Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen/Archive 14

WhatamIdoing reversions
Stop reverting things you haven't discussed. I put up the arguments for Mosers verification, left them for people to debate and when there was no debate I place the appropriate tags and sections. If you can't discuss then leave. This isn't your article alone. Writing a fake Moser "verification failure" tag when it has been verified should be enough to have you blocked. Moser clearly said "Did she (Dreger) find anything but a small group of women who felt that this popular book was a threat and let their displeasure be known quite loudly?" THAT IS NOT SUPPRESSION! That is, and was, Mr Bailiey's intention, to be controversial and mean spirited to silence his critics. Moser contradicts EVERYTHING Dreger says and will be used to balance a bias, one sided article. Either you remove the Dreger references or accept the opposing opinion as balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Moser doesn't reject "EVERYTHING Dreger says"; that's you personal interpretation, unsupported by the citation you keep adding to the lead. The issue was discussed in the section above. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Moser said that the issue of Academic Freedom was greatly exaggerated, that all Dreger found was 3 women speaking out loudly. It's not personal at all, it's his assessment. Saying Dreger and Bailey were attacked unfairly has nothing to do "suppression". That is an act where attempts are made to repress publication or the distribution. By all accounts according to Moser Bailey INTENTIONALLY made it controversial and attacked his critics calling them liars if they disagreed to provoke a reaction. Can one claim to be a victim of something they intentionally caused ? How can you include a quote from Bailey saying people attempted to suppress the book when there is nothing but name calling ? Where is the act of suppression ?


 * I agreee with Tijfo; the Moser piece does not say what the IP alleges it says. The theme of Moser's letter is that not only was Bailey harassed because of his subject matter, Moser himself has been harassed, and so has every significant sexologist in history.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Being harassed isn't suppression. Everyone who puts out theories is beset by critics! How does that become suppression? You are taking the process of debate and claiming suppression from the heated process of debate.

My opinion was asked for
I've read the article being referred to, in full, and just to confirm my view, I'm looking at it as I write this. The statements just above by 98. are not the way I read it. That Moser himself was harassed is mentioned, but just to  indicate the general tone of the field) The theme of the article, quoting first from near  the beginning of it:


 * "I believe they [Dreger. Bailey, Blanchard, and Lawrence] are good and honest people, trying to find answers to basic sex and gender questions and how to help people with these concerns..... I do believe they are profoundly wrong in the case of Autogynephilia. From my interactions with Bailey, I do not believe he is homophobic, heterosexist, sexist, or transphobic. Nevertheless, from his writings and statements, I understand how someone could come to the opposite conclusion."
 * "I do not believe that Bailey, Dreger, or any researcher should be the recipient of the treatment [by Conway, James, or McCloskey] outlined in [Dreger's article] " and now from near the end:
 * " Bailey surely did not deserve the treatment outlined in the article, but his attitude, actions, and responses are partially responsible for the escalation of the controversy


 * "...the allegations [agaoinst Dreger] were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct"

I do not think it was used incorrectly, though I would have worded it differently. I do not think it should have been used in the lede, but just in the text. I will be glad to mail anyone who wants the text of the commentary, "A Different Perspective" by Charles Moser Archives of Sexual Behavior (2008) 37:472–475 DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9331-3 and also of Dreger's longer article to which it refers. "The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age" by Alice D. Dreger Archives of Sexual Behavior Volume 37, Number 3, 366-421, DOI: 10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1. I continue to think that in all this discussion  many editors have used those of the sources that try to give a fair evaluation, by selecting out from the source them say what that party from the debate wishes them to have said. I do not think it is conscious deceit in any sense--I think that those with a strong view tend to read such  articles looking for the parts that will confirm their own opinion. (I could say similar about the RW debate also. As Dreger & Moser both correctly emphasize, it's not about the science, but the self-validation.)  DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Allegations against Dreger? Is that a typo?
 * It's my impression that the allegations in this sentence refer to things like whether Bailey wrote a book based on interviews with transwomen—a statement that is "basically true", even "undeniably true", but not "formal misconduct" because 'talking to people in a bar' was determined to be journalism, not proper academic research.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the allegations referred by Moser in that sentence are certainly those against Bailey. But, to the main point, I think what DGG is trying to say is that Moser's letter overall rejects Bailey's claims in several ways, ergo it can be used as citation to refute Bailey in the lead. Is that what you're trying to say DGG? Tijfo098 (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The statement being made in the lead amounted to something like, "Bailey says he was harassed to suppress Blanchard's ideas,  but other people say that Bailey was harassed for some other purpose."
 * I don't think that Moser's disagreement over whether Blanchard's ideas are accurate tells us anything about what Moser thinks the point of legal complaints, attacks on Bailey's family, etc. was. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there are two issues here: So, I don't see how either of these issues can be used to justify contrasting the first issue from Bailey's newspaper article with Moser's letter, even though the citation was reinstated today. On the other hand, if it's desirable to say that he slept with some of the subjects of the book, that would be okay with me, because the misconduct/investigation part is rather vague in the lead. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bailey says that criticism of him (widely construed to include filing charges, but not restricted to that) was intended to suppress his scientific ideas (which technically aren't even his, but let's not get into that). Moser's letter doesn't directly reject this, but just says this is not an unusual occurrence in sex sciences, and provides other examples where this happened.
 * Bailey seems to admit that he slept with some of the transsexuals he wrote about in his book. The official inquiry did not find this complaint to be formally actionable. Moser says the same thing with his "allegation were basically true...; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct". So, I don't see a disagreement between them on this point either.


 * If memory serves, Bailey rather explicitly said that he didn't sleep with JMS, and provided Dreger and others with proof that he was elsewhere on the night of the alleged incident. So I don't think we can say that Bailey "admit[ted] that he slept with some of the transsexuals"; if we were going to comment on that at all, I think we would have to say that he directly denied doing any such thing.
 * I believe that Moser's "allegations" refer to other things: that Bailey wrote SRS-related letters for TS people (for free) in which accurately identified himself as a professor of psychology, and that Bailey interviewed people and wrote a book about what he learned in the interviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It can be said Bailey practiced without a license, writing letters he did not have the authority to write by law. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Darlie's changes

 * Saying Bailey provided proof of anything is irrelevant since Dreger  has no authority  nor was she charged by any person or academic body to investigate this issue. There were not two sides represented in Dregers article, just Baileys . It becomes opinion rather than a resolution.  Moser even states Dreger has a bias and not in the position to be judge on the subject. It doesn't matter whether Bailey slept with anyone or not. There is no explanation of the IRB requirements and  the charges of misconduct stem directly from the publishers misrepresentation of the book as hard science. That is the basis of the the formal accusations and without that fact, Bailey needing IRB sanction,  there never would have been an issue.  To say that is a personal attack or even suppression is adding meaning to what otherwise is the enforcement of RRB rules. Is that not correct ?  (An explanation to the reader should be provided.)

Now Tijfo098, you made some good points. Bailey's theory wasn't his, if that was the intention than the three women should have a history of trying to suppress Blanchard correct ? If Blanchard's theory was their target that must be the case, but it isn't. These women made specific reference to Baileys conduct, his actions and not the theory and Northwestern accepted it as a premise for an investigation. There is a red herring here, the charges were about Baileys conduct, not the suppression of anything. The book got published, it was peer reviewed ? Where was the "suppression" ? Where ? Mosers point that the criticism of Bailey WAS NORMAL and in his case caused by his own mean spirited accusations. I'm trying to understand where suppression comes in here ? Explain to me how charges against Bailey were intended to suppress the book ? If anything it put the book on the radar and got it far great exposure than it deserved since it is purely trading off someone elses research ! From the beginning the charges of suppression have been coming off like some engineered controversy to try and sell books and Moser even points to that:

"To call a transsexual who denies Autogynephilia vigorously autogynephilic or an autogynephile-in-denial is also inflammatory and inappropriate. One can convey the same point with more cautious language. In general, researchers should avoid inciting hostility from their subjects. Stating that a subject is in denial or misleading the researcher usually leads to an angry reaction. Ridiculing someone for their beliefs, religious, political, or gender identification is never a good strategy. Ignoring these common courtesies will probably lead to an ugly confrontation, such as this “controversy.” Being a researcher does not confer immunity from the consequences of incivility. "-Moser

You cannot ignore Moser and push Dregers POV (and there is no one who is validating her personal findings ).There was never any counter charges or compensation based on Dregers report. None. You can either have both or have none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Moser says that criticism is normal, in the sense of something that commonly happens. Moser does not say that all of the particular expressions of criticism were either normal or common.  For example, Moser does not say that it is normal for critics to try to have their opponents put in jail for practicing psychology without a license.  Moser does not say that it is normal for critics to publicly humiliate their opponents' children.  Nor, notably, does Moser say that any of this is good:  He objects to this type of behavior, whether it is applied to Bailey, or to himself, or to anyone else.
 * Your changes are consistently removed as violations of Wikipedia's major content policies. You need to stop editing this article until you can demonstrate that some editor other than yourself supports the specific changes you want to make.  I suggest that you create a new section and paste in the current text of a paragraph that you want to change, followed by the exact words and sources that you want it to become.  Then wait for someone else to say that they support your changes.  If no one does, then those changes should not be made.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

DDG just did support it saying that there was reason to conclude that issues of suppression were disputed. If Bailey ended up in jail it would have been because he was practicing without a license, it had nothing to do with suppressing his book or his research. THe law says you must have license from the state. . Moser does not call any of the satire or actions taken against Bailey "suppression" and in fact says that cries of  the loss Academic Freedom were greatly exaggerated. They are not violations and in fact are sourced directly from all the articles YOU CITE! You are a bias editor and we will continue to disagree. Your reversions are done without any respect for te material or quotes. Blindly and with prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Darlie, let's take an easy one: Please show me the published reliable source that says Carey's article in the New York Times was only about Dreger's paper.  You keep changing that sentence to say that Carey was writing about Dreger's paper rather than about the scandal, so you need to provide a reliable source that says Carey was writing about Dreger's paper rather than about what Carey calls "academic feuds" in his first sentence.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you, here we are in a new year 2011. I will make it easy for both of us. Dreger wrote the only paper on it, Dreger is the only one of his peers quoted AND NOT ONE SINGLE OTHER BAILEY "SUPPORTER" is named by name. How is that my dear? You have a reporter ONLY quoting one source outside of the good doctor and EVERY SINGLE other person quoted disputes Dr Bailey and the loss of academic freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictures (again)
I've deleted a citation to Carey's article, because as currently written the paragraph does not quite reflect what Carey wrote on this, which is:

[Conway's] site also included a link to the Web page of another critic of Dr. Bailey’s book, Andrea James, a Los Angeles-based transgender advocate and consultant. Ms. James downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided. (Dr. Bailey is a divorced father of two.) Ms. James said in an e-mail message that Dr. Bailey’s work exploited vulnerable people, especially children, and that her response echoed his disrespect.

Carey doesn't give the examples which have been added, nor does he himself assert a relation between the book contents and the quotes. He attributes the link to James, but she is cited directly for that in the wiki article. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The "For example" sentence was a recent bit of WP:Original research by the IP. The relevance of that quotation isn't supported by any reliable source that I've seen.  I've returned it to your previous version.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pondering whether that issue should be removed from this article altogether. It seems like a minor incident compared to the filing of charges, etc., but seems to be a WP:COATRACK magnet. We almost have here a much coverage of this incident as the secondary sources have, which seem to be a paragraph at the most (for comparison see Chronicle quote in the section above), and we're supposed to summarize, so it verges on being WP:UNDUE. For comparison, the article on Alan Dershowitz was recently preened of small spats like this, of which it was full of (and some of the spats involving him were the subject of standalone NYT articles, like when he accused AJC leaders of "sycophantic behavior"). Tijfo098 (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the previous paragraph in Carey's article says: But by the end of 2003, the controversy had a life of its own on the Internet. Dr. Conway, the computer scientist, kept a running chronicle of the accusations against Dr. Bailey on her Web site. Any Google search of Dr. Bailey’s name brought up Dr. Conway’s site near the top of the list. So, it seems that Conway’s site played a more important (even if less shocking) role in this "cyberwar", although her site is not even mentioned in the wiki article. Perhaps we should summarize all this stuff as "Conway and James also used their web sites to attack Bailey". Tijfo098 (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there sourced support for the leap from "kept a running chronicle of the accusations against Dr. Bailey on her Web site" to "used their web sites to attack Bailey"? Dicklyon (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please propose a wording you find more appropriate, while maintaining conciseness. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that increased concision is necessarily the most important goal here; we're only talking about two sentences here. I'm concerned that naming Conway's website in the same paragraph as James' "satire" would smear Conway by association.  James wrote things like "There are two kinds of children in the Bailey household:  those who have been sodomized by the father, and those who haven't."  Conway was (is, I assume) very passionately opposed to Blanchard's idea and the publicity Bailey's book gave it—no one would mistake Conway's website for a balance, unbiased source—but IMO the two really should be treated separately.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * To include Conway's articles as an "attack" site you would have to include Dregers responses online as "attack site". There is quite a bit of prejudice in the insinuation that criticism is an attack. Debate in this case should have been the norm but for some reason this article treats it as an attack. I also think the fact you recognize the fact James was satirizing  Baily's approach betrays that you knew it all along and that including it as some kind of serious assault on Baileys children was untrue. I'm not sure why  you withheld that portrayal of James but  totally agree . It was satire. Rather than an attack it was a protected right. Was James ever charged with anything ? No. Why?98.149.114.34 (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation request
I think we need someone to coordinate discussion here and help us reach a consensus rather than perpetuate a slow-motion edit war paralleled by repetitively raising the same arguments here, so I've requested mediation at Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Loss of Academic Freedom
Source this incredibly huge accusation beyond Alice Dreger just saying it or remove it. Show some kind of actual attempt to suppress the actual theory. Even the NYT's article uses only ONE NAMED SOURCE, Alice Dreger, and the only thing they have is DR Bailey being properly brought up on misconduct charges. There is absolutely nothing beyond that one person saying that there was "a loss of academic freedom". No other papers, no other sources, no other claims. In fact ,it is disputed by just about everyone but you created a closing statement to summarize an issue THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST! This is the most blatant kind of POV pushing. The facts. The theory wasn't Baileys, it was Blanchard's and he never made claims of it being suppressed. If this was about the theory being suppressed, why not? Yet you claim this is about suppressing a theory, a theory that till Bailey commented on it was apparently garnered no controversy or claims of suppression at all. Baileys own conduct got him in trouble and that it had nothing to do with suppressing anything. Charles Moser even said it was Baileys own attitude and calling anyone who denies his assertions on Blnchard's theory "a liar" and/or autogynephilic" that caused the controversy in the first place but that isn't included for rebuttal even though it is JUST AS CREDIBLE as Dregers assertions.

You have biased the article from the beginning as some sort of pseudo defense for Michael Bailey and justified his misconduct through accusations of a conspiracy to suppress. His lack of a license, his pushing the book as science that invoked IRB rules, his treatment of the people interviewed, his accusations against anyone who denied his observations was what caused everything that happened to him. Everything. The book was published, peer reviewed, critiqued and absolutely nothing was done to stop it.

You want to stop us warring, do this. Remove anything opinion, focus on the book and not Dr Bailey, that was what this article was about. None of this should ever have been included. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Explain Baileys theory suppression
Recognizing that it was not even Baileys theory but Blanchard's, which apparently no one bothered to try to suppress when Blanchard stated it. How odd! Please show where was it not published, what was done to restrict publication? The entire section of "Academic Freedom" is completely contrived with no basis for actual suppression other than a desire to pretend there was for attention. Bailey illegally handing out letters in a state that he did not have a license in was what got him in trouble and there is no evidence anywhere that it was anything but Baileys own careless disregard and attention hunger that got him in the trouble he was in. Now you asked this question:

"Please show me the published reliable source that says Carey's article in the New York Times was only about Dreger's paper."

to which I responded:

"I will make it easy for both of us. Dreger wrote the only paper on it, Dreger is the only one of his peers quoted AND NOT ONE SINGLE OTHER BAILEY "SUPPORTER" is named by name. How is that my dear? You have a reporter ONLY quoting one source outside of the good doctor and EVERY SINGLE other person quoted disputes Dr Bailey and the loss of academic freedom."

What ? No reply ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Listen, we've explained this to you over and over and over. I'm sorry that you are incapable of hearing the explanation.  Please stop your edit warring and POV pushing.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We? Who is "we" ? You are the only editor arguing. Oh really, perhaps you could copy that explanation here. I mean, you have done it so many times before I'm sure it's handy98.149.114.34 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's in the archives. Go read it.
 * Importantly, the fact that the efforts to discredit and suppress the idea didn't happen to work does not change the fact that it was attempted. I am sure, for example, that Jokestress will tell you that they weren't trying to promote this idea when they tried to get Bailey fired, disgraced, and put in jail.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In other words you have absolutely nothing that proves a conspiracy to suppress. There is nothing in the archives, no sourced material. I've let you include Dregers amatuer investigation only because it was mentioned as the only source in the Carey NY Times article.  No, "attempted" is an interpretation, a POV, not a fact. They tried no such thing and you have nothing of  sourced material that proves they  did. Please show that Blanchard was himself repressed to prove this was about the theory. That would at leas  lend itself to your POV pushing.98.149.114.34 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw the note at the Village Pump about this article at  I've looked in from time to time previously. I'm about as uninvolved in the actual issues as possible & have no allegiances with anyone.   Broadly speaking, I think WhatamIdoing's version is by far the more neutral, and I think his revised introduction is definitely clearer and better, except that if the cite by Bailey is used in the intro, I would also include " though others reject this assessment. " Saying there's disagreement about it seems reasonable to me.  (I've said earlier that I think they should be used, but preferably not in the lede, but it's important that  they should both be used regardless) Otherwise, WAID, I urge you to restore any material altered by 98, I'd do it myself except that I think you can catch it more accurately. 98, If you revert this, this is a formal warning that I shall block you for repeatedly inserting negative poorly sourced BLP material.  This   has gone on here much  too long. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the war is over.     DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have reverted it except WAID has ignored your call to leave the  Charles Moser quote. Please point to me what is poorly sourced since the entire article is sourced from exactly the same sources. I did nothing but inclued MORE of the articles quoted. I disagree that you are uninvolved. I'm happy t be the victim if you haven't the time or energy to be specific. I disagee that WAIDS version is in anyway anything but POV pushing. If this were merely about the book I would be happy to remove anything that "disagrees" with  WAIDS conclusion but as it stands without balance it is an entirely imbalanced using one source, Dreger, to validate a case of Acedemic Freedom which has not only not been proved but seems all but invisible beyond WAIDS accusations.98.149.114.34 (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I haven't written any material recently: I've just been reverting to whatever the pre-POV pushing version was.  If I had to guess, the improvements should probably be credited to Kim van der Linde or Tifjo.
 * The problem (discussed extensively here) with "though others reject this assessment" is that—through repeated trips to RSN—Moser was deemed a basically self-published primary source (on par with a letter to the editor in your local newspaper), and that he's not actually an expert on the varied motivations of Bailey's detractors, and so is an unreliable source for that claim. The detractors have not been able to produce a reliable source denying that motivation or attributing strictly high-minded reasons for it.


 * So in other words, you without question you accept Dreger's personal arguments but see any peer who disagrees  , including Moser , as not being a proper sourced ? DGG, is that "neutral" Hmmm ?  Explain that to me please. I find that incredibly convenient that Moser can be quoted in one part and not the other. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, IMO citing Moser for such a statement gives people an inaccurate idea of Moser's actual opinion, because he directly deplores the tactics used and (if memory serves) never actually says that suppressing the idea wasn't the point of the attacks. He does say that the detractors failed to destroy academic freedom, but Moser doesn't say that the detractors didn't intend to interfere with Bailey's academic freedom (i.e., the actual complaint Bailey made).  (Moser's main point about the scandal is that Bailey is only the latest in a long string of sexologists to be publicly vilified for failing to toe the socially sanctioned story line; his main point about Blanchard's theory is that Moser's (apparently) secret theory on transsexuality is better than Blanchard's published theory.)  And, actually, some of the participants in the attacks have said that suppressing the ideas was one of the goals, as less publicity for the ideas naturally meant less likelihood of social and political damage.  So while doubtless some people did not mean to suppress the ideas themselves, I don't think that anyone is comfortable saying that no one among the detractors wanted to suppress the ideas.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Show in any way any of the " participants in the attacks have said that suppressing the ideas was one of the goals" ? Show us that in any way! DGG , you don't see this unsourced "opinion as" bias ? I dispute this entirely.
 * Deploring the tactics does not prove suppression WAID. What you are doing is saying Moser ( the person you don't think i a good source) supports your argument and he doesn't. Now DGG, you have made threats t block m for reverting and this has been the first discussion that actually was any kind of debate beyond "We told you, go look it up in the archives " when this group doesn't discuss. My edits from beginning to end were reverted without discussion or debate. I have offered to comply when WAID complies and he has not. If you do it will add nothing but an imbalanced opinion to edit the article. I will compromise to an unbiased opinion.98.149.114.34 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And last for DGG. I have wasted untold hours searching for anything that proves that WAID was correct. You can block me for disagreeing but I will ask that while I am blocked you find any sourced articles proving that this theory was in any way suppressed. Not rumors or anonymous quotes but actual suppression, where publication was halted delayed, kept out of libraries by the claimed participants. If you can't then it is a violation of "Do no harm". Myself I would love to remove all controversy and let it be about the book itself. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the article in its current version
Note: I'm focussing on this article's presentation of the contents of this book, not on the contents of the book.

What I found missing in this article is an explanation of exactly what his critics objected to in this book. I have a sense that they may have exceeded the norms for "academic freedom" in some way -- did someone demand he be fired or the book be suppressed? -- but little more than the book is somehow controversial, possibly because of an emotional response rather than a rational one. (I'm either reading between the lines -- or reading into them.) Reading the version I've linked to above, Bailey's thesis is explained clearly & appears, at first glance, to be logically consistent to someone who knows little about the subject -- like me. As a result, I cannot determine whether their criticism is that he made mistakes in his research, or analyzing his findings, or if they just object that his assertions don't conform to whatever beliefs they have about human sexuality.

And FWIW, part of the controversy over this book appears to be bubbling over to J. Michael Bailey: the section there about this book repeats at length, & almost word-for-word, the criticisms of this controversial book. I would expect the discussion there to be more focussed on how the book fit into his career or his history of researching sex. -- llywrch (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the last one: Bailey's assertions don't conform to their beliefs.
 * There have been some complaints about research methodology, but that is basically a side show: The book is not, itself, a work of science; it does not present original experiments.  It's a pop sci description of the dominant theories on femininity in males.  The majority of complaints are basically "You hurt my community when you say that in public", combined with "My personal beliefs about my own psychology are different from what the sex researchers say" (which is likely to be true about anyone).  As far as we can tell, the only person who has published 'scientific' complaints about the research is a determinedly anonymous person who claims to be a transwoman and (if memory serves) a grad student in an unrelated area of psychology.


 * If the article isn't doing a good job of it, here's a quick summary of the scandal:
 * The critics attempted to have the book suppressed through complaints to the publisher. They arranged for it to be panned in reviews and withdrawn from consideration for awards.  Some of the horror seems to be that lay readers might actually read and understand the book, and think that since a respected academic press published it, then it must be True™.
 * The critics tried to get Bailey (a tenured university professor) fired. They claimed that chatting with people in bars about their life histories was conducting IRB-qualified research (official ruling:  oral histories aren't sufficiently systematic to be IRB-qualifed research), which would require written informed consent.  Then they said that he had sex with one of these alleged research subjects (a prostitute), which would (or at least could) be abuse of a research subject.  Oh, and four transwomen claimed to be defamed by the book, when only two were actually described in it, and they all claimed to be surprised by it and to have never consented to any of it, despite in some cases having actually read and discussed the proofs with Bailey and sending e-mail messages saying the opposite.  (The actual surprise appears to be their discovery that their earnest assertions that they really were true women trapped in men's bodies, and that sex had nothing at all to do with it, didn't convince him that Blanchard's approach was wrong.)
 * The critics also tried to get Bailey convicted of a class B misdemeanor for practicing psychology without a license, whose sentence includes up to six months in jail. The complaint here is that he wrote letters that accurately identified his job title.  The legal system rejected the complaint as meritless (he never charged money for any letters, and under US law, all professors of psychology are legally permitted to describe themselves as psychologists, even if they don't have licenses to practice clinical psychology).
 * The critics also harassed his family and supporters. One person, for example, posted the names and school pictures of his children with obscene captions.  Several police reports were filed about threatening communications.  Other researchers reported being told not to apply for grants or show any connection to Bailey.  Others were apparently quietly encouraged to find other areas of research, to avoid coming up with the "wrong" answers.
 * Some of the responses were certainly reasonable reactions: Saying that you think Blanchard's idea is entirely wrong is not only just fine, but actually desirable.  Telling Bailey that you think he's a jerk for publicly disagreeing with your self-conceptualization is probably okay.  But other things, like humiliating someone's kids or hinting to researchers that they should only communicate politically favorable findings if they don't want their own families to be similarly attacked, is not the sort of behavior that decent society accepts.
 * If we're not communicating that, please tell me which pieces are missing or unclear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is it when I explain what I want to see in an article, instead of making the expected fixes to it, they respond to my criticism on the Talk page? (This is the third time I've encountered this response, so I'm beginning to wonder if I need to express my criticism in a different way so the material I'm expecting appears in the article -- not on the talk page.) Should I be more explicit by concluding my criticism with something along the lines of "Please rewrite the article to address these concerns -- don't answer me here"? -- llywrch (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Two reasons:
 * It seems to me that all of what I outlined above is (more or less) present in the article. So I don't understand what's "missing" and therefore what you think needs to be added.
 * Changes to the article usually produce a long series of specious complaints and nearly endless haggling over any little word that might present the mainstream/academic view as being the mainstream view, rather than as a widely disputed view, or as implying that not all of our editors—the article names some Wikipedians and friends of Wikipedians on the critics' side—have behaved with perfect rectitude in the real world. In short, while I could improve the article, the cost is probably half a day's work on the article, to be followed by three months' of fielding nasty comments and responding to half-truths at various levels of dispute resolution, most of which will once again be ignored by the wider community. At the end of which, by the way, we'll still have the above editor decide that it's all wrong because it doesn't anoint her friends as saints and doesn't demonize the researchers, and so it will all get reverted.  Three months of pain for no net benefit doesn't seem worthwhile to me.  If you want to have a go at it, though, please be my guest.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course work put into the article by any one else but WAID is not counted as effort. "Demonize the researchers", "Make her friends come off as saints". WAID ,  are you making accusations against me ? Does that seem "a personal attack " to you Llywrch ?  You claim that Bailey was suppressed but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THIS THEORY OR THE BOOK WAS SUPPRESSED! Please! Why wasn't Blanchard, the originator of the theory repressed! After months of repeatedly asking PROVIDE THE SOURCES ! 'm just as tired as you are of this entire thing. The phantom suppression that no one can see! Show me where it happened! The editor who turned it down, the publisher who refused to print it because of pressure. You have taken common academic criticism and made it into some ridiculous and melodramatic myth that never even happened. I challenge you totally to show any proof of the famous "chilling effect" it was supposed to have!  Anyone saying "I decided noyt to use my 50,000 dollar research grant after DR Bailey was attacked"! It's nonsense and if there was he slightest bit of proof I would back off  but right now, this second, what you are putting in this article is he said/she said opinion. And last what WAID means when he says "friends" is that I am transsexual. It's called prejudice WAID. You know, black people stick together, transsexuals all sick together. How am I supposed to reply to that? I've done nothing but balance this article. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * By "friends" I mean "friends", as in friend.
 * I am not sure that you will be capable of understanding this, but the article does not say that the critics were successful at suppressing Blanchard's theory. It says that Bailey said they tried to suppress the theory.  The distinction between "actual results" and "intention" is important.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh really ? Who were "my friends" ? Name them. Of course I can understand, you are admitting that there was no actual suppression, just an attempt in yours and Dr Baileys "opinion". Hopefully you can understand this. Dr Bailey's POV on his critics shouldn't be included in this article unless you are willing toallow balance. It has nothing to do with the book. I know, you're out to try the case publicly of an "attempt to suppress"  but again, and I hope you understand this, there was no attempt as "suppression", no matter how Baileys critics poked holes in his academic career NOT ONE THING YOU HAVE SAID WAS EVER CAPABLE OF SUPPRESSING THE ALREADY PUBLIC THEORY OF BLANCHARD'S.  Everything you have said, everything you  and Dr Bailey  point at claims was to suppress a "theory" yet absolutely none of it could have. Do you understand ? Even if Bailey was fired and found guilty of child molestation the theory, which was Blanchard's was untouched. There was no attempt at suppression of the theory.98.149.114.34 (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I, too, am coming to this article by way of the village pump. As I read the article, I made a few minor copy edits for clarity--nothing (I trust) controversial. I know little about this subject and have no personal stake in the issues involved. After careful consideration, I think that NPOV in the current version is good enough, with one exception: I think it's reasonable for other editors to get hung up on the final sentence in the lead: "Bailey says that criticism of him was motivated by a desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about autogynephilia theory on transsexuals." I have a few questions about this sentence: Depending on the responses to these questions, one possibility I'll mention would be rewording this sentence to read, "Bailey asserts that some of his critics were motivated by a desire to..." That would be more accurate than adding "though some refute this assertion" or the like. It doesn't seem that many people did refute that assertion, but it also seems that Bailey's assertion was more nuanced than it's represented here. I'll remain a disinterested third party and keep an eye on the article as I can. Thanks for asking for some additional looks to see if this edit war can be stopped. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's roughly equivalent to saying, "Bailey says that his critics were motivated by...", right? That would be clearer, as it makes more sense to talk of people as having motivations than it does to talk about abstract "criticisms" as having motivations.
 * Does this sentence belong in the lead? The lead is intended to summarize the body of the article, but this idea is not developed in the article itself.
 * When the sentence discusses "criticism," what exactly is meant? All the negative reactions, or just the most extreme ones? In its current form it implies all, but that's not what Bailey himself wrote: "Individuals who hated an idea tried to prevent the idea from spreading." I think he recognized that it is likely that some of the people who reviewed the book negatively had more mundane motivations (like that they were paid to review the book just as they're paid to review other books).


 * Your suggestion of "some of his critics" sounds good to me. I'd personally choose the verb "says" rather than "asserts", since plainer language is less likely to trigger complaints about biased words.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is quite untrue. Please check the Academic Freedom section where MANY people disputed his accusations that it was supression. Again, this was Blanchards theory so if this theory was under the same dispute. Strangley there were no "attempts" supression. Perhaps WAID you would like to entitle the Academic Freedom section as "Attempts to Suppress Academic Freedom"? Since you are POV pushing that there was an "attempt" and that is somehow justification for saying it was actual academic suppression. Please source the participants actually saying they were attempting to "suppress". 98.149.114.34 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, thank you for coming in on the article. I welcome the open opinions even of they come from people WAID has hand chosen to protect his version. I would rather it was consensus. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 98, I do not know WAID in the slightest, nor did he hand pick me. He put out an open call, and I have given time to this article because I believe in Wikipedia, not because I care about anyone or anything specific to this article. Regarding the "many" who dispute the claim, the only source cited in the lead was Moser. If others heard Bailey's complaints of "academic suppression" and then responded saying, "No, it wasn't academic suppression," then I agree with you that the clause "though some refute this" belongs in the lead. As for the section headline "Academic freedom," I think that is the most unbiased way to say that the following section is on the subject of academic freedom, and that's all. Your changes today seem simply to have been a wholesale reversion to your earlier version, and I do not think that that is appropriate given the consensus and discussion taking place here. I am very open to your edits if you discuss them here on the talk page first--that is likely the best way to move this article forward without fueling the current edit war. Thanks. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 01:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well then if it was an open call for his defense then welcome. Daniel, so you would like me to cite the "many" , except it doesn't say that does it? No , it says "though others reject this assessment" And Moser does say " claims of academic suppression were greatly exaggerated". That would be a dismissal of Bailey's assertion. And of course virtually everyone involved outside of Bailey and Dreger dispute that.The Allegations of Academic Suppression is the only title this section can have as they are completely without any proof whatsoever of suppression of the theory. Please by all means provide proof the theory was suppressed so we can retitle it but till then these are PURELY ACCUSATIONS not fact. I had to revert it wholesale because it had been before you made those smaller edits. Which I agree with and restored the last one. I have no wish for an edit war but I have put great effort into these edits , to enhance and clarify the article. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "The critics attempted to have the book suppressed through complaints to the publisher. They arranged for it to be panned in reviews and withdrawn from consideration for awards.  Some of the horror seems to be that lay readers might actually read and understand the book, and think that since a respected academic press published it, then it must be True™."

The book was asserted in the press as "scientifically accurate" That would have put it under IRB review and would have followed IRB rules. It was not ill confronted Bailey came out with the truth thatit was written as a popular science book and not subject to those rules. You have yet WAUID to show a source for saying it's publication was suppressed in an way. You insults claiming it as the fact it was a that critics thought the book was allegedly being suppressed because it was readable speaks for itself.


 * "The critics tried to get Bailey (a tenured university professor) fired. They claimed that chatting with people in bars about their life histories was conducting IRB-qualified research (official ruling:  oral histories aren't sufficiently systematic to be IRB-qualifed research), which would require written informed consent.

The book was promoted as hard science and as such was subject to IRB rules. That included interview protocol.


 * Then they said that he had sex with one of these alleged research subjects (a prostitute), which would (or at least could) be abuse of a research subject. "

The interview subject made the accusation and the complaint that she hadn't known it was an interview. Not the critics.


 * Oh, and four transwomen claimed to be defamed by the book, when only two were actually described in it, and they all claimed to be surprised by it and to have never consented to any of it, despite in some cases having actually read and discussed the proofs with Bailey and sending e-mail messages saying the opposite. (The actual surprise appears to be their discovery that their earnest assertions that they really were true women trapped in men's bodies, and that sex had nothing at all to do with it, didn't convince him that Blanchard's approach was wrong.)

Yes, his interview subjects disagreed with him.


 * The critics also tried to get Bailey convicted of a class B misdemeanor for practicing psychology without a license, whose sentence includes up to six months in jail. The complaint here is that he wrote letters that accurately identified his job title.  The legal system rejected the complaint as meritless (he never charged money for any letters, and under US law, all professors of psychology are legally permitted to describe themselves as psychologists, even if they don't have licenses to practice clinical psychology).

Not exactly. The police took no action but Bailey wrote letters in a state he had no license in. Had he charged a fee he would have been charged. That still does not give him the right to break state laws. Well unless you believe the laws are here to be broken.


 * "The critics also harassed his family and supporters. One person, for example, posted the names and school pictures of his children with obscene captions.  Several police reports were filed about threatening communications.  "

One person alone, Andrea James took publicly available photo's off Baileys website and place words that were exactly the same as quotes from Baileys book underneath. Now what WAID will not tell you is James was never charged. HE is happy to tell you Bailey wasn't but it seems that his critics don't get the same treatment.


 * Other researchers reported being told not to apply for grants or show any connection to Bailey. Others were apparently quietly encouraged to find other areas of research, to avoid coming up with the "wrong" answers. "

Unsourced POV. There is absolutely no proof of this whatsoever.

"But other things, like humiliating someone's kids or hinting to researchers that they should only communicate politically favorable findings if they don't want their own families to be similarly attacked, is not the sort of behavior that decent society accepts."

We can accept a preacher telling a soldiers family their son was a "Faggot that they were glad was dead " but not the honest disagreement of a concept that someone disagrees with your theory, or that's suppression. WAIDs entire premise is that Andrea James using Baileys own children as an example of disrespect is "suppression". No threats, no hate. A simple statement echoing Baileys own disrespect towards the entire male to female community. That is right, not the whole transsexual community, just one aspect. MtF, men to women. Why ? You look for meaning but what is sadly mising is the female to male component. Why WAID ? I'm interested what you think ? 98.149.114.34 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been trying to harmonize edits on this article for quite some time now, and I am glad someone else has stepped up to handle it. What they do not yet know about the controversy, they will soon learn, just as I did, for it was all new to me also. I'm now going to make a personal statement about my time here. It's very much opinion, and I am giving it for opinion without any intention to come back and argue it--I no longer feel I can edit here neutrally, and I write


 * I have the utmost regard for some of the people involved. Most of all, I have an immense awe of Lenn Conway's technical career, and an even greater respect for her memoir, which impressed and affected me beyond my ability to express it. And I respect Blanchard as one of the first people to try a scientific approach to this and one of the first physicians to take an individually humane approach. That an even wider range of character and behavior is now understood is not criticism of him. I do not have the same level of respect for Bailey's method of research based on studies of "representative" individuals.  I am very aware of the   extent to which such work can reflect the investigator and not the subject.    To contest his work based on the understandings of other people about their  psychosocial identity is not unreasonably; to attack him as a person over it is an outrage on the freedom of inquiry. Actions such as Andrea James' posting mentioned above, in particular, are beyond the limits of discourse-- to do harm to a person's children because of one's opinion of the person is universally regarded as despicable.  Even so, a person who does it in psychological desperation can in some sense be forgiven, but not those in cold blood who support it. Society does not accept the Westboro Baptist's procedures, but merely  thinks it wiser not to criminalize it. A person here who would come here to argue in support of them would not be permitted to to so, My own feeling is that 98. has come rather close to this, and it is not me who has made the comparison.     DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for it nor am I in support. What James did was no only in poor taste but ineffective at saying what she intended. That does not remove her right to say it in criticism nor does it justify a witch hunt claiming some conspiracy to suppress. Her actions were entirely on her own and without any effect on the publication or dissemination of Baileys book. I'm sorry we disagree DGG. I'm afraid the courts do accept the Westboro Baptist churches freedom of speech. Not only that but their right to counter sue to defend it. If harm was done to Bailey's children (who were fully grown at the time I understand), please show that proof, or a source claiming harm was done. And yet Andrea James goes uncharged. Like or dislike the participants the question was about the articles neutrality. Our personal feelings are not to be in the article.98.149.114.34 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As a point of fact, Bailey's kids were teenagers at the time of Andrea James' attack. James claims to have believed they were adults, but was apparently misinformed.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's accurate to call them young adults. So please, your proof of damage ? Did they sue James for emotional distress ? Certainly there were no charges, To make a claim harm was done to anyone's children please source it. Otherwise the claim is irrelevant.98.149.114.34 (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it is not accurate to call a fifteen year old a "young adult". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been following this thread with great amusement. Lots of factual errors being bandied about, most of which have little to do with article content. Much of it seems based on idiosyncratic interpretations of various versions of what transpired. So everyone can move on, I believe Bailey's son and daughter were both adults (as in 18+) in 2003, the year the book dedicated to them came out, and the year they enthusiastically did press for the book. His son, who is quoted in the book and presented as some sort of paragon of normality and common sense in it (compared to "Danny," the gender-nonconforming case report who is "cured" in the book), is currently a graduate evolutionary psychologist and planning to be a college professor himself (he turns 27 this year, I believe she's 25 now and turns 26 next time around). Bailey's son's continued commentary on the controversy has been documented here and there, so if we want to discuss that sourced material, that's great. This idea of these two as "innocent children," while very appealing to angry mommies and "academic freedom" sentimentalists, is quite a stretch. I'd argue neither term applies. I'd say "complicit adults" might be a bit more accurate. As their dad said during his recent "fucksaw" stunt, when he trotted them out in the press yet again, I consider people in their late teens and early twenties to be open-minded grown ups rather than fragile children. But that's neither here nor there. If you have a question about article content or published sources, please email me or come to my talk page rather than having some drawn-out debate here that isn't about a sourced statement. This is not a forum. I believe this article would be fine if 98 and WAID discontinued their months-long spat here. Their feelings and personal involvement have a tinge of righting great wrongs to them, a wiki no-no. I am pleased to see disinterested parties have stepped in, and I think the article and the project would be best served if you both stop arguing and find other topics to edit, where you don't have personal involvement and high passion. There's always USENET if you want to have an unending argument with each other. It doesn't really belong here. Well, that's it for me. Thanks again for the smiles. Jokestress (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's do a little basic math: In 2008, Dreger reported Drew's age as 22.  The book and your attack were both published in 2003, five years before.  Assuming I have at least the arithmetic skills of an average eight year old, twenty-two minus five is seventeen, which is an age that we do not consider to be an adult in the US.  If Kate is two years younger, then she was fifteen—also an age that we do not consider to be an adult in the US.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We have been through this many, many times since 2007, WAID. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on your idiosyncratic and erroneous interpretation of what happened. Dreger interviewed Drew Bailey in 2006, when he was 22. Her reference states: "Bailey, Drew (2006, June 20). Interview with Alice Dreger; revised transcript received August 1, 2006." Source is already in the article. As you point out, she also says he was "now 22 years old" at the time of the interview. That means Drew was born around 1984-5. He's 27 this year. He was certainly an adult (18+) when the book came out. While it's possible his sister was 20 in 2006, your passive-aggressive sarcasm about their ages is simply wrong. Dreger wants very much to make it sound as if they were "in junior high and primary school, respectively," but most people see Dreger's up to her usual nonsense. If you want to discuss this via email or on my talk page yet again, we can, but I am disappointed that you are once again adding the same misinformation here again and again because you seek to right great wrongs. It's the definition of tendentious editing and POV-pushing. Jokestress (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any inside knowledge, so I can't speak to his current age, but I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of Dreger's statement. I think that "now 22" means "now 22", as in "as of the date that I write this, 22" not "two years ago, 22" or "then 22" or "back when I interviewed him 22".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The simple arithmetic is that the Dreger paper was completed in late 2006 and disseminated (exactly as later published) in 2007. That's because it was designed as a target article, with the paper and selected brief responses to be published all at once (which happened in 2008, which is probably why your simple arithmetic is wrong as usual). You don't need to tell us that you don't have a lot of inside knowledge about this; it's clear from your ongoing misstatements. Jokestress (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dreger's paper cites multiple sources from 2007, such as ("Autumn 2007") and a 30 January 2007 letter to The New York Times, which strongly suggests that "completed in late 2006" is incorrect.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I misspoke-- the Dreger interviews began on 20 June 2006 (22-year-old Drew Bailey was in fact the first one) and concluded in late September 2006. There was some correspondence and pre-pub quotations in early 2007 that were added. As I said, the final paper was disseminated in 2007. I first received it on 2 August 2007, and the version I got was what was published in June 2008. Drew Bailey will be 27 on his next birthday and was an adult when the book controversy occurred in 2003. In other words, you are wrong, as I said earlier. Jokestress (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Either way kids, they were not children they were young adults.That makes WAID's insistence to include them as children POV pushing and inaccurate. Just as WAID's insistence that it was a case of Academic Freedom is POV pushing. There was and still is absolutely no proof that Bailey's troubles were anything but his own carelessness and this is really an insult to real incidents where theories were repressed. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Always happy to amuse you. And it is a "years long spat" which I don't consider a spat but a disagreement entirely based on fact. So, while you are here WAID says that you were trying to "suppress" Baileys theory, I mean, the Blanchard theory and that you even agreed you were trying to suppress it. And that your doing so means Lynn Conway and the rest of "our friends"( not meaning transsexuals of course because WAID would never be so prejudice) had the intention of stopping the "theory". Is that true ? Just for old times sake give that clarity. Oh if you want WAID here putting his impression of your intention to damage Bailey's little children and that somehow to "suppressed" Baileys academic freedom then just revert the explanation, I wont stop you.

My intention from beginning to end was to give balance to an article that was built on personal feelings rather than the books premise. None of the conspiracy theory adds a single thing to clarifying the books premise. It is a sideshow. When I added things like "though others disagree" it was not convicting Bailey, it was a fact. There were ample sourced articles by his peers/academics saying he had set back the field years, that he had wounded the community but I never included those. I left it to one person who was already a sourced peer.

DGG left because he felt he couldn't be neutral as he saw me "defending" you as  repugnant. But I'm not defending you in any way other than your right to say what you want just as Bailey can. So Daniel or whoever is left is fine but it needs to be someone neutral. There is a fair amount of my editing in even WAIDs version as well, it's not about who owns what, it is about the articles accuracy. WAID just admitted it was an "attempted" suppression of academic freedom  and that none took place. Of course the reader is left thinking "How was attacking Bailey going to suppress an already peer reviewed and published theory?" None of it makes sense. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding these sentences: "There were ample sourced articles by his peers/academics saying he had set back the field years, that he had wounded the community but I never included those. I left it to one person who was already a sourced peer." I think it would be great for you to include these other sources, even only here on the Talk page. It would be nice to know sources other than Moser. Essentially, it would be useful to have sources of other individuals stating what their motives really were in attacking Bailey. Something like "My motivation in criticizing this book was to defend alternate theories. I was not motivated by a desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about autogynephilia theory on transsexuals." Thanks. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 19:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been searching for those Daniel. Andrea James /Jokestress was one of those accused of trying to "suppress academic freedom".  We can ask her directly98.149.114.34 (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Effects
Part of the campaign involved distributing a flyer at the 2003 International Academy of Sex Research meeting that said academics should: "censure J. Michael Bailey for his recent acts of junk science and groundless defamation. Do not invite him to speak at your institutions. Disinvite him if he is invited. Review his manuscripts and grant proposals with great caution and skepticism."

I therefore think it unreasonable to claim that the campaign didn't attempt to interfere with Bailey's publications and grants.

As for effects on the academic field, there is one disputed effect (a possible loss of trust between clinicians and their clients) and one widely agreed effect, which is less willingness from researchers to deal with transpeople.

The first can be sourced to Walter Bockting and Eli Coleman at U Minn, who have expressed concern that publishing a pop sci book about Blanchard's theory could offend transsexual people, who might then respond with greater distrust of clinicians and possibly a refusal to cooperate with researchers. This claim is disputed by, e.g., Jamison Green, who says it has had no actual effect on clinical relationships (and that the scandal has significantly strengthened the community of trans activists).

The second seems to be a broader concern. Steven Pinker of Harvard University wrote, "The intimidation directed at Bailey will ensure that graduate students, post-docs, and other young researchers will not touch this topic with a ten-foot pole, starving the ﬁeld of new talent. Only tenured professors who have decided to change ﬁelds—a tiny number—would take it on."

Alice Dreger wrote, "it was the over-the-top response from Conway and her colleagues that really put a chill on sex researchers’ interest in trans issues....many sex researchers told me—without wishing to be named—that trans activists such as James have behaved so crazily, the entire population they 'represent' has been marked by researchers as being too unstable and dangerous to bother with."

As far as I can tell, nobody disputes this effect on academic research. Some activists may even be happy about this outcome: if you feel oppressed or harmed by researchers, then having fewer them around would naturally be an improvement. But nobody thinks that this campaign did not discourage researchers from dealing with trans people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but that isn't reasonable, it is opinion/hearsay. Where is the source citing this flyer event and where is the proof that any of these participants were involved? These are not documented, they are OPINION! "Thinks"? Again, show proof that it is SOURCED! 98.149.114.34 (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All of this is taken from sources that are already cited in the article. I assure you, in particular, that I have not invented any of the direct quotations.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Expressing "concern" and "thinking something might" is not an effect. It is purely opinion. How can you dispute something that never happened ? You seem to think someone saying they "think" something happened as a result is the same as something actually happened ! That is completely twisted logic. Personally I don't feel maligned or oppressed at all. Bailey is talking about narcissistic individuals and that occurs across the board. I've never met single researcher that agreed with Bailey, though even I agree he had a right to publish it. Moser was right though, it's a trait of all genders across the board.98.149.114.34 (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and soliciting other editors WAID, who have absolutely no knowledge of the book, the article or the discussion to revert changes after you have expended your 2 reverts in 24 hours, is simple vandalism. Seems just such a a 20 year old history major The Blade of the Northern Lights who has never read the book, or the article, never posted or read the discussion comes out and says I was "spewing venom", "railing against other editors" and inserting BLP violations all within  a couple minutes of my revert. Funny huh? Now, I can only wonder where in such a very short time a young man like that could get such a misguided and false impression of this discussion, don't you? What do you think WAID, where do you think the fabrications he was spewing came from. Any thoughts? Really, I value your opinion here.  98.149.114.34 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "I haven't read the whole book, no, but I did look through the reviews"-The Blade of the Northern Lights
 * Please don't take my comments entirely out of context. I haven't read the whole book, which I thought would imply that I'm working on it now.  And that's also not the full sentence; it ends with, "...look through the reviews, which seem to be another point of contention".  I figured I'd take out that first, then get through the book itself.  I won't revert again on this article.  I suspect that if you tone down your posts, you'll get a much better response.  I don't especially mind the invective, but most people do. In addition, I took it upon myself to read through the talkpage before I reverted, so I would know what I was getting into.  WhatamIdoing had nothing to do with my coming here; I'm here entirely of my own accord. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I also didn't say you were spewing venom, I said that the talkpage was full of venom. If you want to quote me, quote me correctly; this is sage advice that's applicable elsewhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well golly gosh, please show me the "venom" you saw ?98.149.114.34 (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:TALK
Can you guys and gals stop judging Bailey, James and whoever else here? See header at the top of this talk page for the purpose of this venue. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libelous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person."

I completely agree. In my opinion, this is exactly what is going on here. Both Baileys accusations and anyone elses. It adds nothing to the article. I am going to post a suggested version here of it completely free of any of that nonsense. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is filled with accusations, innuendo , libel and fantasy. It does not discuss the book, it discusses a melodramatic self defense of Michael Bailey based on some cardboard stand up accusation of the loss of academic freedom when there is no proof anywhere that this occurred. On the one hand Bailey supporters say that Baileys loss of position " has nothing to do with the investigation" and on the other hand says it was "harassment meant to repress academic freedom". Now it is either one or the other but not both! I don't want to spend any more time here dealing with WAID, who I feel is far too personally involved, or his parade of fellow editors summoned up to keep him from 3RR ( never having read the book or this discussion page) and trick anyone opposing his opinion  into 3RR. WAID does not care about the book, he is championing the cause of Michael Bailey, maligned academic who in his opinion should be able to silence any critic who disagrees. Moser is important to this article because he actually an academic who practices and see's patients but I would rather lose it all than go on this ridiculous POV pushing nonsense. This is the absolute last place this thing should be tried. A bunch of anonymous editors with axes to grind ( oh yes you do WAID). The controversy adds absolutely nothing to the article but an excuse to edit war. It does not enlighten the reader about the theory or the book. It is a soap clown circus meant to distract from  real discussion. I suggest we lose it all.98.149.114.34 (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, a suggestion. Could you point out specifically what sentences you have a problem with?  Put the sentences you take exception to on the talkpage, then explain why exactly you're so bothered by them.  Right now, I can't tell what it is you so strongly object to because your post quickly veers from being about the article to being about WhatamIdoing's faults.  If we (read, 3rd parties) know what it is you're having a problem with, we can sort it out much more efficiently here.  Start by taking one, and let's see what happens.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "WhatamIdoing's faults" ? I have no idea what you are talking about. His faults are plenty I'm sure but I haven't listed any. My concern was in having allegations of "suppressing of academic freedom" written like they were fact when there was no evidence of that whatsoever. No grants pulled, researchers/university's  refusing to do papers without legal protection etc . You understand? WAIDS "evidence" was a few people said "it might  do this " or it could do that",  and that based on the erroneous assumption that old Blanchard theory could even be suppressed. How ? The horse was out of the barn ! This should not in a section that implies that he was fighting for academic freedom when it  never lost.  The book was published, widely and no one was stopped by anyone. The theory was Blanchard's and he was not harassed, that in itself should tell you it was never about suppression of "the theory" . There is only one person who wrote a paper pointing out the faux suppression, Alice Dreger. She is the only one quoted in  the NY Times article support of Bailey  and in every other case. Where are the plethora  of academics railing against this?


 * I will do that list. You on the other hand could perhaps point to the "venom" on this discussion page. I think now you are actually reading it you might change your mind. And, yes, when WAID said my "anointed friends" he was talking about the other transsexuals involved.98.149.114.34 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have an open mind, OK? Please don't bludgeon me to death with tl;dr posts, keep it short and concise.  I'll have a look within the next few days.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Moser on Blanchard's Theory
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a923357133&fulltext=713240928 98.149.114.34 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"I am not suggesting that acknowledging a history of some autogynephilia is not correlated with a non-homosexual sexual orientation among MTFs, but correlation does not imply causation. If BAT proponents admit that there may be some cases of homosexual MTFs with autogynephilia and non-homosexual MTFs without autogynephilia, then autogynephilia just becomes another trait that some MTFs have, rather than the pathognomonic marker.

This article questions the following tenets and predictions of BAT. Reviewing the same data as the BAT proponents, it is not clear that autogynephilia is always present in non-homosexual MTFs and always absent in homosexual MTFs; the practice of discounting statements by non-homosexual MTFs “denying” and homosexual MTFs reporting autogynephilia appears flawed; autogynephilia seems to differ from other paraphilias in significant ways; natal women score as autogynephilic on similar inventories used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic; according to Blanchard's (1993a) definition of orientation, autogynephilia does not seem to be an orientation overshadowing other traditional orientations; there is little reason to suggest that autogynephilia is the motivation of non-homosexual MTFs to SRS; and there are no data to suggest that non-homosexual MTFs have difficulty with pair bonding. Further empirical studies are needed to confirm any of these assertions.

This article should not be interpreted as supporting any alternative theory or hypothesis of the origins or nature of transsexuality. There may be more than one cause of transsexuality; Blanchard et al. (2009) similarly accepts that there can be more than one cause of a paraphilia." 98.149.114.34 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested version
The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism is a 2003 book by J. Michael Bailey, published by Joseph Henry Press.

The first section of the book discusses gender-atypical behaviors and gender identity disorder (GID) in children, emphasizing the biological determination of gender. The second section deals primarily with gay men, including the link between childhood GID and male homosexuality later in life. Bailey reviews evidence that male homosexuality is congenital (a result of genetics and prenatal environment), and he argues for the accuracy of some stereotypes about gay men. In the third section, Bailey summarizes evidence for a psychological typology of transwomen that says there are two forms of transsexualism: one that he describes as an extreme type of male homosexuality and one that is a sexual interest in having a female body, called autogynephilia.

Summary
The Man Who Would Be Queen is divided into three sections: The Boy Who Would Be Princess, The Man He Might Become, and Women Who Once Were Boys.

It starts with an anecdote about a child Bailey calls "Danny." Bailey writes of Danny's mother, who has been frustrated by other therapists she has seen about her son's "feminine" behavior. Bailey discusses psychologist and sexologist Kenneth Zucker's work with children whose parents have noticed significant gender-atypical behaviors. Bailey uses the anecdote about Danny to describe gender identity disorder, a label applied to males with significant feminine behaviors and females with significant masculine behaviors, such as cross-dressing. For example, this class includes boys that prefer to play with dolls and regularly identify with female characters in stories or movies, and girls that prefer to play with toy cars and identify with male characters. This section of the book also discusses some case studies of men who were, for varying reasons, reassigned to the female sex shortly after their birth, and emphasizes the fact that, despite this, they tended to exhibit typically male characteristics and often identified as men.

The second section deals primarily with gay men, including a suggested link between childhood GID and male homosexuality later in life. Bailey discusses whether homosexuality is a congenitally or possibly even genetically related phenomenon. This discussion includes references to Bailey's studies as well as those of neuroscientist Simon LeVay and geneticist Dean Hamer. He also discusses the behavior of gay men and its stereotypically masculine and feminine qualities.

In the third section, Bailey summarizes a taxonomy of transsexual women that was proposed by Ray Blanchard about fifteen years earlier. According to Blanchard, there are two types of transsexual women: one described as an extreme form of male homosexuality, the other being motivated by a sexual interest in having a female body. Bailey also discusses the process by which transition from male to female occurs.

On the last page of the book, Bailey meets "Danny", who he alleges no longer has gender identity disorder, and is living as a gay man.

Response to suggested version
This book obviously sparked intense controversy, with various notable parties weighing in. Wikipedia articles on books are intended to do more than simply summarize their contents. While I agree that leaving out everything other than the summary would make life easier, I don't think that's the way to go. Impassioned editors should continue to state their sourced positions on the article, so that consensus can arise without continuing the edit war. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 22:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur with the above. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Controversy is one thing but to make one sided accusation without anything but one opinion is not helpful to anyone. Was Bailey harassed, yes but I've seen nothing that says that harassment was with the intent to suppress Blanchard's theory and the fact is it was freely circulated before Baileys book proves that. How can anyone conclude that someone merely parroting Blanchard could be harassed into silence when Blanchard himself wasn't?  So, this "messenger" was more important than Blanchard, the creator  himself? Moser points at what to me is the most rational explanation in the entire argument, it was Baileys manner and insensitivity to the people he was addressing that caused the entire controversy.  An intended controversy at that as Bailey was trying to write a "popular science book. That is the opposing opinion and deserves as much air as Baileys given Mosers outstanding credentials.


 * Leaving it in a way that is nothing but accusations is a guaranty of continued edit warring and I have no interest in it . I'll come back and list my grievances with the present version but there are ample examples provided. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Removing all of the information about the book's reception is unacceptable. Reducing it to a little more than a summary of the book's contents is a violation of WP:NOT and leaves readers and editors with no notion of why the book is notable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So the books contents aren't notable enough WAID ? So to you  WP:NOT means Wikipedia is gossip rag bent on creating controversy and ignoring the contents ? If you insist on fantasy then you will give it neutral balance. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're that stupid. The point she's trying to make is that the critical responses to the book are also notable, and to leave them out would leave us with nothing but a book review, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My intellect aside, the controversy section is well over half the article Blade. It has usurped the article where the content of the book is irrelevant. Little has been said beyond a brief summary of content and there is so much more that could be written about Blanchard, his theory and it's origins but WAID has chosen this as a defense  line for an educator who's popular science book was not well received by it's subjects. Psychiatry is an argument without fact , just by pure observation. Criticisms are  just as easy since here are no science based equations. The fascinating thing in the whole thing is that even Bailey will admit there isn't a single shred of proof other an his assumptions. The book needs to be explored, not the nonsense around it. Bailey belongs in the same class as John Philippe Rushton ,one of the proponents for the partially-genetic explanation for racial differences in IQ. A huge controversy over a subject that was presented in an equally insensitive and ham fisted manner. Moser suggests that he believes this was Baileys intention , to boost readership by creating controversy.98.149.114.34 (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So Blade, when you finish the book, that when you should begin editing. I look forward to he discussions.98.149.114.34 (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The more than half the article about the book is about the book's reception... and more than half the reliable sources about the book are about the book's reception. That's the definition of neutrality on Wikipedia:  We must give more attention to what the sources give more attention to.


 * There is a separate article on Blanchard's psychological typology of MTF transsexuals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the books reception WAID, it's about Baileys allegations of harassment from the very first paragraph. The reception is merely part of the controversy as the article winds on and on about what his critics did to him and hidden throughout is one persons allegations, Alice Dreger. There is nothing neutral about the article if all you do is attack Bailey's opponents without any of their civil discourse in response. Instead you drone on and on about one critic who took pictures fro Baileys website and satirized his books thoughts. You even fabricated saying his kids were children to gain sympathy when you knew they were adults. This is not about the book, it is an attempt vindicating someone who through his own insensitivity and arrogance lost his position and became outcast. This had nothing to do with Conway, McCloskey  or James. It had to do with Bailey and his own playing loose with controversy. Even his own colleges say he did this taboo breaking intentionally. He wanted controversy. I'm not trying to vilify him but even you must be aware that you are trying to vilify his critics. Radical theories do not come without controversy but as Moser said, that is entirely expected.98.149.114.34 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Accusations against me by WhatamIdoing
"we'll still have the above editor decide that it's all wrong because it doesn't anoint her friends as saints and doesn't demonize the researchers, and so it will all get reverted."-WhatamIdoing

WAID, you have made accusations against me and I don't like it. You are accusing me of bias and of siding with a group. I know none of these people except one in passing and the rest I've never met so explain "her friends"! There is only one common thread between us and I am bothered by the fact you are using gender identity as weapon. I suggest you retract and apologize. I've clearly stated my purpose and intent is neutrality. That means balance and you cannot give just one side of the argument nor can you libel with accusations as you have.

A bit of refreshing for you.

"One who accuses others of malice You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts".This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. And in the case of biographies of living individuals it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution. If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the talk page in the first instance."

"One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources You find yourself engaging in discussions about the reliability of sources that substantially meet the criteria for reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number or validity of the sources cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint."

Most notably when they are the same sources you are quoting.

"One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism You repeatedly undo the "vandalism" of others. Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion. There are numerous dispute resolution processes and there is no deadline to meet; the wheels of Wikijustice may grind exceedingly slow, but they grind fine."

So lets go to resolution dispute shall we? A neutral third party. Make a presentation and resolve this.98.149.114.34 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution is that-a-way; take it there. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Unlike some I prefer agreement on it. Requests by lone users have been ignored. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think DR would be good, and I would support you going that direction if you so desire. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate that and I believe that given the time for all parties to present a proper argument the issues will be resolved. Daniel had some issues that I tried not to lose in the reversion, that bothers me because it's better to get the major issues resolved first. Thank you.98.149.114.34 (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Listen, if you want to talk about these problems at ANI or some other dispute-resolution forum, then feel free. I recommend reading WP:BOOMERANG first, but it's up to you.
 * You will want to get your facts straight before doing so:
 * I have not accused you of vandalism; I and many other editors accuse you of POV pushing.
 * I do not accuse you of malice; I accuse you of POV pushing.
 * I do not accuse you of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts"; I accuse you of POV pushing.
 * I do not dispute the reliability of apparently good sources; in fact, every single one of the many discussions at RSN have upheld my concerns over the misuse of sources to promote a POV beyond what the sources support.
 * Again, if you want to discuss whether I'm justified in accusing you of POV pushing when, for example, you add the WP:WTW words "he alleges" to the sentence "On the last page of the book, Bailey meets "Danny", who no longer has gender identity disorder, and is living as a gay man", then feel free to pick any noticeboard you'd like. I'm confident that the community will recognize your POV pushing for what it is.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You should know calling for mediation several times yourself and achieving absolutely nothing .Please note WAID insists on naming me. That's actually helpful because withing the archives his badgering, insults and accusations . What did you call me once, oh yes "low hanging fruit". I'm more than happy to myself because I believe that you in this case are wrong. No, you have accused me not just of POV pushing but intentionally altered the article because I am transsexual. For my "anointed friends". Yes you deny the reliability of sources that you YOURSELF HAVE BEEN QUOTING till it does not suit your interpretation. As for Danny, can a doctor looking at you determine if you no longer an  gender identity disorder? That falls into the same category as determining  you or no longer gay or schizophrenic or emotionally disturbed from a casual meeting. Please ask any doctor if that is enough to determine that psychological assessment. I was giving Dr Bailey the benefit of the doubt with "alleges". In any academic circle it otherwise would be called nonsense.98.149.114.34 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In mediation you WAID will of course provide Dr Bailey's test results proving Danny no longer has Gender Dysphoria. It will be a historic moment because to this date there are no psychiatrists that can test for or even claim to have tested a mental disorder. These are assumptions without any scientific fact whatsoever. They will tell in fact that these issues cannot be "cured, only that the symptoms can be managed. Dr Bailey did no tests. NONE! Do you understand?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHu7Ik36128 You may say that Dr Bailey "alleges" or Danny "claims he no longer has GID". Your ignorance of the subject and participants is what makes your editing flawed.98.149.114.34 (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, your turn; exactly how do you know otherwise? Unless you're omniscient (which you've proven you're not), you don't know the subject here either; the whole point is that Bailey himself, in his book, says it.  The article here should report on what Bailey says in the book, not wildly guess based on some Wikipedia user's personal analysis.  It's on you to come up with a reliable source to prove otherwise.  Can you hear me now? The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 13:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * How do I know Bailey did no tests to prove Danny no longer had GID? There are no tests, it's that simple. You don't have to know the subject to know that is a fact. The purpose is not just to include what Bailey said but a summery of the books contents that adds clarity, which may or may not include what Bailey said. As a reader what is your conclusion based on Baileys statement?  Was Danny cured, self cured or perhaps he never had GID? When you have finished the book perhaps you could take a shot at that summary.  98.149.114.34 (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What I was getting at is that it's not our job to comment on the truth value of what he says. At the risk of violating Godwin's Law here, the David Irving article doesn't state whether his viewpoint (Holocaust denial) is correct or not, it just states what it is, then speaks about what historians and other people have done to refute Irving.  You won't find "Irving used  [insert source here] to purportedly prove [insert point here]"; instead, the article states how he used the source, followed by the reactions and responses of others.  Yes, I know there's no psychiatric test one can do to determine if someone's "cured" of GID (at least for now), but the idea here is to present what Bailey himself put forward without pushing The TruthTM.  If other people question whether this "Danny" was cured of and/or ever had GID, that can go in the reception section.  I suspect you already know this, and are simply trying to wear WhatamIdoing and I down by using a combination of tactics (namely argumentum ad nauseum and deliberate ignoratio elenchi), but to be absolutely, 100% clear I'm laying it out in plain text and leaving nothing to inference. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh is that why I am disagreeing, "to wear WAID down"? Thank you for informing me because I wasn't aware of that. Since the WAID has an equal number of reversions it would be a mutual attempt if one even believed that wearing someone down was possible. So you believe that Bailey is saying Danny is cured? THat is my problem with the entire line, it makes no sense. Now Blade but there were a lot of eye witnesses, bodies and records to the Holocaust. Psychiatry, though wish it could be, is not as simple and the summary is not helpful. Investigation and studies are required on subjects to even obtain a hypothesis for treatment and even then it is a Dr's best guess. Keep in mind I'm merely saying that it was Baileys assumption that Danny was no longer gender dysphoric. If it can be worded in a way that reflects that I would be happy to let it go. Closing an article on such a "controversial" book with that line to me proves an inadequate summary. If you have suggestions for a proper summary, by all means put it forward.98.149.114.34 (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The level of deafness exhibited here is unsurprising, but disappointing. Being someone with mild PDD-NOS, I know all about missing the forest for the trees on occasion, but even I'd have to try pretty hard for this. If you want more examples, I can give you many, most of which you've probably never heard of.  I don't know, nor frankly do I really care, whether he's telling the truth; the point is that he said it himself.  What part of "it's not our job to tell The TruthTM" isn't sinking in here?  I'd say more, but WhatamIdoing has pretty well taken care of it below.  And yes, attempting to bludgeon us into submission by stating your opinion over and over again is a hallmark of tendentious editing.  I'm honestly tempted to take this to WP:NPOVN, but I'll hold off on that for a while.  At the very least, I'd like DanielKlotz to have a say in this rather lively discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand The TruthTM. You might have answered my question on what you thought the summary meant. I was asking you as a reader and not as an editor on what you thought it meant since it was taken from a single sentence with no context.DO we car here on wikipedia whether summaries make sense ? Really, so much upset over the inclusion of single word "alleges".

So then you understand given "No singular specific test can be administered to determine whether or not a child is on the spectrum. Diagnosis is made through observations, questionnaires, and tests. A parent will usually initiate the quest into the diagnosis with questions for their child's pediatrician about their child's development after noticing abnormalities." Yes, that's about PDD-NOS. Daniel is welcome to pipe in. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have to prove that Danny no longer has GID, or even that Danny is a specific individual rather than a composite portrait intended to show what apparently happens to the overwhelming majority of GID boys, regardless of any "treatment" or lack thereof. I only have to prove that Bailey directly said this in the book, and say that WP:WTW bans the use of the words "he alleges" in this context.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah so that is to show "what apparently happens to the overwhelming majority of GID or boys"?! Do you mean those with GID in children or adults with GID WAID ? Which group, given Bailey makes a distinction.. Quite the large assumption given that the diagnosis is by the patient and not the doctor and the distinction made between adult and childood GID.   If you are going put such a random thought in it might as well be comprehensible. So that is the summary. Bailey meets Danny and can tell it's gone. Miraculous! By the way, do you consider drag transgendered WAID? Given so many gay men live dual lives  in drag? Just curious. You can try and ban the word but the dictionary defines alleges  to mean "To assert to be true; affirm: alleging his innocence of the charge." There is no other implication but that Dr Bailey believes it to be true and in the case of an anonymous patient without verification. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have corrected your misquotation of my comment. When you read the sentence again, without the superfluous grammatical conjunction, and perhaps reflect on the dictionary definition of the word "boys", I think you will figure out whether my statement refers to children or adults.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh and one more thing, do you think Baily is saying that gay men who live in drag are just gay men ?98.149.114.34 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Put back the edit you changed WAID! You don't have permission to alter my text. You can request I edit it but you aren't allowed to change peoples posts. That was an incredibly forward thing to do. You do not have my permission to alter anything I say do you understand ? Are we clear on that ? Go find the original version and put it back.98.149.114.34 (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, correcting your misquotation of my own words is permissible, and strikethrough text (the method I used) is Wikipedia's preferred method for such corrections. You may seek other opinions, e.g., at ANI, but it won't help:  Nobody believes that you have a right to misquote me and then make false claims about my statement based on your misquotation, regardless of whether that content-changing misquotation was an intentional lie or merely a careless typo.  (For the record, my money's on the second.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a side note: Listen, I don't know if you're familiar with this idiom, but "low-hanging fruit" means "easiest issue to address". See the dictionary definition. Or these definitions. I don't think that any literate person is going to think that this is an insult, and as everybody has rejected your version, then getting a formal agreement that your version is unacceptable is certainly the easiest achieved objective.

Also, as a point of fact, the previous mediation efforts were not initiated by me. I recall that your refusals to participate were noticed by a lot of editors, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WAID, saying my issues were without merit and easy to address is an insult. I got it. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Totally untrue. I was open to mediation from the beginning and asked for it.98.149.114.34 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that there have been four formal mediation efforts related to this dispute in the past. Zero out of four were initiated by you.  Your sole contribution to any of them was this single comment, in which you indicate your belief that "low-hanging fruit" is a transphobic slur intended to classify you as a gay man.  In all other cases, you failed to participate.  This is hardly the behavior of a person who "was open to mediation" and "asked for it".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

By the time I received notice you had already made your presentation, complete with insults. Part of detracting from the conversation was intentionally demeaning me. It was an intended insult and my participation was here. Still, I was here. I'm not part of your crowd of editors who share the comradery of putting down individual users. Calling in pals to block and protect your personal edits. And I did ask for mediation, I didn't ask for personal insults. You take this odd pride calling me by my first name even though you don't know me, pretty forward don't you think? And then dismissing Moser as a source because he doesn't agree with Bailey. It is you who is suppressing academic freedom, you who classify people to dismiss what they say. Sorry. Your insult was intended. Bailey as a scientist is irrelevant to me, his theory nonsense, but he has a right to be heard, promote, discuss and not suppressed. What he does not have a right to do is intentionally use a minority to create controversy to sell his book. That is the opinion of some of his peers and like Blanchard's theory, they should not be suppressed. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User WhatAmIDoing as Editor
Dear TMWWBQ: Listen, I KNOW my unsolicited opinion is arguably rude, of very borderline relevance, and that I risk inciting your anger by opening up my big fat yap on something that has nada to do with me.

Nevertheless, and in good faith, I just want to let you know that I myself have had several occasions to interact with WhatamIdoing on different topics, at least one of which has gotten kind of ugly. Personally, I have ALWAYS found this editor to be EXTREMELY helpful (above and beyond the call), and EXCEPTIONALLY EASY to deal with.

OK ... if you would, just consider that my "fart into the whirlwind", and please do excuse me for breaking in to say so. Good luck!

Best regards:

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahh, character references. I don't have a history with WAID other than this article an since we are offering up opinions, personally I've found WAID to be insulting, demeaning, intractable and terribly bias (especially against me, his reversion statements make that clear) , I have no idea what personal stake he has in this article , nor do I care. I'm sure on subjects without any conflict he is terribly amiable.  It is irrelevant and I don't hold that against him. My intent was to bring balance to an incredibly bias article. One that, after looking at both sides is really a house of cards. The book has no presence here, this is only a promotion of the controversy in some kind of defense of Dr Bailey and nothing else. Blanchard's theory was never accepted on it's own and Baileys sloppy promotion of it is little more than a side note without the "controversy".


 * Yes, the controversy. A few transsexual academics that took exception to Bailey's abusive and insulting manner. His assertions that anyone who disagrees with him is a liar makes it obvious why . Have you ever heard that kind of finality in scientific theory? Calling people liars? Moser noted this and went on to describe what I find the most neutral and unbiased view. It was Bailey's abusive manner that caused the controversy and worse, it was intentional to sell books. Blanchard's theory actually never caused Blanchard any blowback as far as I know but, then he never accused his subjects of mendacity. When you stand back it becomes very clear, his intention was not to write a factual science book but a "popular" science book ( that is a quote directly from Dr Bailey). Yet WAID says this is a case of suppression of academic theory? Yet with no suppression of the theory. I don't understand given the theory was never suppressed. The obvious truth is Dr Bailey was abusive to a community and they got angry back. It had nothing to do with the theory and to hold him up as a hero or put it on a page that he championed anything but the promotion of a book  is an insult to everyone that knows anything about this subject.What a shame98.149.114.34 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant to the subject matter but why do you keep referring to WAID as a "he"? Just curious...
 * You say it "is an insult to everyone that knows anything about this subject." This is not true. ...but then again at this point we get to metaphysics.
 * Your assertion that Bailey was sensationalist ("it was intentional to sell books") is not true because the book could be downloaded for free for a long time (I'd say more than a year, at least.) Also it was noted by someone (Dreger maybe, don't remember) that despite low sales of the paperback (like less than 10K) the freely downloadable version was very popular for this type of book (somewhere below million downloads.) Anyone offering to download their book obviously does not intend to rake in the big bucks given how files can be copied and shared over the internet. Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea what gender WAID was, nor did I ask. Why does it matter, will anyone being a specific gender, natal or not add to the clarity of this article? It's a personal issue and nothing to do with editing, well except for people who see one gender as superior/inferior.

It was Moser's opinion Bailey may have done it to create controversy, not mine, I just agree given that there was absolutely no loss of academic freedom. Baileys reputation as a "taboo breaker" was noted even in the Carey NYTimes article as I remember. Moser saw what I believe was Baileys way of making controversy happen, by being abusive and calling his subjects liars if they disagreed. Controversy brings fame, fame brings money. Please don't tell me you think selling the book was important. Holding Bailey up as a champion of free speech? Mmm no.

WAID used a completely nonsensical assumption to insist that the summary of TMWWBQ needs only for Bailey to find Danny no longer suffering from GID when in truth Danny never suffered GID and Bailey noted that when Danny was 5. Gender Identity Disorder at the time was used to define effeminate gay men, not the group we now now as "transsexuals" today yet WAID doesn't seem to grasp that. To make the statement "most GID kids don't transition" is wrong because what GID was an effeminate gay man in that era. Why would they transition? In 1980 the psychiatric community were struggling with defining what a transsexual was. GID became what transgendered is, a blanket term for anything effeminate male. THe perversion of the meaning continues.98.149.114.34 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "The perversion of the meaning continues"? Rather the opposite - some people are actually trying to analyze what lies behind this term. Recently in a comment I wrote "the purpose of the medical (psychiatric) establishment is to treat "distress" or "impairment" as recognized by the person seeking help," this is very relevant here - the person has to feel him-/herself distressed by his gender non-conforming behavior and "GID" is just a way to articulate that! A 3 year old child (I don't remember what was Danny's age in the first reports, let's assume 3) is the most candid thing you will ever see - Danny didn't censor himself neither did he recognize a "problem" Bailey noted that later as Danny probably came to grasp that his behavior is socially unacceptable that he "toned it down." IMO one of the main points of the book were that the "man trapped in a woman's body" cliche and "gender identity disorder" are very generalizing, non-specific (scientifically void) concepts that need to be deconstructed and analyzed.


 * Actually this talk page is for discussing the article not for metaphysical philosophizing about whether there's merit to the book.


 * And WAID is easily one of the most level-headed editors you will encounter here. I remember we actually got in a fight with her due to my troll-ish behavior. OK, this ridiculous stuff is off topic but WAID is easily the most objective editor you will find here (my subjective opinion.) Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, opinion since WAID is incredibly biased and completely unfamiliar with the terms in the book in my experience. Both opinions irrelevant to the discussion area actually and her recruiting her friends to put up this off topic section is proof of that. No Samarkandas , no one is trying to analyze what behind this  GID term but me. Rather than doing research I'm trying to put up the definitions of the time using sources that Bailey quotes. GID now represents  something more than just "acting like a woman",or "feeling discomfort"  it is the basis for life altering surgery . In the 60's and 70's it represented something entirely different.  Identity is who you are. It does not change, it cannot be cured and effeminate gay boys do not have GID even though it was the practice to do so in early days. They clearly identify as male and while they may love feminine things aren't asking to be altered in any way. It is the heterosexuals discomfort with effeminate boys that created the term GID but it was created for their comfort, not the boys.98.149.114.34 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I had explained in more detail exactly what my "troll-ish behavior" was (without mentioning the name of the other editor of course) but it still got redacted by user:Jokestress due to privacy concerns, still, even without context of that particular case, it doesn't change my point that WAID proved to be a constructive editor even in that case. Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh, waiting for WAIDs family members to show up. "She was a good child,, she ate her cereal and sat up straight at he table."Spare us your recruits and get back to the book. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Green-The Sissy Boy Syndrome: The Development of Homosexuality
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198705073161924

"This book is the outcome of a 15-year study of a group of apparently "feminine" young boys and nonfeminine controls. Three quarters of the 66 boys studied became homosexual or bisexual, whereas only 1 of the controls did. This old-fashioned prospective study provides an opportunity for speculation on the cause and development of male homosexuality. The study can be criticized on the grounds that it is too "soft." Much of it consists of transcripts of discussions with subjects and their parents. An impressionistic view of the subjects' sexual development is gained. Certain tests and measurable variables were part of the . . ." New England Journal of Medicine

"Apparently "feminine" young boys" not diagnosed with GID at all. That is why it is listed as "consistent with, not "with GID" WAID. This wasn't a clinical study at all, it was a person to person "discussion" where not one of those boys IDENTIFIED AS FEMALE!  Green was trying to figure out why BOYS BECOME HOMOSEXUAL ! Your insistence on the inclusion of Baileys assumption is based entirely on a misunderstanding of what Green was doing and not one of these boys was diagnosed with GID. Not one and you know it. Gay men are  by the DSM QUALIFY AS GID during that era! Your premise was false and to quote BoNL  the level of deafness in here is astounding. This entire article is built on your  POV manipulating the conversation with false facts. You haven't  leg to stand on in this. You have been distorting the meaning of everything from the beginning. These kids didn't transition because they were all gay and you quoting it as if there was ANY diagnosis of present day  GID (which you haven't the slightest knowledge of ) is incorrect. GID boys do live in the gender, it is something they can't help because they are female. It gets them beat up, it gets them killed, they commit suicide , it gets them assessed for chronic depression. You have been mangling this article far too long not to understand the subject you are talking about. THis puts to rest one of the biggest LIES in the entire LGBT community.98.149.114.34 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Now here is the REAL kicker!

"the new Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (DSM III) was published in 1980, in place of homosexuality was an entirely new entry and diagnosis, "Gender Identity Disorder in Childhood," or "The Sissy Boy Syndrome.""

In other words, they had just replaced homosexuality with, you got it, Gender Identity Disorder. It was the new term for gay and meant absolutely nothing but effeminate GAY MEN! And that is who the study was about. Given the absolute ignorance of the time with Dr Money trying to force children to gender change it all makes sense now. Green had a deep belief in environment as a factor in being gay. His own study sent him backwards as it proved that genetics played factor. It's 30 years down the road, none of these kids were ever diagnosed as what we today call GID, they were effeminate gay men. You are wrong and I insist that it be somehow included in the article if you insist on making Baileys observations on Danny the sole quote. You are intentionally misleading the reader.98.149.114.34 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Gender Identity Disorder ,The Sissy Boy Syndrome vs Being Transsexual
In the light of the revelation that Baileys book used data that confuses effeminate homosexuals with transsexuals I think it needs to be revisited, especially the summation format. At the time GID was entirely about trying to relabel effeminate gay men. Richard Green's study shows it was merely a replacement for homosexual in the DSM. That changes the entire premise of these summaries. To say Danny had GID at the time simply meant he was an effeminate gay male, not a transsexual woman as the term is currently used today. To identify with women which many many gay men do, including an incredible love of drag, the occasional dress up , a huge love of women's fashion does not in any way mean they were transsexual. It means they have a deep interest in many things feminine. Transsexualism is marked by one issue that differentiates it from all other forms of transgenders ( an umbrella term for gender variant), the belief that they are female. The surgical correction is not to correct the mind at all, the mind already identifies female, it is to align thee body with the mind. This is done because psychiatry cannot cure, alter or effect the mind in any way but minor patterns of thought. In our presant understanding of GID, Danny wasn't GID at all, he was a typical gay male.

It is a confusing issue I know but it is relevant. Johns Hopkins did the community a huge disservice by picking 24 effeminate homosexual men out of 2000 applicants and giving them sex changes.The criteria was pass ability alone. I used to ask people if a gay man can do a perfect impression of a woman (which many of them can) and a transsexual has masculine features lives perfectly as a woman which is more real? It is a common misunderstanding among the cisgender to confuse the two. Bailey was supposed to be an expert and yet he still made a mistake. GID as it is today has absolutely nothing to do with homosexual men. Time to discuss. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see how this is interesting and perhaps relevant. Since Wikipedia is not a place for original research or for presenting new views, do you have reliable sources that critique Bailey's book in light of more recent research?


 * Btw, I'm reading the book now and will follow up with reading the relevant secondary sources. This Talk page is all over the place. I'd just like to encourage everyone to renew their commitment to keeping discussion here focused on the article itself, not general issues related to the book, its author, and its subject matter. Thanks. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 02:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Daniel, that is terrific. I hadn't read it for years so I downloaded it again. The best source would be Richard Green's Study I think, that is on my list. I am trying not to do any original research but since Bailey quotes from Greens study it should be included in it's true context to a small degree. If nothing else but to illuminate the misconceptions of what GID were at the time. Especially if WAID insists on pushing the POV that describes GID as some thing that floats around inert in GID patients .I can say pretty much with confidence that childhood GID does not go away, does not wane and will destroy the subject if not addressed. The diagnosis has altered since the 70's when Green along with John Money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money were hypothesizing reasons for homosexuality and transsexuality. Transsexualism occurs the heterosexual population just as frequently as in the homosexual  population so studying effeminate males in the gay community is a rather limiting since they are not transsexual, they are gay. Our psychology at the time was primitive and deep into trying to connect unrelated issues in a simplistic manner.  The summary  needs more than a one line based on a misconception.  98.149.114.34 (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is your critique of the book and the subject mentioning both Bailey and Green. No original research.

"The inclusion of GID in the DSM has not been without controversy. Interestingly the development of a diagnosis for transsexuality coincided with the removal of homosexuality from the DSM (Whittle 1993) . As outlined earlier, the removal of homosexuality was the result of an organized political campaign ,to depathologize sexual orientation diversity. However concurrent  with this reevaluation of previously held notions  about homosexuality  , transsexuality was created as an appropriate category  of pathology.  According to Wilson (1997)  American psychiatric  perceptions  of transgendered people  are remarkably  parallel to those for gay  and lesbian people before the declassification of homosexuality as mental disorder in 1973 (pg 15). Furthermore, GID may be used to diagnose gender variant homosexuals, especially youth, continuing the pathologization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people under a new diagnostic category. (Rottnek, 1999,Scholinski, 1997)

Since it's inception in the DSM GID has been through a number of clinical revisions., and the current diagnostic criterion continues to be examined for omissions and limitations ( Bower 2001). Transsexualism was included in the DSM in 1980  as a separate nosological category  but was later assimilated  into the larger section on sexual and gender identity disorders (Bradely and Zucker 1997:Miche Mormontm and Legros, 2001)"

"There are major problems using the diagnosis of GID for gender variant children. First, the DSM-IV uses blatant sexist criteria for defining gender identity disorder, which pathologies all nonconforming  children while doing little to actually identify children struggling with gender dysphoria. (Menveillle 1998:Richardson 1996, 1999) / The DSM-IV  stated mental disorders cannot be "conflicts between individuals and society" (pp.xxxi-xxxii) , yet gender appropriate behavior in children is obviously conflictual public policy debate."

"The majority of children diagnosed with GID are young boys. Given that the societal sex-role restrictions on young males are more extensive than those for for females, it raises questions about the need to maintain male privilege and status. Boys are punished (ie. treated) for gender variant behavior , where as girls behavior is tolerated and often rewarded if their behaviors stays within certain, less confining , guidelines . The DSM reflects this since boys need only "prefer" women's clothing while a girl must "insist" on boys clothing to meet the criteria. The DSMs implicit approval of sex-role divisions  does not merely reflect social values but enforces them.

In addition,, retrospective studies have shown that gender variant-boys often grow up to be homosexual , not transsexual ( Bailey, Zucker , 1995:Green 1987:Zuger ,1984) meaning it might not be "gender" identity  dyshoria being identified but early manifestations of sexual orientation diversity (homosexuality)(Isay 1997b :Menville,1998) This raises a red flag about the treatment of potentially prehomosexual children in a psychiatric system that supposedly does not  identify homosexuality as a disorder. Lawrence Mass (as quoted in Minter 1999) suggested "Amerucan Psychatry is  . . .  engaged in a long, subtle process of reconceptualizing  homosexuality as a mental illness with another name- the "GENDER IDENTITY DISORDER"(p.12)

"The American Public Health Association (ALPHA) recognized that "Gender Identity Disorder within the DSM-IV is misused by healthcare professionals to treat prehomosexual and pretranssexual children and adolescents  so as to promote their development into nontranssexual, heterosexual adults" (ALPHA 1999 p.35). Finally and perhaps most significantly  because the wording is so vague and obviously sexist, it does not assist clinicians in actually serving  young children in despair about their gender identity or expression."

Transgender Emergence: Therapeutic Guidelines for Working With Gender-Variant People and Their Families by Arlene Istar Lev  http://books.google.com/books?id=LwxvazLRmiEC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=bailey+dsm+transgender+homosexual+transsexual&source=bl&ots=d2rrqgITXI&sig=qP322-MeN2oHb45Rwx05eXg0Bfs&hl=en&ei=IeS2TY3eF432tgPXgf2qAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false .And here are her credentials http://www.choicesconsulting.com/aboutarlene/resume.htm. GID at the time Green wrote his study, his famous study, meant homosexual  , not transsexual. Transsexuals were not included till much later. Dr Bailey had no understanding of the difference at the time and hence used Greens study to validate a subject that was markedly different. These were young gay men, not transsexuals and Bailey was enforcing societal norms, not pondering the on the subject. He was turning gay men into transsexuals so they could b pathologized. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * While I would love to move on Daniel I have one lone issue to be resolve. Richard Green's study took place 0ver the 1970's. WAID said they were all diagnosed as having GID. I not only dispute that I want WAID to explain to us all how that is possible given this:


 * "The differential diagnosis for children was formalized in the third revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) in 1980.[1]


 * Look it up WAID. How did Green get a group of young boys to be diagnosed as GID when it wasn't even a diagnoses till late in the study? You have a lot of explaining to do. None of these boys were GID, they were merely feminine boys and NOT EVEN CLOSE TO IN TIME FOR GREENS RESEARCHED TO BE DIAGNOSED AS GID!. I could never understand how the normal rules of logic were stood on their head. Again, the massace of fact continues. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Diagnoses do not spring fully formed into the DSM. They are used in research, often for decades, before being included.  Retrospective diagnosis is also possible.  The boys' actual experience doesn't change simply because a bunch of experts finally wrote down a name for it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh no, this diagnosis had meaning even at the time. So Green was using the 1970's knowledge and applied GID, a category that wouldn't even appear in the DSM till 5 years later to assess a group of  to homosexual boys and Bailey used Retrospective diagnosis to use that  category completely altered  to classify a a group of kids he never met ?!  I think that is preposterous and the most absurd denial of facts. Please show where  Bailey clarifies  this by explaining it was a Retrospective diagnosis.  There is absolutely no reference for that in either book while there is a  reference to Baileys quoting of Green's totally flawed study of homosexual boys. Losing the meaning of transsexual in a reclassification of gays98.149.114.34 (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection
I've fully protected the article to stop the edit warring; please work it out here on the talk page. Dreadstar ☥  19:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Since WAID doesn't accept other peoples edits not in Dr Baileys favor it is just deny any reversion.WAID brought in an outside editor to and he even agreed that my inclusion of "while others disagree" as appropriate. WAID deleted it anyway. Read anything he reverted and you will see his entire premise it is it is my  POV. Then read the changes,that's right, most often the inclusions  of quotes from articles he himself was using. He cuts them  because they don't support his  argument. To pretend there was some fake loss of academic freedom, invisible to everyone but he and Alice Dreger. And her quotes,  he salts  throughout  the article, hiding them in quotes from Benedict Carey of the NY TImes where Alice Dreger is the only one quoted defending Dr Bailey. The only one and leaves out everyone who disagrees and there are many.


 * Why would you lock something you haven't knowledge of, aren't participating in and aren't editing on? The lock isn't to stop edit warring, it's to lock a version WAID wants because he doesn't discuss. Wikipedia, such a boys club.98.149.114.34 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)