If we invoke COI on everyone, this whole series of articles will sit here as a hopeless mess for a long time, which is not in the interest of the project. Though people have strong points of view, it seems that we are all trying to keep the interests of Wikipedia ahead of our own interests. Jokestress (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To keep an eye on the ball, I've intended my prior comments to review for Bearian the relevant long-standing issues here, and not to recapitulate the oft-repeated arguments. So, unless Bearian thinks it would be useful, I hesitate to repeat the demonstrations that Jokestress' claims are mere rumor-mongering (and that she is actually a primary source of the rumors). Of course, I am also aware that silence on my part after a volley of her insinuations might suggest to new readers that there is merit to them. So, unless Bearian says that more information would be helpful, I'll instead point out that Jokestress' comments follow the pattern I already described:

  • As I wrote, when asked, Jokestress produces no evidence in support of her claims. In this particular case, I asked her for evidence that it was "in the wake of criticism" that the National Academies of Science changed their attribution of my review, and Jokestress remained entirely silent, while changing the subject with a volley of new claims.
  • As I wrote, what Jokestress claims to be evidence is merely some unverified or unverifiable statements from someone else. In this case, that was "email Dr. Madeline Wyndzen", "call up Kyle Scanlon at the 519", "ask around among psychologists" and so on. This, of course, is not evidence; basing opinion on an opinion and having no evidence at the base is rumor-mongering, and it has no place in WP.

The way to separate rumor from substance is, of course, to restrict WP pages to content that appears in RS's. Jokestress continues to push for information contained in non-RS's Jokestress' claims will appear to have merit (at least, superficially) only when one drops the bar low enough to allow rumor into WP. Despite that Jokestress refers to non-RS's with peacock terms such as "reports" or "investigations," they remain non-RS claims, without evidence, reiterating what Jokestress keeps on her personal website. Incidentally, although Jokestress refers Bearian to a variety of "sources" (making the claims seem independently verified), they are all contained on her personal website (tsroadmap.com). Refering Bearian to her own website, however, would have revealed her own level involvement in spreading the rumors that she now wants included in WP (but without mentioning herself as the source).
— James Cantor (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, you win; you are faultless in every way and above reproach in all that you do. Any future discussions of you can happen offsite. Now, do you have any comments on the combined proposal 1 above or on the proposed key elements below? Do you have a counter-proposal? Jokestress (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Empty words of sarcasm are hardly going to help.

Regarding the proposal, Jokestress is doing exactly what editors should not. She provides a list of topics you want covered and then search for sources to support them (looking to unqualified sources when necessary). That is exactly the reverse of good editing. Instead, one should >start< with a list of what the RS’s are and then summarize what >they< say, not what any one editor wants the article to say.

In my opinion, the only RS’s here are the book itself, the reviews of it published in professional outlets for such reviews, the NYTimes coverage of the controversy, the articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education (although I believe they made several factual errors, it still is generally considered an RS), Dreger’s article about the controversy (although Dicklyon and others believe that it is biased, it is still an RS), and comments about the book or controversy made by its author or publisher (including SPS’s for those, as if we were writing a bio about them themselves).

That the opinions that Jokestress wants included do not largely appear in any of the above is not relevant to WP. In fact, one would reasonable ask why, despite that it’s been over 5 years since the publication of the book, that none of these allegedly many and highly educated people have ever published their comments in any outlet professional enough to be an RS.

The WP thing to do is write the article on the basis of the existing RS’s, and should any other RS’s with other points of view merit high-end publication, then the WP page can be modified as needed.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You and Dreger do not seem to comprehend that this is not an academic dispute. It's a dispute about academia, specifically academic exploitation of oppressed minorites. By trying to limit the citations to "academic" responses and reports on the academic angle of things, you are trying to limit the article to just one side of the dispute, thus repeating the original problem. Jokestress (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is neither an academic dispute nor a dispute about academia. It is a wikipedia page about a book. It is inappropriate for Jokestress to use WP as a battleground for whatever type of dispute she thinks this is. Jokestress and I can go around in circles endlessly about what she supposes my motives to be and why I think her suppositions are wrong, but none of that changes the actual content of WP:RS. (Ditto for what I suppose her motives to be.)
— James Cantor (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Again we agree. As long as you don't try to draw the line that defines WP:RS in between the different articles in the Archives based on which ones are so-called "peer reviewed," as that would be way too biased. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That Dicklyon and I both recognize this as a pivotal issue is certainly progress. I hope that others will agree as well.
Distinguishing whether I am 'trying to draw a line' (in Dicklyon's opinion) or merely 'applying WP policy to tell me where the line is' (in my own opinion) is not a question likely to resolved; however, I do not believe that that question needs to be answered in order to obey WP:RS.
I have already summarized why I interpret WP:RS to say that the commentaries should be out and why you believe the commentaries should be in. I agree with Jokestress that asking for input from uninvolved editors (such as Bearian or the RS noticeboard) is a logical way to go. If others here agree, I would be happy to draft a question for RS/N that we can modify and come to consensus on before posting it on RS/N.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


The key issues

Below are what I believe are key points that should be covered:

  • TMWWBQ reviews (pro and con)
  • LGBT political response (pro and con)
  • NAP/JHP marketing and response
  • CAMH employees and colleagues/supporters
  • IASR incident 2003
  • NU response and investigation
  • HBI connection of reviewers (SPLC commentary)
  • WPATH response and counter-response (letter to NU, resignations, etc.)
  • LLF nomination and recission
  • ASB involvement in Dreger sub-controversy (NYT, commentaries)
  • Bailey's response
  • Publication status of the book

That's what I tried to cover in the proposal so that we might condense it. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the real key issue is what sources we can build the article on, and what kind of statements each source can support. Primary sources can be used to support the opinion of the author, and not much more. Good secondary sources are hard to come by in this controversy. And the big mess is the Dreger piece, which is a so-called "peer-reviewed" opinion piece, while the 23 responses to it in the same journal are argued (by her friends) to be not in that same category and thus less suitable; the key issue for me has always been this bias, that based on a few casual words from Kenneth Zucker we can put more weight on the Dreger opinion than on others, or treat hers as if it's fact or a secondary source. In other words, the key issues in getting to a good article hinge on a settlement here; otherwise we'll continually fight it out on each detail. That said, I have to agree with Cantor that Jokestress does go pretty far the other way in incorporating her own interpretations where plain sourced facts is where we should stop; I wouldn't call it rumour mongering, and I'm not saying it's wrong, but we need to stick to reliable sources or we're not going to converge. Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


Although Dicklyon and I disagree on much, I am glad we agree on using RS's as the basis for WP articles. To fill Bearian in on the Dreger article and Dicklyon's concerns about it as an RS:

  • Alice Dreger published a summary of the whole controversy in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.
  • The Archives is a well-regarded peer-reviewed journal in sexology, the editor-in-chief of which is Ken Zucker.
  • Zucker issued an open call for commentaries on the Dreger article, all of which were published in same issue of the Archives together with the Dreger article.
  • In the Dreger article, Dreger says she was initially ill-disposed towards Bailey and his book, but after going through all of the relevant material she could find, came to the conclusion that Bailey was, for the most part, in the right.
  • In total, 23 commentaries were published along with it. Their opinions varied from quite positive to quite negative, and others made comments about the issue without explicitly taking any side. Some people want to suggest that the proportion of positive versus negative comentaries is evidence that that side is more valid, but, of course, there is no way to know to what extent the people who wrote in are representative of anyone else.
  • In Zucker's editorial introducing that issue of the Archives, Zucker said that the Dreger article was peer-reviewed, but that the commentaries were not; specifically, all commentaries that were submitted were published (except for one which did not actually address the issue at hand).
  • Finally, Zucker (editor of the Archives), Blanchard (whose work is given high praise in Bailey's book), and I all work in the same hospital. Blanchard, Bailey, and I (and 60-70 other sexologists) are on the editorial board of Archives. Most sexologists tend to know each other, through involvements in things like that, conferences, and email.

To me, Dreger's article is peer-reviewed (and therefore is an RS), because that is what the editor of the peer-reviewed journal said. To Dicklyon, Dreger's article got a free ride into Archives because: Dregert said good things about Bailey, and Bailey said good things about Blanchard, and Blanchard is a friend of Zucker's (and Bailey's).
To me, the commentaries were not peer reviewed (and therefore not RS's) because that is what the editor of the journal said. To Dicklyon, the commentaries appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (regardless of whether they themselves underwent peer-review) and therefore have the same standing as the Dreger article.
Personally, I believe that Dicklyon has every right to believe whatever he wants about the editorial process for any article in any journal anywhere, but that without any substantial evidence of actual wrong-doing, his belief does not outweighWP:RS. To Dicklyon (a long-time friend of Lynn Conway, another prolific anti-Bailey blogger), my reasoning is merely because I am a colleague of the sexologists involved.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The real key issues: When considering his respect for reliable sources, it should also be noted that James Cantor originally hid his identity and affiliation, and editted as User:MarionTheLibrarian, inserting vicious attacks against Andrea James and Lynn Conway in their biographies. Like inserting untrue and unsourced claims like Some scholars have likened James to "the Al Sharpton rather than the ML King sort" of activist: here and here – he tried to attribute that to Dreger, but even she says nothing of the sort; rather she repeats, with attribution, a statement sent to her by – wait for it – James Cantor!. The Dreger blog makes it very clear that both Alice Dreger and James Cantor are principals in the arguments with Andrea James and Lynn Conway, so keep that in mind when interpreting his wikilawyering and comments on policy, contents, and other articles. When he says "The Archives is a well-regarded peer-reviewed journal in sexology" he means well regarded among his friends and peers, the insiders who take one side in these issues. When he says "To me, Dreger's article is peer-reviewed (and therefore is an RS), because that is what the editor of the peer-reviewed journal said," he relies on a person on one side of these issues to reinforce his desire to suppress opinions from the other side. In fact, the article may have been "peer reviewed" in some sense, and if the argument was within that community of peers that might carry some weight; but since it's between that community of peers and others mostly outside of that community, it makes no sense to rely on that distinction as a way to filter the argument. The commentaries in the journal must at least be given some status as reliable representation of opinions on the other side of the issues. More than half of them blast Dreger for her hack analysis, whether they take a position on the underlying issues or not. Any attempt to hold up Dreger's piece as a "history" while suppressing those responses must be seen for what it is: biased POV editing. Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's my opinion that the attempts to dismiss criticism in verifiable sources because it's not "high-end" are a reflection of the institutional power imbalances that led to the controversy in the first place. This, in my opinion, comes down to one group of people (CAMH employees and supporters) using every means available to them to assert their power and authority and identity, and an opposing group (most of the LGBT community and non-CAMH academics) doing the same. The means each group has at their disposal are different. One group controls a number of academic instruments of power. The other group primarily had to appeal to systems in place to curb abuses of that power, as well as to a populist political movement.
I believe citations in the combined proposal above meet requirements for WP:V and WP:RS. They were published in third-party sources and can be confirmed by any reader or editor. If you or anyone has specific concerns about a citation above, please list them. Jokestress (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress is entitled to that opinion. However, for better or for worse, her opinion does not change WP policy. We can argue until the cows come home over whether academics are abusing their/our power. But, no conclusion to that changes WP policy. Even if Jokestress were correct in her characterization of this discussion being a fight between powerful academics and the oppressed (which it is not), it would still not change WP policy. WP is not a battleground.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems very odd to argue that one of Dreger's articles is reliable and the other one appearing in the same issue of the same journal is not. Both are verifiable (available for purchase) and in a reliable source. Dreger did not write a scientific paper. It's her interpretation of what happened. The commentaries on her interpretation and her rejoinder all sell for $32.00 each, so the publisher considers them all to have the same weight and value. They are all listed the same way in PubMed and other databases of academic output. If the Archives of Sexual Behavior is a reliable source (which I think it is), then any articles appearing in it are reliable as well. Many are papers written by pretty prominent people, so the attempt to disinclude them here seems directly linked to other attempts to suppress or discredit criticism made by CAMH critics. Claiming that LGBT news outlets are low-end or that the Haworth Press will publish anything (and is thus not worthy of inclusion) speaks to the very power imbalance and attempts at control that caused this controversy in the first place. Jokestress (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Everything Jokestress says above is either irrelevant, an incomplete telling of the truth, or an unsubstantiated supposition. I am perfectly happy to provide the specific rejoinders to each of her claims. However, because I am providing information for the benefit of Bearian (who has just come into all of this) and not for Jokestress (who has already read them in previous rounds of this debate), I will await Bearian's input regarding whether such rejoinders would be helpful in coming to an assessment about the current issues. (I suppose it need not be Bearian; I'd be happy to summarize what Jokestress has left out for anyone who asks, but there is little point to my typing it out for the folks who have seen it already.)

— James Cantor (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple: publishing a target article is a common practice in academia, undertaken for the express purpose of soliciting commentaries to be published with that target article. That's what happened in this case, the fourth such issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior. To claim that the solicited commentaries that comprise the rest of the issue are somehow invalid for citation on Wikipedia because they are not reliable sources defies reason. We can open up a discussion on the noticeboard, but it seems pretty clear what's going on here. Jokestress (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed question for RS noticeboard

Peer commentaries on target article in Archives of Sexual Behavior
The Archives of Sexual Behavior (ASB) is a prominent academic journal on sexology. ASB recently published the fourth issue in their history containing a target article and numerous peer commentaries on that article. The June 2008 ASB issue is devoted to the controversy surrounding the 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen (TMWWBQ). The target article is by Alice Dreger and the peer commentaries discuss Dreger's target article. A dispute has arisen here involving two points of view. One is arguing for exclusion of the peer commentaries from Wikipedia, arguing they are not reliable sources under Wikipedia policies. The other is arguing that both the target article and the peer commentaries should be considered reliable sources. The involved editors are seeking outside opinions on this dispute.
Arguments for including peer commentaries

  • Target articles are published with the express purpose of generating peer commentaries.
  • Peer commentaries are verifiable (published and available for purchase in print and online)
  • Peer commentaries are in a reliable source (Archives of Sexual Behavior) alongside the target article.
  • The target article and each peer commentary separately sell for $32.00 each, so the publisher considers them all to have the same value.
  • The target article and peer commentaries are all listed individually the same way in PubMed, as well as other databases of academic output.
  • Peer commentaries are written by notable people, including John Bancroft, Ben Barres, Ray Blanchard, John Gagnon, Richard Green, Deirdre McCloskey, Charles Moser, Seth Roberts, Julia Serano, and ASB Editor-in-Chief Ken Zucker.
  • The attempt to exclude the peer commentaries on Wikipedia appears to be based on their content, which is frequently critical of the target article and the book TMWWBQ.
  • By the argument to exclude the peer commentaries, Dreger's target article is reliable, but Dreger's reply to the peer commentaries in the same issue is not.

Arguments for excluding peer commentaries

  • They are not peer-reviewed, where the target article is.
  • reason 2
  • reason 3
  • reason 4
  • reason 5
  • reason 6
  • reason 7
  • reason 8

We would appreciate your input, and an explanation of how you came to your conclusion.


Comments welcome. Anyone is welcome to make changes to the draft proposal above. I'd like to work it out here before posting it to the noticeboard. Jokestress (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My comments: where you say "One is arguing for exclusion of the peer commentaries from Wikipedia, arguing they are not reliable sources under Wikipedia policies. The other is arguing that both the target article and the peer commentaries should be considered reliable sources." I'm not sure that completely captures the alternatives accurately. I think WP:RS is too crude a concept here. The issue is one of symmetry. All of these (Dreger's and the commentaries on it) are opinion pieces, and need to be treated as such; that is, they should be fine reliable sources for the opinions of their authors (is there any dispute on that point? I'm not sure). The contention comes in when Dreger's opinion are treated as more reliable in some sense, as in treating her paper as a history and citing her findings as if they are facts. If we're going to seek opinions on the RS noticeboards, we probably ought to make it more clear that people on Dreger's side of the argument (naturally) want to treat her article as "more reliable" in some sense, using WP:RS as their tool of wikilawyering, while people on the other side (naturally) want to give Dreger's opponents equal voice. Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but I am trying to keep this as simple as possible for the noticeboard. I doubt any reputable history journal would have published Dreger's opinion piece as is. At least one professional historian (McCloskey) was not allowed to review the draft upon request. Another professional historian called the draft "misguided and misframed" and urged major revisions which did not occur. For a bunch of sexologists to claim Dreger was subject to appropriate peer review is about as believable as the claims that Bailey's book was subject to formal peer review. In both cases, a bunch of cronies just logrolled for each other. I am sure every single reviewer in both cases is a stakeholder in this debate. But how can we explain that in the information above? Is that too much information? I'd appreciate any suggested language changes for discussion. Jokestress (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, probably starting simple is best. We can add these other subtleities and viewpoints in the ensueing discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Putting this up on the notice board sounds like a good idea. I disagree with Dicklyon there really are two (or three alternatives) include both the article and commentaries, exclude the whole issue of ASB, or exclude the commentaries. It's likely that the Admins will come up with something on their own. I'll bet they would say well the peer reviewed academic article can speak to the facts while the commentaries can only be a source for what was in the commentaries themselves (or some such).
Dicklyon the seeds of this dispute run deep through academia. Wikipedia reflects this. Read the pages here about citing sources and they lay out a hierarchy of sources with peer reviewed academic publications, newspaper articles from reputable newspapers as being the gold standard and with personal websites, blogs, etc being almost always unacceptable. A similar hierarchy exist throughout academia. This has lead to the condition we have now. People who may have more direct first hand information on the matter aren't listened to while academics get to write their versions. Usually the system works but in this case it is really broken.
I hardly think that a review by the illustrious McCloskey would have made any difference. Perhaps it would have given her the opportunity to dismiss Bailey's various informants and nothing but hispanic drag queens and prostitutes.
Let me digress for a bit. What would have been better in the place of dreger's work would have been to have a totally neutral third party, or a team thereof com in, interview EVERYONE involved, then produce a historical record. Just the fact that dreger worked for NU cast suspicion on her work. :-/ --Hfarmer (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


I believe the question proposed above is too long and unfocussed for the very specific purpose for which we need it. I propose instead:

A small group of editors has come to an impasse regarding whether a group of published commentaries meet WP:RS and should therefore be summarized in the article we are working on, or fail to meet WP:RS and therefore should not be included on the page. We are hoping to have the input from otherwise uninvolved editors to help us resolve the issue. (In the interests of disclosure, the editors most involved in the disagreement are user:Dicklyon, user:DarlieB, user:Hfarmer, user:James Cantor, user:Jokestress, user:ProudAGP, and user:WhatamIdoing.)
The agreed upon facts are:
  • Alice Dreger published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior an article about a controversy.
  • The Archives is a well-regarded peer-reviewed journal in sexology, the editor-in-chief of which is Ken Zucker.
  • Zucker issued an open call for commentaries on the Dreger article, all of which were published in same issue of the Archives together with the Dreger article itself.
  • In Zucker's editorial introducing that issue of the Archives, Zucker wrote the Dreger article underwent peer-review, but that all commentaries submitted were published (except for one which did not pertain to the topic).
The disagreement is:
  • To some editors, the commentaries meet WP:RS, because they appear in a peer-reviewed journal. That is, these commentaries should be treated as peer-reviewed articles.
  • To some editors, the commentaries do not meet WP:RS, because they themselves did not undergo peer review, according to what the editor of the journal wrote. That is, these commentaries should be treated as letters-to-the-editor.
So, our question is:
  • Do we treat the commentaries as reliable sources?
Any input would be appreciated.

I recognize that I am not asking about whether the Dreger article itself meets WP:RS. If that question needs to be posed, I suggest doing it in a separate post to RS/N, after this one has had time to receive input. If all the various disagreements are rolled into a single entry on RS/N, we will wind up recapitulating the whole series of arguments again ourselves, with no real input from the uninvolved editors from whom we are hoping to receive guidance.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

When you say "the very specific purpose for which we need it," I presume you mean for which you need it; yours misses the point of the issue more widely than Jokestreess's does, and it is transparent to see why you'd want to frame it that way. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


Such presumptions are of little help. It would be more productive to adjust either my or Jokestress' proposed questions, or to produce your own.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much spin in that version. This incorporates your content and structure.
Peer commentaries on target article in Archives of Sexual Behavior
A small group of editors has come to an impasse regarding whether a group of published commentaries meet WP:RS and should therefore be summarized in the article we are working on, or fail to meet WP:RS and therefore should not be included on the page. We are hoping to have the input from otherwise uninvolved editors to help us resolve the issue.
Agreed upon facts
  • The Archives of Sexual Behavior (ASB) is a prominent academic journal on sexology.
  • The June 2008 ASB issue is devoted to the controversy surrounding the 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen (TMWWBQ).
  • The target article is by Alice Dreger and the peer commentaries discuss Dreger's target article.
Arguments for including peer commentaries
  • Target articles are published with the express purpose of generating peer commentaries.
  • Peer commentaries are verifiable (published and available for purchase in print and online)
  • Peer commentaries are in a reliable source (Archives of Sexual Behavior) alongside the target article.
  • The target article and each peer commentary separately sell for $32.00 each, so the publisher considers them all to have the same value.
  • The target article and peer commentaries are all listed individually the same way in PubMed, as well as other databases of academic output.
  • Peer commentaries are written by notable people, including John Bancroft, Ben Barres, Ray Blanchard, John Gagnon, Richard Green, Deirdre McCloskey, Charles Moser, Seth Roberts, Julia Serano, and ASB Editor-in-Chief Ken Zucker.
  • The attempt to exclude the peer commentaries on Wikipedia appears to be based on their content, which is frequently critical of the target article and the book TMWWBQ.
  • By the argument to exclude the peer commentaries, Dreger's target article is reliable, but Dreger's reply to the peer commentaries in the same issue is not.
Arguments for excluding peer commentaries
  • In Zucker's editorial introducing that issue of the Archives, Zucker wrote the Dreger article underwent peer-review.
  • Zucker wrote, "I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author."
  • Zucker wrote that all commentaries submitted were published (except for one which did not pertain to the topic).
  • These commentaries should be treated as letters-to-the-editor.
We would appreciate your input, and an explanation of how you came to your conclusion.
I believe we should include the reasoning from both sides in the debate to help disinterested editors. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Keeping in mind Dicklyon's concerns and recognizing that there is a broader issue at play....

Here is how I would ask the question

In the context of the article The Man Who Would Be Queen a dispute has arisen over a basic question of precedent. The question is should we as wikipedia editors consider everything that is published in a academic journal to be a reliable source or should we differentiate between the different types of communications? Most people think of academic journals as publishing only items that have undergone peer review with equal scrutiny given to each item they publish. However this is not always the case most journals also publish, letters, reviews, "rapid communications", and "peer commentaries", all of which differ in many ways. In general should all of these differing items be given equal weight in a wikipedia article?

In our specific case the journal in question Archives of Sexual Behavior published a special edition devoted to the same topic as the wikipedia articles The Man Who Would Be Queen, J. Michael Bailey,Lynn Conway, Andrea James, Autogynephilia, Homosexual Transsexual, and many more. Archives of Sexual Behavior also published many peer commentaries along with the article. These commentaries were submitted by academics in the field of psychology, academics who were members of the affected community and others.

There are basically three options:

  • In this and any similar case include only the peer reviewed article itself.
  • Treat everything in the journal on an equal footing and use anything published in a journal as a reliable source.
  • In this case exclude the whole issues of Archives of Sexual Behavior because the editors, who in this case are all arguably experts on this matter, cannot come to a consensus.

______________

That's how I would ask it. I wrote it that way because this goes beyond just this article. There is a whole family of related articles which would be effected. There is also the broader issue of a precedent being set here. So far as I know WP policy has never gone to the level of differentiating between the various species of items that are published in scientific journals.

Any thought's? --Hfarmer (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OR how about this

A Combination of Jokestress's question and mine. _

In the context of the article The Man Who Would Be Queen a dispute has arisen over a basic question of precedent. The question is should we as wikipedia editors consider everything that is published in a academic journal to be a reliable source or should we differentiate between the different types of communications? Most people think of academic journals as publishing only items that have undergone peer review with equal scrutiny given to each item they publish. However this is not always the case most journals also publish, letters, reviews, "rapid communications", and "peer commentaries", all of which differ in many ways. In general should all of these differing items be given equal weight in a wikipedia article?

In our specific case the journal in question Archives of Sexual Behavior published a special edition devoted to the same topic as the wikipedia articles The Man Who Would Be Queen, J. Michael Bailey,Lynn Conway, Andrea James, Autogynephilia, Homosexual Transsexual, and many more. Archives of Sexual Behavior also published many peer commentaries along with the article. These commentaries were submitted by academics in the field of psychology, academics who were members of the affected community and others.

There are basically three options:

  • In this and any similar case include only the peer reviewed article itself.
  • Treat everything in the journal on an equal footing and use anything published in a journal as a reliable source.
  • In this case exclude the whole issues of Archives of Sexual Behavior because the editors, who in this case are all arguably experts on this matter, cannot come to a consensus.

Agreed upon facts

  • The Archives of Sexual Behavior (ASB) is a prominent academic journal on sexology.
  • The June 2008 ASB issue is devoted to the controversy surrounding the 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen (TMWWBQ).
  • The target article is by Alice Dreger and the peer commentaries discuss Dreger's target article.

Arguments for including peer commentaries


Arguments for excluding peer commentaries

  • In Zucker's editorial introducing that issue of the Archives, Zucker wrote the Dreger article underwent peer-review.
  • Zucker wrote, "I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author."
  • Zucker wrote that all commentaries submitted were published (except for one which did not pertain to the topic).
  • These commentaries should be treated as letters-to-the-editor.


We would appreciate your input, and an explanation of how you came to your conclusion.

__ Where what I have done is remove points in favor of including the peer commentaries which don't really make a difference. That they are sold for money means nothing as far as the quality of their content. I also wanted to make the question we ask at RS noticeboard more neutral.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your version raises too many ancillary issues. We should get a clear consensus on whether or not to include the peer commentaries in this specific case. If you guys want to get into a larger debate about reliability levels of different kinds of materials published in academic journals, that should be done separately. That's far too complicated for the scope of this discussion. Jokestress (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The reliability of Dreger's paper and the peer commentaries will be important in many other articles directly related to this one just by association. The applicability of a RS decision on this matter could have implications for other simmilar sources used across wikipedia. Just by it's nature we have stumbled across a more fundamental question than just one special edition of ASB. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jokestress that "We should get a clear consensus on whether or not to include the peer commentaries in this specific case." I very much appreciate Hfarmer's point that there are other issues mixed in, but I don't think we'll get much input from uninvolved editors if we try asking for input on all such issues at once.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok then but if we just restrict the question to THIS SPECIFIC CASE... Then whatever the RS notice board says about this matter cannot be used on the other pages I mention in my version of the question. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
What I meant by "this specific case" was peer commentaries in Archives of Sexual Behavior, not this specific article. Whatever is determined to be consensus would be applicable to any Wikipedia article citing that issue of ASB. Jokestress (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So How about this?

How should the various types of items a scientific journal publishes be treated? In our specific case the journal in question Archives of Sexual Behavior published a special edition devoted to the same topic as the wikipedia articles The Man Who Would Be Queen, J. Michael Bailey,Lynn Conway, Andrea James, Autogynephilia, Homosexual Transsexual, and many more. Archives of Sexual Behavior also published many peer commentaries along with the article. These commentaries were submitted by academics in the field of psychology, academics who were members of the affected community and others.

There are basically three options:

  • In this case include only the peer reviewed article itself.
  • Treat everything in the journal on an equal footing and use anything published in a journal as a reliable source.
  • In this case exclude the whole issues of Archives of Sexual Behavior because the editors, who in this case are all arguably experts on this matter, cannot come to a consensus.

Agreed upon facts

  • The Archives of Sexual Behavior (ASB) is a prominent academic journal on sexology.
  • The June 2008 ASB issue is devoted to the controversy surrounding the 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen (TMWWBQ).
  • The target article is by Alice Dreger and the peer commentaries discuss Dreger's target article.

Arguments for including peer commentaries

Arguments for excluding peer commentaries

  • In Zucker's editorial introducing that issue of the Archives, Zucker wrote the Dreger article underwent peer-review.
  • Zucker wrote, "I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author."
  • Zucker wrote that all commentaries submitted were published (except for one which did not pertain to the topic).
  • These commentaries should be treated as letters-to-the-editor.

_____ What say you all?--Hfarmer (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mostly OK, but that last line seems peculiar. "These commentaries should be treated as letters-to-the-editor" is not a reason to "exclude" them; what does WP:RS say about letters to the editor? Are they not accepted as a way to verify the opinions expressed therein? Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I prefer James Cantor's intro to this one. We don't need to get into any more detail than what he covers: "A small group of editors has come to an impasse regarding whether a group of published commentaries meet WP:RS and should therefore be summarized in the article we are working on, or fail to meet WP:RS and therefore should not be included on the page. We are hoping to have the input from otherwise uninvolved editors to help us resolve the issue."
The last bullet about letters to the editor was taken from a comment by James Cantor. I was looking to include all the reasons he had mentioned. Jokestress (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Dick, letters to the editor are reliable sources for the opinions of the author. You can't use them to support facts ("The earth is {round|flat}"), but you can use them to support statements ("John Smith says the earth is round"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I should have distinguished between 'commentaries being used as letters-to-the-editor' from 'commentaries being entirely unused'. I understand that letters-to-the-editor from people with a history of publishing on a topic in RS's would allow WP editors to note those people's opinions in the WP article. I am not aware, however, of the same being true for non-experts on a topic.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
What is this new distinction you are trying to make? Can you list which peer commentaries you think should be included because they are "experts" and which ones should not?
  • Jonathan Adler
  • John Bancroft
  • Ben Barres
  • Talia Mae Bettcher
  • Ray Blanchard
  • Antonia Caretto
  • Nicholas Clarkson
  • Alice Dreger
  • John Gagnon
  • Brian Gladue
  • Richard Green
  • Riki Lane
  • Anne Lawrence
  • Robin Mathy
  • Deirdre McCloskey
  • Marta Meana
  • Charles Moser
  • Margaret Nichols
  • Bruce Rind
  • Seth Roberts
  • Amir Rosenman
  • Julia Serano
  • Elroi Windsor
  • Madeline Wyndzen
  • Ken Zucker
Please mark each name above with a one or a two so we can understand what this distinction looks like. Please also specify how you think we should treat each of the two groups in the article in terms of inclusion and citation. Jokestress (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I am indicating my understanding of the relevant WP policies, not making a new distinction.
To the best of my knowledge, statements made by people in sources that do not undergo fact checking (such as peer review) are treated as SPS. From WP:QS: "Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated." The commentaries in question appear to me to be of the personal opinion variety.
From WP:SPS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I do not know the publication history of each of the people on the list, but I do know that only a subset of those people have published in sexology, and only a still smaller subset have published on gender identity/transsexualism.
To state the obvious: Excluding the commentaries only of people who lack a history of publishing on the topic in reliable third-party source would likely take out a greater proportion of the people whose opinions you like than those you do not like. That is, the exclusion of >all< the commentaries appears to be more in your interest than is excluding only the commentaries indicated by the above policies from WP:V.
Before you and Dicklyon spark up the flame-throwers, this issue (as all others) are about what is in WP's interest, not yours or mine. I suggest that it would be more productive if the issue were submitted to the RS/N, either together with the one we are already discussing or in a separate one.
— James Cantor (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Mmmmm Dr. Cantor you should not have written that part about "...or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience...." Some would say that applies to all of Dr. Blanchards works (or all of psychology for that matter.)  :-) Seriously though. So Ya'll want to keep the question focused on just a small issue. Can we agree that if the question is so focused on this article that the RS noticeboards determination CANNOT be used in other articles (i.e. Autogynephilia)? --Hfarmer (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I am now coming to suspect that Hfarmer, Jokestress, and I have been refering to different things when we refer to 'focussing' the question. Specifically, I think that Hfarmer has been using "focus" to refer to getting a response that applies only to the TMWWBQ page versus one that applies to all the related pages. I agree with Hfarmer that guidance for the set of related pages is preferrable. Relatedly, I think that Jokestress and I have been using "focus" to refer to asking about only a single aspect of the problem, without bringing in all of the other portions of the problem at once. Jokestress can certainly say if I am putting incorrect words in her mouth, but I think I agree with Jokestress that we should "focus" on a single aspect of the problem, at least at first. A kitchen sink of all the issues would (I believe) scare off anyone otherwise willing to provide input. In other words, I think the most progress can be had if we have input on one specific issue (commentaries are all-in, all-out, or some-in?) in a way that can be applied to all the relevant WP pages.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The line about "widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience" is quoted from the current version of the actual policy; it's not something that James Cantor made up on his own.
As an example of an unreliable commentary, Madeline Wyndzen is a pseudonym for an unknown person with unknown qualifications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to be a smarta$$. You see there are people who say Dr. Blancahrd's theory is pseudo science so following that text to the letter one could argue for totally excluding all of this from wikipedia. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I had interpreted Hfarmer's comment just a humorous jibe. A little humor here and there is good for lightening this usually heated series of discussions. I thank you both for your consideration, nonetheless.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK A focused version of the question

A small group of editors has come to an impasse regarding whether a group of published commentaries meet WP:RS and should therefore be summarized in the article we are working on, or fail to meet WP:RS and therefore should not be included on the page. We are hoping to have the input from otherwise uninvolved editors to help us resolve the issue. (In the interests of disclosure, the editors most involved in the disagreement are user:Dicklyon, user:DarlieB, user:Hfarmer, user:James Cantor, user:Jokestress, user:ProudAGP, and user:WhatamIdoing.)

There are basically three options:

  • In this case include only the peer reviewed article itself.
  • Treat everything in the journal on an equal footing and use anything published in a journal as a reliable source.
  • In this case exclude the whole issues of Archives of Sexual Behavior because the editors, who in this case are all arguably experts on this matter, cannot come to a consensus.


Agreed upon facts

  • The Archives of Sexual Behavior (ASB) is a prominent academic journal on sexology.
  • The June 2008 ASB issue is devoted to the controversy surrounding the 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen (TMWWBQ).
  • The target article is by Alice Dreger and the peer commentaries discuss Dreger's target article.

Arguments for including peer commentaries

Arguments for excluding peer commentaries

  • In Zucker's editorial introducing that issue of the Archives, Zucker wrote the Dreger article underwent peer-review.
  • Zucker wrote, "I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author."
  • Zucker wrote that all commentaries submitted were published (except for one which did not pertain to the topic).
  • These commentaries should be treated as letters-to-the-editor.


What say you all?--Hfarmer (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


I think we are making progress. However, I think that uninvolved editors would understand the issues better if the question were organized into facts/problem/question rather than options/facts/arguments-for/arguments-against. The organization above mixes agreed-upon facts into the for and against sections. For example, we agree on who wrote the commentaries, and (because they all have wikipedia pages about them) we can probably agree that they are notable. So, I think we should list what we agree to as facts, pose our problem, and let the (hopefully) uninvolved editors decide which agreed upon facts are relevant.
I have in mind, of course, the way I posed it previously. Dicklyon said he didn't like it, but did not indicate exactly what he thought was spun or how it might be presented more acceptably to him. Assuming that it was the content and not the structure that he objected to, could the above content be expressed in the format I suggested? If there is something objectionable about the actual format I am suggestion, what is it?
— James Cantor (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this one

OK A focused version of the question

A small group of editors has come to an impasse regarding whether a group of published commentaries meet WP:RS and should therefore be summarized in the article we are working on, or fail to meet WP:RS and therefore should not be included on the page. We are hoping to have the input from otherwise uninvolved editors to help us resolve the issue. (In the interests of disclosure, the editors most involved in the disagreement are user:Dicklyon, user:DarlieB, user:Hfarmer, user:James Cantor, user:Jokestress, user:ProudAGP, and user:WhatamIdoing.)

Agreed upon facts

Arguments for including peer commentaries

  • Peer commentaries are verifiable (published and available for purchase in print and online)
  • Peer commentaries are in a reliable source (Archives of Sexual Behavior) alongside the article.
  • The article and peer commentaries are all listed individually the same way in PubMed, as well as other databases of academic output.

Arguments for excluding peer commentaries

  • In Zucker's editorial introducing that issue of the Archives, Zucker wrote the Dreger article underwent peer-review.
  • Zucker wrote, "I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author."
  • Zucker wrote that all commentaries submitted were published (except for one which did not pertain to the topic).
  • These commentaries should be treated as letters-to-the-editor.

There are basically three options:

  • In this case include only the peer reviewed article itself.
  • Treat everything in the journal on an equal footing and use anything published in a journal as a reliable source.
  • In this case exclude the whole issues of Archives of Sexual Behavior because the editors, who in this case are all arguably experts on this matter, cannot come to a consensus.

No more Mr. Nice guy. I think we have a pretty damm good starting point for the discussion that will happen on the RS noticeboard. I have decided that the above, which we have all had ample input on is going to be submitted by me. We could go around an around about the question forever unless somone says enough. Enough! We will each get a change to speak our peace on the actual notice board. The question above is neutral not really slanted, gives the facts, is concise, and focused. It's as good as it gets. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


Back in the fray (ProudAGP)

I have been away from WP until today (admittedly after reading Proposal 2 and thinking that it would take a lot of time and effort to edit and not feeling like it at the time). My goodness!!!!!

I don't quite know how to proceed, given that it appears we are awaiting some kind of judgment from WP Adiminstrators. Some thoughts, in the meantime. First, DarlieB you are currently a very negative influence on this process. Several editors whose views are quite opposed to each other and who sometimes express overt hostility toward each other nonetheless have managed to work together in a way that was satisfactory for the first recent edit to this page, which you repeatedly changed. In my opinion, if you continue to do this, we (again, "we" include editors who disagree vehemently with each other) should try to get you removed from this page.

Second Jokestress, I quite disliked your Proposal 2 and logged on today with the intention of offering a new one with explanations. I won't do that yet for obvious reasons. But one guide I suggest is that you consider this page an opportunity for both sides to be told. The accusations against Bailey are one side. Dreger's analysis (which agrees with Bailey's and others') is the other. Obviously it is relevant how much either side fits with the facts. However, it is obviously unfair to tell the "other" side while discounting it, as you repeatedly attempt to do. For example, if we're going to consider writing about Dreger "suppressing" Andrea James' attempted speech, we're going to have to consider including her reasons why, as well as Andrea James' subsequent behavior (sending Dreger messages that Dreger found intimidating and offensive and visiting her office uninvited). I think this detracts from the article, which is not about Andrea James.

2A, Jokestress, just because someone says something in print, even if it is a reliable source, doesn't mean that it belongs on a WP page. There are other concerns like undue weight, accurate representation, etc. Proposal 2 (and continuing to Proposal 4) had repeated problems with this, which I will point out when it makes sense to do so. I don't know that I have a problem with the commentaries on Dreger being included. I do have a major problem with any of them (or even all of them together) being given nearly as much weight as her analysis, as you've tried to do.

So how do we proceed?ProudAGP (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A large amount of discussion has (understandably) focused on whether the commentaries on Dreger's article meet WP's criteria for inclusion. (Specifically, whether the commentaries were "reliable sources".) Because no consensus was likely to arise here, the issue has been posted on the "reliable sources noticeboard" so that uninvolved editors might provide some input. That discussion is going on here.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


Collected references

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference napsales was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Osborne, Duncan (March 2003). 'The Man Who Would Be Queen' (review). Out, March 2003, Vol. 11 Issue 9, pp. 54-54.
  3. ^ Arune, Willow (2004). I *AM* Arune! Transgender Tapestry 1(85):65–68.

Complete proposed controversy/academic freedom section, version 1

To make it clear what the whole controversy section would look like, I have compiled the previously-agreed part with the proposed revision. The "Academic freedom" section would be folded into this.

Controversy
The book elicited both strongly positive and strongly negative responses. Kirkus Reviews concluded: "Despite its provocative title, a scientific yet superbly compassionate exposition."[1] The book received praise from gay sexual behavior scientists James Cantor[2] and Simon LeVay,[1] from sex-differences expert David Buss,[2] 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."[3] It also received praise from journalists John Derbyshire,[4] Steve Sailer,[1] Daniel Seligman,[5] and Mark Henderson.[6]
Some reviews in the LGBT press were positive, such as from writers Ethan Boatner[1] for Lavender Magazine and Duncan Osborne for Out.[7] 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,"[1] 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."[8]
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,[9] its publication by the National Academies Press, by whom it was "advertised as science"[10] and marketed as "scientifically accurate,"[11] which they argued was untrue. They also claimed the book exploited children with gender dysphoria.[12] Among those criticizing the book were computer scientist Lynn Conway,[13] biologists Joan Roughgarden[11] and Ben Barres,[14] physician Rebecca Allison,[15] economist Deirdre McCloskey,[16] psychologist Madeline Wyndzen,[17] writers Dallas Denny,[18] Pauline Park,[19] Jamison Green [20] Gwen Smith,[21] and Andrea James,[22] 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.[23]
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."[24] Psychologist Eli Coleman referred to the book as "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers,"[2] and his colleague, Walter Bockting, wrote that it was "yet another blow to the delicate relationship between clinicians, scholars, and the transgender community."[25] 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."[2] Psychologist Randi Ettner said of Bailey, "He's set back the field 100 years, as far as I'm concerned."[9] Psychiatrist Vernon Rosario wrote, "The problem with Bailey is his simplistic approach to forcing people into his classification system. This is nowhere more evident than in his repeated dismissal of people’s experiences that do not conform to his model… Whenever a subject reports something different, Bailey just says, 'I doubt that.'"[26] Ph.D. student Riki Lane summarized the transgender portion of the conflict: "Bailey's supporters see themselves as defending unpopular scientific 'truth' against people who won't face a reality that is politically unpalatable and destructive to their self image. Bailey's opponents see themselves as defending their community from sensationalist pseudoscience that sexualizes them as sex starved gay men or neurotic straight men with a sexual obsession."[27] Philosophy professor Talia Mae Bettcher wrote, “Because Bailey believes transsexual women tend to lie or misrepresent, nothing a transwoman can say contests this theory.”[28]


Following complaints from trans women described in the book, Northwestern University opened a full investigation into Bailey’s research activities in November 2003.[29] The Southern Poverty Law Center printed a report that key figures involved in promoting the book (including Bailey, Blanchard, Buss, Derbyshire, Pinker, Sailer, and Seligman) “belong to a private cyber-discussion group of a neo-eugenics outfit, the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI).”[30] Psychologist and sex therapist Margaret Nichols wrote, “Bailey’s connection to HBI belies his politics and has important bearing on his research in the areas of sex and gender diversity. In my opinion, the HBI connection alone makes Bailey an enemy of queer people.”[31]
The Lambda Literary Foundation nominated the book as a finalist in the transgender award category for 2003.[32][33] The Foundation then reconsidered the nomination but decided to keep it on the list.[34] After protest of the nomination intensified via an internet petition, a second reconsideration led to the book's removal from its award finalists.[35] According to Executive Director Jim Marks, removal was due to the belated decision that the book was transphobic.[36] After Marks resigned, his successor Charles Flowers stated, “[T]he Bailey incident revealed flaws in our awards nomination process… With the help of the transgender community, we have improved the integrity of our awards, by making them more inclusive and our methods more transparent.”[37]
Besides criticizing the book, some critics alleged that Bailey had breached professional ethics.[38] These included the accusations that Bailey had conducted scientific research without institutional review board permission, that he had sex with a research subject (a transsexual sex worker called "Juanita" in the book), and that he had practiced psychology without a license.[39] Northwestern University conducted a formal investigation of the charge that he had conducted research without proper oversight; there is no evidence the other charges were investigated. Although the findings of that investigation were not released,[40] Northwestern's Vice President for Research, C. Bradley Moore, said, "The allegations of scientific misconduct made against Professor J. Michael Bailey do not fall under the federal definition of scientific misconduct."[2] Physician Charles Moser wrote, "the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct."[41]
Some critics attacked Bailey in more personal ways. Some gay academics made "sarcastic comments about Bailey's own masculinity and sartorial style."[26] Andrea James constructed a page of "satire" by taking pictures of Bailey's children and placing sexually offensive captions beside them, one of which was a quotation from Bailey's book.[42][2] James has said that she was echoing the disrespect that Bailey's work shows for vulnerable people, including children.[12] James also constructed webpages attacking or mocking Bailey's supporters, colleagues, and friends (including an ex-girlfriend), questioned Bailey's sexuality, asserted that he had "abandoned" his family, and sent a message to his colleagues that he suffered from "alcohol abuse and dependence."[2]


In 2006 Northwestern University professor Alice Dreger unsuccessfully attempted to suppress a speech given at Northwestern by James: Lane wrote, "her actions to 'no-platform' James are similar to the tactics she ascribes to Bailey's opponents in their attempts to shut down discussion of Blanchard’s theories."[27] In response, Dreger released her account of the controversy in 2007, a year before it was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. New York Times reporter Benedict Carey reported that Dreger found Bailey "essentially blameless." [12] Addressing the specific accusations against Bailey, she argued that he did not conduct scientific research without required supervision, that he probably did not have sex with "Juanita" (and even if he had, there is nothing wrong with it), that he did not illegally practice clinical psychology without a license, and that his membership in the "Human Biodiversity Institute" merely constituted being a member of an email listserv that included some conservative members.[2] Dreger described the controversy as suppression of academic freedom and concluded: "the historical evidence indicates that Conway, James, and [Deirdre] McCloskey tried to destroy Bailey's book and his reputation through these truly extraordinary measures because they didn’t like what he had to say."[43]
Dreger's paper also elicited both strongly positive and strongly negative responses when it was published in 2008 with 23 commentaries in the same issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Commenters included John Bancroft,[44] Ben Barres,[45] Ray Blanchard,[46] John Gagnon,[47] Richard Green,[48] Deirdre McCloskey,[49] Charles Moser,[41] Seth Roberts,[50] Julia Serano,[51] and Ken Zucker.[52] Green said her "meticulously detailed and documented essay is on remarkably even terrain," and told Bailey's critics to "lighten up."[48] Psychologist Antonia Caretto called it a "thorough review."[53] Lawrence said Dreger's paper gives evidence that the backlash was "a manifestation of narcissistic rage."[54] Dreger received a Guggenheim Fellowship to expand the article into a book. Several critics wrote that Dreger's paper lacked balance, objectivity, and context. Anthropologist Robin Mathy wrote that the trans community response "had nothing to do with Conway, James, or any other high-profile transwomen. They had everything to do with TMWWBQ and Bailey."[55] Sociologist Elroi Windsor wrote, "Dreger faults these critics for targeting the messenger and not his messages, yet the imbalance within her article suggests that she does the same. This imbalance colors Dreger's conclusions regarding Bailey's infractions."[56] Gender studies scholar Nicholas Clarkson wrote, "By focusing on the complaints of Conway, McCloskey, and James as representative of critiques of Bailey’s book, interspersed far too infrequently by more measured critiques (e.g., from Jamison Green), Dreger represents trans people as a lunatic fringe and marginalizes legitimate trans critiques of Bailey’s book. Indeed, she buries these critiques in short paragraphs, most of which come at the end of her article, thus effectively silencing those legitimate trans challenges."[57] Biologist Julia Serano wrote: "Dreger seems to attribute this [backlash] to a calculated attempt by three trans activists, Conway, James, and McCloskey (CJM), to personally "ruin" Bailey. In Dreger’s article, CJM are portrayed as singlehandedly initiating and orchestrating the entire backlash against the book via personal attacks on Bailey. I would argue that this is a rather myopic view, as it both overstates these activists’ influence within the community and underplays the broad consensus of trans activists, allies, and advocates who found the book to be unapologetically arrogant, crass, stigmatizing, sensationalizing, and a distortion of both trans people’s lives and the scientific literature on the subject. If CJM did not become involved, and if no personal attacks were carried out against Bailey, the backlash still would have occurred and it would likely have been just as contentious.[51] The month Dreger's paper was published, an academic panel on trans perspectives about "the Bailey brouhaha" convened despite Dreger's attempt to suppress it by attacking the graduate student who proposed it.[58][59][60]
The Man Who Would Be Queen went out of print in 2008 but remained available for sale as a PDF on the National Academies website.

As I mentioned, this is going to be very difficult to discuss all in one piece, so I propose we split it into three parts for discussion: The initial response, the response starting with the investigation, and the Dreger sub-controversy (split here by hard returns). Since Wikipedia is not constrained to specific lengths for articles, we can make this as long as necessary to cover the topic in a balanced and neutral manner. Jokestress (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This satisfies me. This right here right now is good enough that I think that the top or bottom half of the controversy article could be replaced by it. This hit's basically all the bases. It's long but this is a complicated mess. Good work. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


I must be honest, it's ponderous and boring. It has nothing to do with the controversy . I reduced it back down to identifying Baileys critics and the controversy. Do we need to get everyones opinion on the planet , gay or straight to comment on it ? Unless this has DIRECT bearing on the controversy there is no point. KISS DarlieB (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e The Man Who Would Be Queen via National Academies Press. Retrieved 6 September 2008.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h Dreger, A. D. (2008). The controversy surrounding The man who would be queen: A case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the Internet age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 366-421.
  3. ^ Pinker, Steven (June 28, 2003). Pages for pleasure. The Guardian
  4. ^ Derbyshire, John (June 30, 2003). Lost in the Male. National Review
  5. ^ Seligman, Dan (October 13, 2003). Transsexuals And the Law. Forbes
  6. ^ Henderson, Mark (December 6, 2003). Who’s got the brains in this relationship? The Times
  7. ^ Osborne, Duncan (March 2003). 'The Man Who Would Be Queen' (review). Out, March 2003, Vol. 11 Issue 9, pp. 54-54.
  8. ^ Arune, Willow (2004). I *AM* Arune! Transgender Tapestry 1(85):65–68.
  9. ^ a b Klein, Julie M. (May 2004). Ethical minefields: The sex that would be science. Seed Magazine, May/June 2004 Cite error: The named reference "klein2004" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  10. ^ Krasny, Michael (Aug 22, 2007). Transgender Theories. Forum with Michael Krasny, KQED
  11. ^ a b Roughgarden, Joan (June 4, 2004). Twist In The Tale Of Two Genders. Times Higher Education No.1643; Pg. 20
  12. ^ a b c Carey, Benedict. (2007-08-21.) "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege." New York Times via nytimes.com. Retrieved on 2007-09-19. Cite error: The named reference "carey2007" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  13. ^ Marcus, Jon (August 1, 2003). Transsexuals Protest. Times Higher Education, p. 13
  14. ^ Holden, Constance (July 18, 2003). Transsexuality Treatise Triggers Furor. ScienceNOW/Science (AAAS)
  15. ^ Staff report (June 25, 2003). Trans Group Attacks New Book on 'Queens.' Windy City Times
  16. ^ McCloskey, Deirdre (November 2003). Queer Science: A data-bending psychologist confirms what he already knew about gays and transsexuals. Reason, November 2003
  17. ^ James, Andrea (Fall 2006). A Defining Moment in Our History. Transgender Tapestry, Fall 2006, Issue 110, pp. 18-23.
  18. ^ Denny, Dallas (December 13, 2004). Viewpoint: Why the Bailey Controversy Is Important. Transgender Tapestry #104, Winter 2004
  19. ^ Park, Pauline (May 30, 2003). Sympathy, But Finding Pathology. Gay City News
  20. ^ Green J (2003). Bailey’s wick. PlanetOut
  21. ^ Smith, Gwen (June 13, 2003). Not a man. Southern Voice
  22. ^ Surkan, K (2007). Transsexuals Protest Academic Exploitation. In Lillian Faderman, Yolanda Retter, Horacio Roque Ramírez, eds. Great Events From History: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Events, 1848-2006. pages 111-114. Salem Press ISBN 978-1-58765-263-9
  23. ^ The Ups and Downs of J. Michael Bailey. Transgender Tapestry #104, Winter 2004, pp. 53-54.
  24. ^ Mundy, Liza (March 23, 2003). Codes of Behavior. Washington Post
  25. ^ Bockting, Walter O. (2005). Biological reductionism meets gender diversity in human sexuality. [Review of the book The Man Who Would Be Queen.] Journal of Sex Research, 42, 267-270.
  26. ^ a b Rosario, Vernon (November 2003). New gene theory rests on bad science. The Gay & Lesbian Review
  27. ^ a b Lane R (2008). Truth, Lies, and Trans Science. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008.
  28. ^ Bettcher TM (2008). [http:// www.calstatela.edu/faculty/tbettch/BettcherDreger.pdf Pretenders to the Throne.] Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol.37, No.3, June 2008, p.430-433.
  29. ^ Becker, Robert (November 18, 2003). NU investigates charges over book. Chicago Tribune
  30. ^ Beirich, Heidi and Bob Moser (Winter 2003). Queer Science: An 'elite' cadre of scientists and journalists tries to turn back the clock on sex, gender and race. Intelligence Report
  31. ^ Nichols 2008
  32. ^ Marks, Jim (13 February 2004). A letter from the publisher about the Lambda Literary Awards. ‘’Lambda Book Report’’
  33. ^ Nangeroni N, MackKenzie GO (March 15, 2004). Interview with Jim Marks. ‘’GenderTalk’’ Program # 452
  34. ^ Grubb, R.J. (March 4, 2004). Lambda keeps controversial book as finalist for award. ‘’Bay Windows’’
  35. ^ Grubb, R.J. (March 4, 2004). On second thought... ‘’Bay Windows’’
  36. ^ Letellier, Patrick (2004-03-16). "Group rescinds honor for disputed book". gay.com. Retrieved 2007-03-16.
  37. ^ Flowers, Charles (Sept 20, 2007) Letter to New York Times. Lambda Literary Foundation
  38. ^ McCain RS (November 24, 2003). University investigates ethics of sex researcher. Washington Times
  39. ^ Associated Press (July 25, 2003). Transsexuals accuse professor of research misconduct.
  40. ^ >Wilson, R. (2004, Dec. 10). "Northwestern U. Will Not Reveal Results of Investigation Into Sex Researcher." The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 10.
  41. ^ a b Moser C (2008). A Different Perspective. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008, p.472-475.
  42. ^ [1]
  43. ^ Dreger, A. (2008). Response to the commentaries on Dreger (2008). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37 503-510.
  44. ^ Bancroft J (2008). Lust or Identity? Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008, p.426-428.
  45. ^ Barres B (2008). A Response to Dreger's Defense of the Bailey Book. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008, p.429.
  46. ^ Blanchard R (2008). Deconstructing the Feminine Essence Narrative. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008
  47. ^ Gagnon J (2008). Is This a Work of Science? Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008, p.444-447.
  48. ^ a b Green R (2008). Lighten Up, Ladies. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008, p.451-452.
  49. ^ McCloskey D (2008). Politics in Scholarly Drag: Dreger's Assault on the Critics of Bailey. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008, p.451-452.
  50. ^ Roberts S (2008). McCloskey and Me: A Back-and-Forth. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008, p.472-475.
  51. ^ a b Serano J (2008). A Matter of Perspective: A Transsexual Woman-Centric Critique of Dreger’s ‘‘Scholarly History’’ of the Bailey Controversy. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008, p.491-494.
  52. ^ Zucker K (2008). Introduction to Dreger (2008) and Peer Commentaries. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008, p.365.
  53. ^ Caretto A (2008). Dreger’s Adventures. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008
  54. ^ Lawrence AA (2008). Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008
  55. ^ Mathy RM (2008). Cowboys, Sheepherders, and The Man Who Would ‘‘I Know’’ vs. First-Order Lived Experience. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008
  56. ^ Windsor E (2008). Accounting for Power and Academic Responsibility. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008
  57. ^ Clarkson NL (2008). Trans Victims, Trans Zealots: A Critique of Dreger’s History of the Bailey Controversy. Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol.37, No.3, June 2008.
  58. ^ Anderson-Minshall, Jacob (October 25, 2007). A TransAmazon Takes on 'The Man'. GayWired
  59. ^ Hendrick E (2008). Quiet Down There! The Discourse of Academic Freedom as Defence of Hierarchy in the Aftermath of J. Michael Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen. NWSA panel, June 21, 2008.
  60. ^ James A (2008). Fair comment, foul play: Populist responses to J. Michael Bailey's exploitative "controversies." NWSA panel, June 21, 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen/Archive_6&oldid=1065669588"