The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism

This book is a travesty for both evolutionary psychology as a discpline but more so for psychology as a whole. Bailey purports to work from science (you know, the stuff where you have empirically tested data and don't make assumptions unless you can back them up with facts?) yet at no stage whatsoever does he provide anything but damaging anecdotes. He does not cite any empirical data, makes broad claims with nothing but 'my lab found' to back it up and shows no respect for the men involved at all - all couched in a subtle but superior tone.
Perhaps the worst thing is that it pigeonholes transgender people in the most damaging way: it claims to be backed up by science. There's nothing most people want than simple answers to complex human show more issues backed up by science.
That Bailey was the head of a psychology department is a travesty in itself: that a book like this was allowed to be published under the guise of 'scientific proof' is just as egregious.

If you're after information on transgender people - in a hope to understand their lives and their identity, as I am - do not read this. It implies a simplistic, unfounded and derogatory view of transgender men. If, however, you really do wish to read it and see for yourself, then finish it off by reading 'The Bailey Affair: Psychology Perverted' by Joan Roughgarden to give you context. show less

At the start of this book, Dr. Bailey introduces us to a man named Edwin, who is very feminine. Bailey claims to know what Edwin was like as a child (played with dolls, didn't like sports, etc.), that he's attracted to men, and furthermore that Edwin will probably undergo a gender transition in the future. The thing is, Bailey didn't actually ask Edwin about any of these things – he just *knows*, because he's does so much research on gay men that he can just come to these conclusions based on a brief observation.

This first anecdote sets the tone for the rest of the work – speculation presented as fact, with some very poor research presented as justification. He makes a whole lot of sweeping conclusions about the populations he's show more researching (all gay men are feminine, trans women come in only two "types", etc.) based on very small and non-representative sample sizes. Even worse, anything that contradicts his conclusions is dismissed as a lie – he frequently reminds the reader that people who come to gender clinics lie *all* the time and are in denial about the reality of their condition.

To put it bluntly, this is a terrible book. The worst part is that Bailey continually claims that he's helping gay and trans people, when in fact he's only giving credence to existing stereotypes with his shoddy research. show less

Bailey combines his own research into feminine boys, some of whom become transsexuals, with the research of Blanchard into those men termed autogynephilic. These men typically have a history of masturbation while cross dressing and are fixated on the idea of themselves as women, being penetrated. If they transition, it is usually later in life, and frequently after marriage to a woman. Of course this was written 20 years ago when gender reassignment surgery was more rare, especially for younger people.