Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen

Autogynephilia in Women.
Has anyone read Charles Moser's paper claiming that autogynephilia occurs in women? "To test the possibility that natal women also experience autogynephilia, an Autogynephilia Scale for Women (ASW) was created from items used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic in other studies. A questionnaire that included the ASW was distributed to a sample of 51 professional women employed at an urban hospital; 29 completed questionnaires were returned for analysis. By the common definition of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93% of the respondents would be classified as autogynephilic. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19591032

If this is true does this not completely discredit Blanchard and Bailey? 75.84.159.117 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The unregistered user has also asked the same question at Talk:Feminine_essence_concept_of_transsexuality. Perhaps one location is sufficient.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not. It concerns both articles and perhaps many more, but different aspects. Since you watch both so very closely you can oversee, making sure there is no duplication of discussion. Perhaps cross posting by link relevant to this books article. 75.84.159.117 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The question was valid, if it is peer reviewed should it not be included in the controversy section on the book. The entire premise of this theory was that having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman was unique only to these MTF's.  No study was ever done on  women, men or FTM's to this point. 93% of the regular  women being tested coming out autogynephilic is an amazing blow against the entire theory and needs to be included. This information is from 2011, why is it not included?76.93.64.21 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the point stands as a counter point to the books conclusions. A new section should be created citing Moser's published  article demonstrating the alleged"  affliction occurs in women. Are there any disagreements with this ? 24.24.142.155 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Man Who Would be Queen
The piece clearly violates the policy of a neutral point of view. It is strongly slanted in favor of Bailey and against his critics. The slant is obvious, which may make it less dangerous in encouraging the enemies of queers. But some readers are naive, and need the policy of neutrality to be enforced.

Deirdre McCloskey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.185.221 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Folks interested in the above comment would likely want to know of Dr. McCloskey's long-standing campaign against the book and filing of charges against its author.
 * Excerpted from http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/12/when-liberals-attack-social-science.html:
 * "Before the full weight of the controversy descended, The Man Who Would Be Queen had been nominated for the Lambda Literary Award’s 2004 prize in the transgender/genderqueer category for its textured, supportive portrayal of its transgender subjects. As a result of immense pressure — Deirdre McCloskey, a respected scholar of economics and history who wrote a memoir about her male-to-female transition, and who helped Conway and James go after Bailey, said nominating the book for the award “would be like nominating Mein Kampf for a literary prize in Jewish studies” — the organization voted to yank the nomination."
 * "To get a flavor of the quality of the evidence amassed against Bailey by his critics, consider one charge: that Bailey had practiced psychology without a license. Conway, James, and McCloskey filed a formal complaint with the state of Illinois claiming that, since Bailey lacked a license as a clinical psychologist, he had violated state regulations by writing those letters in support of the young trans women seeking to transition. Not only was there no legal basis to the claim — if you don’t receive compensation for your services, which Bailey didn’t, you don’t even need a license to provide counseling in Illinois — but Bailey was completely forthright in his letters supporting the women, both about the fact that he had only had brief conversations with them (as opposed to having provided them with extensive counseling) and about his own qualifications and expertise — he even attached copies of his CV. “Presumably all this was why [Illinois] never bothered to pursue the charge,” writes Dreger, “although you’d never know that from reading the press accounts, which mentioned only the complaints, not that they had petered out.”"
 * — James Cantor (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Readers please note that James Cantor is a completely bias source, a cohort of Dr Bailey  and an advocate pushing Baileys ridiculous theories. This article is now completely compromised and worthless. Dr Bailey might as well have written it himself172.115.128.79 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I also want to add that Bailey's book is not considered as a "textured, supportive portrayal of its transgender subjects" by transgender people. For example, deconstruction's of the book's science and ideas have been put out by Contrapoints and iconic author Imogen Binnie - both of whom are trans, and could be considered as valid representatives of the community view Ninquelosse (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of SPLC report about J. Michael Baily and The Man Who Would Be Queen
This has happened a number of times now, and we all know why: association with HBD looks bad to some people. But that is not a good reason to delete well-sourced materials from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC is one of Wikipedia's perennial sources, and reports reliably for hate groups and anti-LGBT activities. The materials are directly relevant to the positive reviews cited in the article, because as the SPLC report notes, many of those reviews were done by members associated with HBD. Trying to constantly remove that link and delete it with silly claims about it being WP:COATRACK when the report is directly addressing the book that this article is about, is an abuse of the editing process. Hist9600 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that this report should go in the article: Dreger directly mentions it in her article about criticism of the book, so obviously it's relevant to the article and not a WP:COATRACK. Outside that context, I'd have some serious qualms about sourcing BLP material to a single source, even a reliable source, but since the important details have been confirmed by Bailey's side of the controversy that makes me lean much more on the side of including it. Loki (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily have an issue with the sentence In December 2003, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported that many of the early supporters of Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, were members of the Human Biodiversity Institute  because it seems to me that it's at least kind of relevant. Contrary to 's edit summary here, I didn't remove that part. Nevertheless, I agree with  that the rest of the paragraph, at the very least, is WP:COATRACK. It's irrelevant and takes up circa 1/3 of the section about positive reactions. Antiok 1pie (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Antiok 1pie I can see what you mean about the length of the paragraph before your edit, and unnecessary amount of detail. The shortened version better fits the article. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My concern is largely two parts. The first is much of this section is sourced to the SPLC and we need to be careful how the views of an advocacy group are used.  Second, this all appears largely undue.  It's a combination of coatrack and simply not sufficiently associated with this article's subject to merit inclusion here.  Starting with the SPLC part.  The RSP entry notes that we need to be careful when deciding how much weight to give SPLC claims.  Are their any 3rd party sources that mention the opinions/views of the SPLC here?  If yes they I will retract most of my concerns.  If something is going to be purely cited to the SPLC we really need to make sure it's either a generalized attributed claim or very clearly significant to the primary topic.  In this case it's not a critique of the book, rather a critique of some people who liked the book based on, presumably, the contents of the book.  That seems like a very weak justification for inclusion here.  Again, it's not about the book but it does suggest some level of guilt by association.  Once that basic link is made, as  noted the rest of the paragraph diverts from talking about the book and starts talking about HBD.  At that point it is a coatrack, especially since it starts listing names etc.  I will also note, the section reads like it was meant to be in a different article.  For example, why say, "...supporters of Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, were..."  Isn't the subject of this article The Man Who Would Be Queen?  Why mention it as if we were talking about several books and several authors?  Citation #25 is an AOL link.  The rest of this seems like way to much to leave to just the views of the SPLC.  While two books are referenced, they seem to only be there to say what HBD is.  The links between the Baily and HBD are sourced to SPLC and an AOL link.  Given the claims that HBD is, "pseudoscientific race theories and neo-eugenics under the euphemism "human biodiversity"" this becomes a BLP issue and thus needs stronger sourcing.  I don't think it's due but a revised version of the first sentence might be OK or will be if a third party source can be found.  The rest is a HBD coatrack and should be included.  Springee (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The AOL citation is a primary source supporting the SPLC citation. It's not needed. The rest of your objection is basically saying we can't provide context for the book. If you think it's being given undue weight, there are other options than deleting the whole 'graph. The SPLC is a perennial source, you don't really have a leg to stand on as far as deleting all references to it. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree but the reduced paragraph is probably an acceptable compromise Springee (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "For example, why say, "...supporters of Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, were...""


 * That's part of the point. According to the SPLC, many of the prominent positive reviews for the book were authored by people who were involved in the same HBD group as J. Michael Bailey. They were effectively helping to promote his book. The Wikipedia article uncritically quotes some of those positive reviewers. Giving some context is appropriate to point out their affiliation. The roster of HBDG members helps provide some details about that context, for interested readers. But it is not strictly necessary, since the statements are otherwise still well-sourced. Hist9600 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hist9600 @Antiok 1pie I restored to the version that's just one sentence about the SPLC. As it is now, I think it should be reworded and maybe given another sentence to explain what the HBI is, and why this is relevant. As it is now, readers can gain the context from clicking on the blue link to the HBI article. That can be improved, we just don't want too much overlap between this article and the HBI one.
 * I also removed the weird long block quotes. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Block quotes from the book might be a good laugh tho. I won't object to that. The quotes pulled in the Seed magazine article are incredible stuff. /s Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and attention in cleaning up the article, including some of the other parts. Hist9600 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No objections. Good job on cleaning up the massive blockquotes too. Antiok 1pie (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Emphasis on Alice Dreger
There are two citations used a total of 11 times. One of the citations is to the "Archives of Sexual Behavior," which looks pretty plainly like a junk journal to me (editorial board full of people promoting a fringe theory). I don't think there will be consensus for removing the reference entirely. Still, I think this article is clearly relying too heavily on Dreger's defense of the work. Mentions should be trimmed, and better sources should be used where possible. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Archives of Sexual Behavior isn't junk, it actually has a quite good impact factor. Regarding the citation itself, most of the sentences where Dreger is cited seem to be uncontroversial and on the "Negative reactions" section. If you insist though, I guess we could cite her sources instead. Antiok 1pie (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed that Alice Dreger should not be used too much, to follow WP:DUE. In some cases it depends on what type of statement is being made. If the statements are uncontroversial statements of fact, that is one thing. But if we are heavily relying on Dreger to frame the narrative, that would represent undue weight. Hist9600 (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)