What is
the nature of the controversy concerning my book, The Man Who Would Be
Queen?
What is
Blanchard's "two types of transsexuals" theory?
What is
the evidence for Blanchard's theory?
Aren't
male-to-female transsexuals "women trapped in men's bodies?"
What about
transsexual women who deny that they are either of Blanchard's two types?
Even if
autogynephilic transsexuals exist, aren't they rare?
Might
a third type of transsexual exist?
What
about the Dutch brain studies?
What
is bad about autogynephilia?
Is my book bad for transsexuals?
What about
the title and the cover?
The
campaign against my book and me (and my talk at Stanford University)
What
is the nature of the controversy concerning my book, The Man Who Would Be
Queen?
My book, The Man Who
Would Be Queen, has provoked a firestorm of controversy among some
transsexuals. The following three websites are representative of the outrage
expressed by some transsexual women.
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/LynnsReviewOfBaileysBook.html
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/j-michael-bailey.html
http://www.drbecky.com/blog05.html#apr13
The first thing to
emphasize is that the authors of these websites have badly distorted my
positions. I will delay, for now, pointing out these distortions. It is a popular
science book aimed at a general audience, and so it can be consumed without
great effort. The controversy
is
about only the third section of the book. Although the first two sections of
the book (on feminine boys and gay men) provide useful background to the third,
it is possible to grasp most of the third section without having read them.
Not all transsexual women
are opposed to my book. Writers at the following two websites, each
representing one of the two types of male-to-female transsexuals (see below),
accept at least some of the main ideas in my book, and both avoid the
hysterical misrepresentations of the first set of websites:
Although the critics have
produced a litany of alleged sins, their main complaint is something that I
actually do write, and believe. This is the idea that among male-to-female
transsexuals (i.e., those who begin life as boys and become women), there are
two, completely different subtypes. The first type, which Blanchard calls
"homosexual transsexuals" are attracted to men. They are very
feminine from an early age. The second type, which Blanchard calls
"autogynephilic transsexuals," are attracted to the idea of being
women; they are not notably feminine until they decide to transition to women.
The critics especially dislike my contention, based on Blanchard's research,
that transsexuals who are not homosexual are autogynephilic. Autogynephilia is
explained at length below, but for now, autogynephilia can be understood as
sexual arousal at the idea of being a woman. The idea that nonhomosexual
transsexuals are motivated by autogynephilia is the main sore spot for the
transsexual critics of my book.
Eventually, the most angry
critics managed to persuade two of the women I wrote about in my book (with
whom I had had cordial relationships) to turn against me, and a number of
diverse accusations were made against me. All the accusations were false. You
can read my account of the various allegations against me here:
http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=1248
One misunderstanding (or
misrepresentation) by several critics is that the theory of autogynephilia is
based upon my own data. In fact, the theory was developed long before I began
to study transsexuals. It is not based on my data at all, but on work by Ray
Blanchard.
Blanchard did his research
at the gender identity clinic at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto.
His sample of subjects was very representative of gender patients in Canada
during the time of his studies. (For more detail about Blanchard's sample, look
here.)
In my book I do present
details about the lives of transsexuals whom I have met personally or with whom
I have corresponded. My interactions with these individuals were not, however,
the basis for the theory. Instead, they were the basis for my portrayals of
real people, struggling or triumphing in real situations. That is, I used what
I learned from these individuals to try to convey the complexities of
Blanchard's theoy–and of these people's lives–to readers.
I have met, both in person
and via correspondence, plenty of transsexuals who have told me that
Blanchard's "two types" theory does not include them. However, as I
discuss at length later, this denial is not adequate reason to reject
Blanchard's theory. Blanchard's research has shown that transsexuals who deny
being either homosexual or autogynephilic are probably autogynephilic.
What
is Blanchard's "two types of transsexuals" theory?
The theory encompasses
several ideas. Here are some of the main ones:
a. There are two different
aspects to gender dysphoria: discomfort with one's sex of birth, and yearning
to be the other sex. The first aspect is more striking in very feminine
homosexual males who want to be women (perhaps because many of them seem
incapable of sounding or acting like typical males even when they try to do
so). The second aspect is more striking in males with a condition called
"autogynephilia." Autogynephilia is sexual attraction to, and love
of, the idea of oneself as a woman.
b. Neither discomfort with
one's sex nor yearning to be the other sex is an all-or-nothing thing. Each is
continuous; many genetic males feel no gender dysphoria, some have a little
dysphoria (of one type or another), some have enough gender dysphoria so that
they go through steps to change their sex. The intermediates on the first
(homosexual) dimension include (in order) masculine gay men, feminine gay men,
and drag queens. The intermediates on the second (autogynephilic) dimension
include episodic heterosexual cross-dressers and some individuals who live full-time
as women for decades without seeking or even desiring genital sex reassignment
surgery. (Virginia Prince is a famous example.)
c. Most, but not all,
autogynephilic transsexuals go through a stage in which they are heterosexual
cross-dressers, and during this period, they engage (with varying frequency) in
cross-dressing for erotic purposes. Particularly during adolescence, a common
activity is wearing women's clothing (particularly lingerie) and masturbating.
The few autogynephilic individuals who have not cross-dressed erotically show
other signs of autogynephilia. For example, one individual whom Blanchard saw
denied frequent cross-dressing, but had a frequent sexual fantasy of having a
vagina.
d. Transsexuals who are not
homosexual are autogynephilic. These include biologic males who are
heterosexual (i.e., attracted to women), bisexual, and asexual; Blanchard lumps
these orientations together as "nonhomosexual." (This lumping is
empirically supported, because on most relevant variables, the different types
of nonhomosexual transsexuals are similar.)
Autogynephilia can be
understood as atypically-focused heterosexuality (i.e., focused on the woman
inside rather than the women outside), and so to the extent that autogynephilic
individuals are attracted to others, they should be attracted to women; this
explains heterosexual transsexuals. A common fantasy of autogynephilic
individuals is to be penetrated by a penis; this explains the bisexual
transsexuals. (The homosexual fantasies of autogynephilic individuals are very
different from those of homosexual males, including homosexual transsexuals.
Homosexual males are capable of intense sexual attraction to other males based
on their physical characteristics. Autogynephilic individuals tend to be aroused
less by the physical characteristics of men than by the fantasy/act of being
penetrated by a man.)
Finally, autogynephilia is
an inner-directed sexual orientation (to the idea of oneself as a woman), and
so there is a tradeoff between autogynephilia and sexual attraction to women.
When autogynephilia is sufficiently strong, it can replace virtually all
attraction to other individuals. This explains asexual transsexuals.
e. Not all autogynephilic
individuals become transsexual. Probably most do not. The autogyephilic
fantasies of those who eventually transition to women are especially likely to
focus on having a vagina.
Anne Lawrence, a transsexual woman who
is a physician and sex researcher, has a superb website explaining
autogynephilia. Please browse her site, especially her autogynephilia faq, and her original and
revised papers on
autogynephilia.
What
is the evidence for Blanchard's theory?
Blanchard did a number of
empirical studies during the decade he focused on transsexualism. I have assembled
abstracts of 20 relevant articles. The most
important of these are probably #1-#9 and #15.
Here is a powerpoint file of
Blanchard's lecture at the International Academy of Sex Research in Paris,
2000. The presentation focuses on three early studies validating Blanchard's
theory of two basic transsexual types: #1, #6, and #8. But remember that
Blanchard's relevant oeuvre is substantially larger than these three studies.
Please read the most relevant chapter of my book.
Aren't
male-to-female transsexuals "women trapped in men's bodies?"
Answering this question
requires understanding precisely what one means by "women trapped in men's
bodies." I can think of two very different meanings. First, "women
trapped in men's bodies" might be understood as anatomic males with a
strong desire to become women. By this meaning, all male-to-female transsexuals
qualify. This is the definition of transsexualism that I use.
A second definition, which
I believe that many people infer by the phrase "women trapped in men's
bodies"is anatomic males who have the minds and emotions of women. This is
a much trickier definition. How would a male-to-female transsexual know that
she has the mind and emotions of a natal woman? I do not think the answer is
straightforward, and the strong conviction that she feels this way, by itself,
can persuade only those who are easily convinced.
Homosexual male-to-female
transsexuals invariably begin life as extremely feminine boys. Their feminine
interests and activities often begin as soon as they are capable of showing any
interests at all. Their femininity is pervasive and persistent. They are
incapable of hiding their femininity from the outside world. Homosexual
male-to-female transsexuals may well approximately be "women trapped in
men's bodies." (In my book, however, I show that this phrase is somewhat
misleading even for them.)
Autogynephilic transsexuals
do not often have a verifiable history of being very feminine boys. (They
rarely seem to be "girls trapped in boys' bodies.") Their first overt
sign of transsexualism most often begins in adolescence, when most of them
cross-dress for erotic purposes. Both heterosexual cross-dressers and
autogynephilic transsexuals usually begin this way. Neither this behavior nor
autogynephilic motivation has an analogue in female psychological development.
What
about transsexual women who deny that they are either of Blanchard's two types?
There are certainly male-to-female
transsexuals who deny that Blanchard's taxonomy fits them. This denial could
occur because the taxonomy truly fails to account for them. But it is also
possible that the transexuals' denials are incorrect.
If we could always accept
people's explanations of their own behavior, then psychology would be easy.
There are many reasons why we cannot merely accept such accounts, three of
which I consider here. First, people often do not have conscious access to the
important causes of their behavior. In a classic study, Nisbett and Ross had
participants choose the best quality pair of stockings from a range of samples
ostensibly for consumer research purposes. Because of a strong order effect,
participants selected the pair of stockings that was the furthest right in the
display four times as often as the pair that was furthest left. However,
participants never referred to position as a factor in their choice, but
instead explained their selection behavior in terms of the stockings' inherent
qualities.
Second, people are often
motivated to believe accounts of their own behavior that put them in the best
light. Third, people are often motivated to give explanations that make other
people think well of them. This includes giving explanations that they may not,
themselves, believe.
Blanchard did two
scientific studies that provided persuasive evidence that some autogynephilic
individuals are prone to denying autogynephilia. In the first study (#2), he
gave male gender patients the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale, which
measures the respondent's desire to exaggerate his own moral excellence and to
present a socially desirable facade. He also gave the subjects his 1985
Cross-Gender Fetishism Scale (which measures erotic arousal in association with
putting on women's clothes or make-up, or shaving the legs). For the
heterosexual subjects, the correlation between the two scales was -.48
(p=.001). Thus, among the heterosexual gender patients, social desirability
correlated with denial of fetishistic arousal. In other words, heterosexual
gender patients who were more concerned with positive self-presentation were
less likely to admit an erotic component to their cross-dressing.
In the second study (#3)
Blanchard studied cross-dressers who denied erotic arousal to cross-dressing.
He had them listen to audiotaped descriptions of cross-dressing, while he
measured their genital response (i.e., penile erections). These men did, in
fact, have erections while listening to these descriptions. (Technically, they
experienced an increase in penile blood volume, and did not typically get full
erections.) A control group of heterosexual men who were not cross-dressers did
not get erections while listening to the audiotapes. Blanchard concluded that
"only those causal hypotheses of heterosexual cross-dressing that also
account for the presence of fetishism need to be considered."
Why would some
autogynephilic individuals deny the erotic component of their motivation? There
are at least three reasons, corresponding with the three general reasons why we
cannot always accept people's explanations of their own behavior as accurate.
First, it is possible that autogynephilic individuals are often unaware of the
erotic nature of their motivation. Just as heterosexual men become less
strongly aroused by their wives with age and habituation, autogynephilic
arousal to relevant activity (e.g., cross-dressing) may diminish. Second, some
autogynephilic individuals find this erotic motivation shameful and
embarrassing. Third, some autogynephilic individuals may value the belief that
they are women trapped in men's bodies because this belief is more compatible
with their autogynephilic motivation. Autogynephilia, remember, is the sexual
and romantic desire for oneself as a woman. Someone with autogynephilia is
likely to find it more rewarding to believe that she is psychologically similar
to woman than to accept that she has become a woman to fulfill an erotic wish.
In this
section of my book I address self-presentational biases of autogynephilic
individuals.
Here is a section of Anne
Lawrence's website in which she addresses why transsexuals tend to avoid
discussing autogynephilia.
Even
if autogynephilic transsexuals exist, aren't they rare?
No. Every indication is
that autogynephilia is a common motivation for male-to-female transsexualism.
In a recent review by Anne
Lawrence of 11 studies with requisite data, the median percentage of
transsexuals who acknowledged a history of sexual arousal to cross-dressing (a
hallmark sign of autogynephilia) was 37%. In her large survey of SRS patients
of Dr. Toby Meltzer, Lawrence found that 86% of respondents had had at least
occasional autogynephilic arousal, and 49% had at least hundreds of episodes of
autogynephilic arousal. The percentages given so far have not excluded
homosxual transsexuals, in whom the rate of autogynephilia is expected to be
low. The percentage of nonhomosexual transsexuals with admitted autogynephilia
is very high. In a study by Blanchard (publication #4) the figure was 82%.
Because transsexuals sometimes falsely deny autogynephilic arousal, these
numbers are likely to be underestimates.
Might a third type of transsexual exist?
There is nothing
fundamental about the number two. There could well be three or more types of
male-to-female transsexuals. That remains for future research to discover. What
I have argued is that currently, there is very good reason to accept the
Blanchard theory that there are two very different types, and there is no persuasive
evidence for any other types. Furthermore, Blanchard's studies suggest that his
taxonomy captures most, if not all, transsexuals. The fact that some-to-many
transsexuals deny the validity of his ideas is not good evidence that the ideas
are incorrect.
What
about the Dutch brain studies?
A team of neuroscientists
from the Netherlands published a study which, they
suggested, showed that independent of sexual orientation, transsexuals had a
female-typical volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the
stria terminalis (BSTc). (The same group has studied other studies, some of
which have analyzed the same brains.) Although these studies are interesting,
they have serious limitations, and they are hardly sufficient evidence to
reject Blanchard's psychological studies. Read
a critique of the Dutch brain studies.
What is bad about autogynephilia?
Nothing.
To be sure, no matter what
causes or motivates it, transsexualism is a difficult condition, one that we
might wish people could avoid. But obviously, some are faced with the
transsexual dilemma, and autogynephilia is as acceptable a motive for
transsexualism as any other motive that exists or that I can imagine.
At one time, gender
patients with clear signs of autogynephilia were deemed inappropriate for SRS.
They were denigrated as "not true transsexuals." These practices were
harmful, hurtful, and wrong. Autogynephilic transsexuals are true transsexuals,
suffering every bit as much from gender dysphoria as homosexual transsexuals
do. Autogynephilic transsexuals tend to be about as happy as homosexual
male-to-female transsexuals with sex reassignment surgery. And both groups are
much happier, on average, after transitioning.
Is
my book bad for transsexuals?
In her initial foray from
her website Lynn Conway wrote: "This book will in time be viewed as very
analogous to the Nazi propaganda films about Jews in WWII. It paints
transsexual women as deviant, bizarre, pitiful figures and never shows the
diverse reality of our true lives."She characterized my book as
"transphobic" and wrote that the "book is transsexual women's
worst nightmare, and its image of transsexualism casts a dark shadow over the
entire transgender community."
These charges are
hysterical and false.
First of all, the ideas I
have written about in my book are scientifically supported, and correct, as far
as I can tell. At the time of this writing (5/05/03) nothing that Lynn Conway
and colleagues have written has substantively challenged the scientific quality
of Blanchard's work. Second, not only do I believe that there is nothing
inherently harmful in the ideas I have discussed, I actually believe that the
airing of these ideas will help transsexuals. I had the third section of the
book available on my homepage for several years, and more transsexuals wrote me
thanking me for writing it than who wrote me to complain. To see the diversity
of transsexual women's attitudes toward the idea of autogynephilia, see
testimonials at Anne Lawrence's webpage, here and here.
As I wrote in my book: True
acceptance of the transgendered requires that we truly understand who they are.
What
about the title and the cover?
Even transsexual women who
support my arguments have in some cases regretted the choice of the title and
the book cover art. I do not regret either. Only one-third of the book is about
transsexualism, per se, and only one chapter out of eleven is about
nonhomosexual transsexuals, who are the most aggrieved. Both the title and the
cover art refer to male femininity, in a humorous fashion. Male femininity is
what the book is about.
As an aside, the title and cover art also provide a link to the first section
of my book. This section focuses on feminine boys, and on the struggles faced
by adults who care about them. The first chapter opens with the story of a
little boy who likes to wear his mother's shoes–and to make believe he is a
princess.
The
campaign against my book and me (and my talk at Stanford)
(If you are visiting this
site because of interest in Joan Roughgarden's review of my talk at Stanford
University, then you will probably begin here. In order to understand the
context of the controversy, however, you'll need to look at this entire page, from the beginning.)
In her first web attack on
my book, Lynn Conway urged people to "Boycott this book." She also
provided a link to amazon.com
and asked people to write unfavorable reviews. (She did not urge people to read
the book first.) Conway's characterization of my book included several
outrageous and false accusations that seem designed to dissuade people from
looking at my book. Conway asked other transsexuals to
"join in" the fight, and they have.
Joan Roughgarden, who is a
transsexual biology professor at Stanford University, attempted to get me
uninvited from giving a talk to the Stanford Psychology Department. (So much
for open scientific debate.) When that attempt failed, she attended my talk and
wrote an insulting and scathing review
for the Stanford paper. The talk was not about transsexualism, per se, but
about sexual orientation and gender nonconformity. To say that I disagree with
Roughgarden's take on the lecture is an understatement, but I only want to
address two points.
First, regarding the tone
of the lecture, and my attitude toward gender nonconforming homosexual people:
I invite anyone who is concerned to read my book, The
Man Who Would Be Queen, particularly the first two sections, which are
most relevant. Any reasonable person will conclude that I am very sympathetic
to the plight of gender nonconforming boys, and that my research is intended to
illuminate gender nonconformity as a truly fascinating phenomenon. When some in
the Stanford audience giggled at some of the demonstrations in my talk (e.g.,
my playing the voices of gay and straight people), this was all in good humor.
A gay psychologist and sex researcher, James Cantor, wrote in response to
Roughgarden's screed:
"I have seen Bailey give this lecture before (at least,
an earlier version of it). Again, this was the one with several openly lesbian
women and gay men in the audience, including me. None of us felt at all
offended. What Roughgarden describes as laughter was actually an affectionate
recognition of the truth. Effeminate speech is much more common among
gay men than straight men, and telling the two extremes apart is like
night and day."
Second, it would not
surprise me if some gay or lesbian people in the audience were uncomfortable
with the talk. I have written about the discomfort that some gay men,
particularly, feel about linking male homosexuality and femininity (and this
link is a major idea in my book). I discuss gay men's
discomfort with the idea of gay femininity in my book. The fact is,
however, that this link is empirically well established and scientifically
interesting. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with feminine gay men. It is
the discomfort that some gay men feel with this association that is the
problem, not my ideas. And I would like everyone to become more comfortable
with male femininity
A presentation and book
signing at A Different Light bookstore in Los Angeles was cancelled "at
the request of many in the local transgendered community." I am certain
that more incidents such as this will occur, and that more criticism like
Roughgarden's and Conway's will be offered. So be it.
The controversy has already
consumed substantial time that I could be spending on new research, teaching,
and administration, and I cannot afford more time to respond to each new charge
made by Conway, Roughgarden, et al. Please feel free to send an email to me, however. I am
most likely to respond to comments that suggest a serious effort to understand
my arguments (especially by reading my book).