Interim Investigative Report on
Bailey's affiliations and ideological associations
by Lynn Conway
Initial Posting: 10-22-03
Updated Version of: 7-20-05
Investigative files on key HBDG (aka HBI, HBES) members associated with Bailey  as role models, mentors, colleagues, supporters and spokesmen

This is the group of racists, anti-immigrationists and genetic superiorists whose activities were exposed by the prestigious Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), in the Winter 2003 SPLC investigative report entitled:

QUEER SCIENCE: An 'elite' cadre of scientists and journalists tries to turn back the clock on sex, gender and race.

Andrews, Lewis R.
Bailey, Michael
Blanchard, Ray
Brand, Chris
Brimelow, Peter
Burr, Chandler
Buss, David M.
Cochran, Gregory M.
Derbyshire, John
Entine, Jon
Hausman, Patricia
MacDonald, Kevin
Martin, William C.
Miller, Edward M.
Murray, Charles
Pinker, Steven
Rushton, J.P.
Sailer, Steve
Seligman, Dan
Whitney, Glayde 
We can learn a lot about someone by finding out who are their friends, colleagues and supporters.
In the case of J. Michael Bailey, many of his key role models, mentors, colleagues and supporters are found listed among the members of Steve Sailer's "Human Biodiversity Discussion Group" (see Part-I for more info on this group).
Beginning in the summer of 2003, our investigators began sending us information about these "HBDG" people, their connections with Bailey, their support of his work, and their coming to his defense as his work and reputation began unraveling. Some of the information we have on file about these people is listed below. This is a work in progress, and you can join in and help us. You can begin by reading this material and absorbing the complex context unfolded here. You can then following the leads and links here to begin exploring on your own for connections.
Over time we hope to fill in even more details about Bailey's supportive network, and thus better answer such questions as "Why did he do it?" Why did he do it the way he did? What could he have been thinking? Who inspired him to think that way? Who supported the publication of his book by the National Academy Press, and defended it within Academy circles? We'd also like to further reveal how his small circle of supporters tried to defend him, desperately trying to make their defense look in the media like a larger "mainstream" defense by "unaffiliated people" (when in fact it's been easy to link them all together, and show that only Bailey's original supporters have come to his defense...mostly from among his key HBDG friends).
You can help us in this work, and if you uncover interesting new connections and evidence, please do let us know. Meantime, our thanks go out to the many people who've collaborated with Andrea James and me on tracking down the very interesting links and connections uncovered so you will see, there is some really amazing stuff in here...

Louis R. Andrews
Andrews is webmaster of the "Stalking the Wild Taboo" website, which promotes an array of neoconservative (mostly racist) theories. He defends these theories by proclamations that these are "taboo" subjects which are being investigated by "courageous stalkers" in the face of continual censorship and attacks by "egalitarians" and "liberals". This notion of "scientists working in the face of uncouth attempts by riff-raff who want to censoring their science" is a recurring theme among HBDG'ers, who've gone to school on this technique for defending their work without actually having to rebut actual criticisms.
Bailey is a past master at posing as a "courageous taboo-stalker". He always counters any criticisms of his work by (i) attacking his critics as being "transsexuals" and thus being uncouth disreputable persons, (ii) claiming his critics are "trying to censor his results", and (iii) claiming that his critics are "attacking science". All these responses to criticism raise major emotions in Bailey's scientific colleagues who naturally fear any such presumably weird attacks on their own work by "uneducated riff-raff", and thus they never notice that Bailey has managed to deflect attention away from truly meritorious criticisms of his bizarre work by thoughtful, intelligent persons!
Let's take a look at Andrews ideas and methods. Here are some words from the introduction to his website:
Stalking the Wild Taboo
Human Differences
"Differences, what do you mean differences? Aren’t we all the same? Male-female, white-black-yellow, lower class-upper class, rich-poor?
Well, John Locke thought so, or at least that we were potentially so - thus the creation of the tabula rasa concept which became an integral part of modern equalitarianism, our civic religion, as Edward O. Wilson calls it. But what does the evidence show after we bypass the taboo created by our modern Christian/marxist egalitarian faith? We will investigate three areas: individual, race/ethnic, and sex differences. Instead of just providing pro and con arguments, we hope to provide a little sense of the nature of the protagonists as well. Since individual differences are both the most instructive and the least sensitive, we’ll begin with them. First let us take an on-line overview of the whole area of human differences.
Let’s start with Edward O. Wilson’s keynote address, Science and Ideology, given to the 1994 convention of the National Association of Scholars in Cambridge MA. It’s an excellent overview of the conflict between a biological and an ideological view of mankind, from the biological standpoint. At the end of the article he mentions the coming "IQ wars." Of course, this was in reference to the newly published best seller by Herrnstein and Murray, The Bell Curve. This book really broke the discussion wide open for the first time in many years. - - - "
Here are some words from his site about his methods:
About Stalkers and Stalking Taboos
Taboo - (Polynesian) to prohibit something from use, approach, or mention because of its sacred and inviolate nature.
Stalking taboos requires "long periods of quietness, a low profile, protective coloration, and the diversion of the quarry's attention to other matters until the propitious moment."
...a taboo cannot be productively attacked until the time is ripe.
Avoid irrelevant offensiveness.
The first step in emasculating a taboo should be to pin a proper label on it. As with Rumpelstilskin in the fairy story, the full power of a taboo depends on its remaining unnamed.
Never tackle more than one taboo at a time.
- Tactics courtesy of Garrett Hardin
Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead! - Webmaster
Here is a list of some "stalkers" that Andrews admires.
Two (Miller, Rushton) are fellow members of the HBDG:
Garrett Hardin: The master biologist/ecologist speaks for himself.
Seymour W. Itzkoff: Author of seven books on evolution and intelligence.
Edward M. Miller: One of the most creative of the new evolutionary thinkers. (member, HBDG)
Michael Levin: A philosopher sees issues from a biological standpoint.
J. Philippe Rushton: The outspoken author of Race, Evolution, and Behavior.(member, HBDG)


J. Michael Bailey
J. Michael Bailey is the author of notorious book "The Man Who Would Be Queen", and is a key person under investigation regarding his HBDG (HBI) affiliations, associations and supporters.

During the promotion of Bailey's book and during the trans investigation into his research misconduct against transsexual women - then later during his attacks on the identities of bisexual men - a number of key HBI members came to his defense and served as his spokesmen and advocates in the media. These included  Ray Blanchard, Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, Dan Seligman, Steven Pinker and Chandler Burr.  

For more about the overall Bailey controversy, see the trans community websites that are coordinating the community's response to Bailey's book:
The Blanchard-Bailey-Lawrence Information Clearinghouse
Investigation into the publication of Bailey's book by the National Academies

Ray Blanchard
Ray Blanchard is the director of the infamous gender clinic at The Clarke Institute (now CAMH) in Toronto, Canada.  His work and that of his colleagues at CAMH has been a major source of the psychiatric and psychological stereotyping, scapegoating and defamation of transsexual women during the past two decades.

It was Blanchard who took Paul McHugh's "theory" that transsexual women are either (i) gay men or (ii) transvestic fetishists, and gave it an aura of scientific "credibility". He did this by means of selective recruitment of research subjects and use of the discredited plethysmograph (a penile-arousal measuring device) to claim to be able to determine what those subjects were "thinking" and whether of not they were "lying" about their sexual activities. 

Blanchard's theory was propped up by his invention of the word "autogynephilia" to replace transvestic fetishism, and he then claimed that the invention of that word was a scientific "discovery" of the principal "cause of transsexualism.

Blanchard was a strong supporter of J. Michael Bailey, whom he treated as his protege. As a result of J. Michael Bailey's being openly criticized by HBIGDA, Blanchard resigned from HBIGDA on November 4, 2003..
Blanchard's theory was deconstructed and found to be fatally flawed by Madeline Wyndzham, Ph.D. in April, 2004.

Blanchard then became notorious for openly defaming all postop trans women in the media, where he was quoted as saying that a trans woman is simply a "man without a penis".  This has brought further investigations down on Blanchard's clinic at CAMH, with results pending.

For more about Blanchard and The Clarke Institute (CAMH) she the many pages devoted to those topics in Andrea James' BBL Clearinghouse.


Chris Brand

Bailey's friend, the "scientific racist" Chris Brand, was a tenured professor in Edinburgh who got fired in 1997 after his infamous racist book "The g Factor" was withdrawn from publication by Wiley and Co. 
In Brand's own words from his website:
"Christopher Brand is the author of The g Factor -- the 1996 book on intelligence that was favourably reviewed in the top science magazine, Nature, but suddenly withdrawn as "repellent" by its own New York publisher, Wiley Inc. After causing controversy in Britain by explaining his hereditarian views on race, IQ, eugenics, feminism and paedophilia, Brand was fired as "disgraceful" by Edinburgh University in 1997 after 26 years of unblemished service - - - "
In reflecting on the Brand case, Bailey says the following: "I can't imagine a U.S. university acting as Edinburgh did."
Bailey had thus "gone to school" on what a professor can get away with here in the U.S. He realized that with tenure here he could publish anything, no matter how horribly harmful to a disenfranchised gender minority, and no one could do anything about it - because of the academic freedom and rights of free speech that we so highly value here.
Of course, we have the right of free speech too. Thus we can investigate, expose and challenge his "scientific methods" and his dishonesty in promoting his findings as "science" to others.
Meantime, Brand has joined other key HBDG members to come Bailey's defense, saying:
"Dr Sex‚ VERSUS ANTI-HOMOPHOBISTS AND ASSORTED FAGGOTS A book-burning witch-hunt began against psychologist J. Michael Bailey, of Northwestern University, near Chicago, who claimed from his research that some transsexuals are homosexuals, thus apparently managing to annoy representatives‚ of both these hyper-sensitive groups at the same time. Fortunately, Chronicles of Higher Education (20 vi) gave Bailey, a Texan nerd‚, a friendly write up, saying he had plenty of transsexual/friends, did a good job on the dance floor and bought a round of drinks, so there was a possibility that he and his book, The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, might survive."
This should start to give you and idea of the kind of people Bailey calls his friends: i.e., guys like Brand who call GLBT people "anti-homophobists and assorted faggots"...
For more about Chris Brand, see his website. Also be sure to Brand's William McDougall NewsLetter, which contains a stream of commentary by Brqans on racial-IQ-profiling news events, and in which you'll find much evidence of how tightly Brand is connected with HBDG, especially with Steve Sailer. In particular, in this issue of the WML you will find Brand making several references to Sailer's views on eugenics, and informal comments Sailer and Brand were exchanging about racial differences in athletic performance...
See also Andrea James' page on this widely-known racist's active support of Bailey: Chris Brand on transsexualism
[Can someone out there find us a photo of Chris Brand to add to our HBDG rogues' gallery...?]

Peter Brimelow
Peter Brimelow is President, Center For American Unity (CFAU)

Brimelow was profiled in a major article entitled "Keeping America White", in the Winter 2003 issue of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report. In that article, Brimelow is described as having started the Center for American Unity in 1999, where he remains president today. The center's most important project is a Web page called VDARE, named after Virginia Dare, the first English child born in the New World in 1587. Based on evidence compiled by that Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center has added VDARE to its list of officially declared hate sites on the internet.  Brimelow is now a prominent and active contributor to VDARE.

Brimelow is the author of the book Alien Nation, 1995. Brimelow's book was clearly designed to generate a "controversy", which it did, and thus it sold well. As might have been expected by it's author and controversy-designer, the book was both extolled and vilified from the two strong opposing sides in that controversy.  Here's a relevant clip from one of the reviews of this book:
"The only immigration "disaster" in the United States is that we have let reactionary right-wing British expatriate white racist males like Peter Brimelow take up residence and write books here. If you read his book closely you will see that his paradigm is really England, not the United States at all. Since the days of Plymouth Rock, this country has been all about people fleeing religious persecution and oppression. Period."  [Remember that John Derbyshire is another one of these elitist, white superiorist British expatriates - - - ].
Here's a link to a page of links to the writings of other VDARE members. As you will see from their writings, VDARE consists of a group of anti-immigrationist neoconservatives who've rallied around Sailer's views regarding closing our borders to prevent further 'declines in our gene pool'. The members of VDARE are: John Brimelow, Peter Brimelow, Joseph E. Fallon, James Fulford, Joe Guzzardi, Juan Mann, Scott McConnell, Paul Craig Roberts, Steve Sailer, Howard Sutherland, Allan Wall, John Wall, Chilton Williamson Jr.
More about VDARE later...
Meantime, the following information on CFAU is found in the earlier Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report of Summer 2003:
Into the Mainstream:
An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable
By Chip Berlet

Excerpt re CFAU:

Center for American Unity
Long-time anti-immigrant activist and author Peter Brimelow is the president of the Center for American Unity, a Virginia nonprofit foundation "dedicated to preserving our historical unity as Americans into the 21st Century." On the surface, the center is concerned with promoting English as a common language, but a bit of digging reveals concerns that non-white, Catholic, and Spanish-speaking immigrants are polluting America.
This is most obvious in the foundation's VDARE project, which is named after Virginia Dare, the first English child born in the New World in 1587. Brimelow says that he once planned to bestow Dare's name upon "the heroine of a projected fictional concluding chapter in Alien Nation [his anti-immigration book], about the flight of the last white family in Los Angeles."
Reviving a favorite theme of early nativists and the Ku Klux Klan, Brimelow attacks 19th-century Catholic immigrants for being supposedly subservient to popes and monarchs, and thus incompatible with democratic self-rule.
The VDARE Web site also contains an archive of columns by Sam Francis, the immigrant-bashing editor of the newspaper of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens*. In his columns, Francis rails against the "emerging Hispanic majority," plugs conspiracy theories, and promotes white racial consciousness.
In April, VDARE took one more step toward the racist right, publishing an essay on its Web site by white supremacist Jared Taylor that dismisses "the fantasy of racial equality," claims the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "stripped Americans of the right to make free decisions," and says that "[b]lacks, in particular, riot with little provocation," unlike the far more peaceable white race. "
Brimelow also has the dubious honor of being listed and biographied in the anti-fascist One People's Project "Rogue's Gallery", as a key figure behind the racist, white supremacy movement to rid America of anyone who is not white.

Chandler Burr
Chandler Burr, is a Washington, D.C. based journalist. He is the author of A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation, (hardcopy) a 1996 trade science book about "the gay gene". In that book, Burr exploits the unrepeated scientific results of Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer, and the theories of Boston University Professor Richard Pillar, to make a case for a biological cause of male homosexuality as a "defect in development" of normal males in which the sexual centers of gay men's brains are not "defeminized"a hormone-regulated process that routinely occurs in the embryonic brains of male heterosexuals (hmm... are these guys somehow confusing gay-causes with trans-causes?...). Anyways:
Here's an Editorial Review of this book from

"In 1993 American scientists claimed they had discovered a gay gene. Sexual orientation it seems, is not a choice, disease or faddish whim but a fundamental biological part of who we are. This book examines this claim, looking at the laboratories where researchers are using incredible new technologies to discover what makes us gay of straight. From studies of male rats that ovulate and a species of African animal where the female has a penis, to the political storm surrounding the claim of a gay gene, from a silicon chip of human DNA that could determine the sexual orientation of a foetus in the womb, to a working theory that homosexuality is a genetic/biological condition that is treatable with an antibiotic, the book explores this often ethically ambiguous territory."
    During the main phase of the investigation of Bailey's book, during 2003-2004, Burr was silent. He let other HBI members (notably Blanchard, Pinker, Sailer, Seligman and Derbyshire) speak for and defend Bailey against the ensuing charges of research misconduct.

    However, when Bailey later attacked against the identities of bisexual men in July 2005, Burr was the first of the HBI members to come to Bailey's defense against critics.  Right on cue, Burr sent an "attack-mode" Letter to the Editor of the New York Times calling Bailey's critics "hysterical and anti-science":


    "To the Editor:

    Some gay and bisexual advocates are condemning "Straight, Gay or Lying?" regarding a study suggesting that bisexuality may not exist among human males - something those of us familiar with the scientific literature have known since, basically, forever.

    Compare this hysterical - and anti-science - reaction to the conservative Christians' anti-science reaction to studies showing that homosexuality is an inborn orientation like left-handedness. They're identical.

    The right hates science because the data contradict (in the case of homosexuality) Leviticus; the left because the data contradict the liberal lie that we're environment-created, not hard-wired in any way.

    These particular scientific facts are making these advocates scream like members of the extreme right, though it's they who always tells the right to let go of concepts that are contradicted by science.

    Chandler Burr
    New York"


    In that letter to the NY Times on July 12, 2005, Burr finally revealed himself as an active member of the HBI-clique of defenders of Bailey's attacks on sexual minorities (i.e., attacks on trans and bi people who do not fit the bipolar male-female, gay-straight world of LeVay, Hamer and Bailey).

    His motives?  Burr is an old-guard gay man who will do whatever he can to prop up the now failing, simplistic, evolutionary psychology rationale behind that old-guard's bipolar gay-straight view of the world (a world that does not predict or recognize the existence of bisexual men).  

  • By ridiculing Bailey's critics as "hysterical and anti-science", Burr tries to position Bailey as a "scientist under attack by identity politicians on the left and religious ideologues on the right" 

    Can Bailey hide behind this scientific smokescreen?  Somehow we doubt it.

    After all, the NGLTF Fact Sheet reveals fatal flaws in Bailey's bisexuality work. In light of that analysis, it is Burr's dissing of Bailey's critics that seems to be "hysterical and anti-science".

    Nevertheless, we expect Chandler Burr to serve an active spokesman for and staunch defender of Bailey's "scientific" attacks on the identities of bisexual men. After all, listen to him here, in his exposition of Dean Hamer's insistence on the matter (Dean Hamer of NIH is a strong Bailey supporter, has worked with Bailey for years, and provided funding for Bailey's "arousal studies"). Burr and Hamer simply insist that science says there are no bisexual men:


    Excerpts from:

    A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation

    Chandler Burr, 1996


    "The distribution curve dictated by Hamer and Pattatuci's data raised some

    eyebrows among scientists. The fact that sexual orientation is clearly "ether/or" for

    men is still a relatively new concept to many scientists, several of whom expressed

    initial doubts about the data.


    Hamer points out, somewhat testily, that his distribution curve has been confirmed

    by several studies. ("I didn't tell these men to answer 0 or 6," he mutters, "it's just that

    almost all of them did. Am I supposed to pretend the trait is continuous?") One of

    these studies, he notes, was conducted at a military hospital where the military's

    strict ban on homosexuality biases strongly against a response of 6, or homosexual.

    "You'd expect to get a large number of 'bisexual' responses in the military," explains

    Hamer, "2s, 3s, and 4s, because bisexuality would be a convenient way of shading

    the answer and protecting yourself. But again almost all of the men answered 6 or 0."

    The latest such study was conducted in Australia by Michael Bailey and Nick Martin,

    and had a sample size of more than 2, 000 respondents.


    Hamer takes out a paper the dubious genetics professor had published that criticized

    Hamer's finding. The professor had written "Although the probands reported a wide

    range of sexual behaviors, identities, and fantasies, [Hamer and Pattatuci] divided

    the men into homosexual and heterosexual." "The ' wide range', "Hamer responds

    sarcastically, "is here." He snaps open a copy of his study, pins it to his desk, and

    points briskly to the four raw-data charts on page 1 from which the distribution curve

    was derived. The numbers clearly indicate bimodal distribution in men..."


    Asked if he had anticipated this striking bimodality for male sexual orientation, Hamer

    says, "Well, how many truly bisexual men have you ever met?..."


    But of the few who said-even insisted-they were bisexual and made their case

    with the fact that they were also sleeping with women, it would become clear with

    most of them after just a couple of casual questions that they were really only attracted

    to men but were in the process of coming out and felt more at ease at that point calling

    themselves 'bisexual' than 'gay', which was a more radical term for them. They were still

    sleeping with increasingly fewer women for the same reasons."


    But the third difference between the sexes was perhaps the most striking, and this

    was a difference of expression. ...She confirmed in the end that women do something

    men virtually never do: They move among straight, bisexual, and lesbian.


    ...If a homosexual is homosexual, just how homosexual is that homosexual? It turns

    out that the answer is different for men and women. For men, the answer is usually:

    completely. If a man  is homosexual (or heterosexual), he expresses that version of

    the sexual orientation trait 100 percent. For women the answer is: sometimes not

    as homosexual as homosexual men. And straight women are not as straight as

    straight men either...



    David Buss
    A professor of psychology at the Univ. of Texas, Buss is an "evolutionary psychologist" who is one of the primary supporters of Bailey's book. Here are Buss's glowing comments from the back cover sheet of Bailey's book, also repeated on the National Academy Press' website:
    "Bailey is one of a rare breed of writers who manages to combine first-rate science with deep psychological understanding, resulting in great breadth of vision. He takes us on an unforgettable journey into the minds and lives of feminine men. Bailey skillfully interweaves vivid case studies with cutting-edge scientific findings, placing both in a deep historical context from the sexual playground of ancient Greece to the dilemmas of gender in the modern world. Refreshingly candid, remarkably free of ideology, this book is destined to become a modern classic in the field. But readers should be prepared to have some cherished assumptions about human nature shattered."

    -- David M. Buss, author of The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating and Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind
    Buss' book on "Human Mating" was originally published in 1994, reprinted in 1995, and then published in paperback in 2003. His book is another example of an HBDG member's "controversy generator/exploiter" book that sold well. In the case of Buss' book, it sold into the controversies surrounding the 90's backlash against the feminism of the 70's and 80's.
    Buss is well-known for his "evolutionary psychological" notions of rigidly bi-polar genders in humans. Consider, for example, these portions of an review of Buss's book, which well exposes the simplistic thinking that Buss engages in and makes pronouncements from:
  Review by Thomas David Kehoe, author of "Hearts and Minds: How Our Brains Are Hardwired for Relationships" --This text refers to the Paperback edition

    - - - In "The Evolution of Desire," Buss presumes that men and women are fundamentally different. This view was popular in early 1990s as "backlash" against 1970s feminists saying that men and women are the same. However, current thinking (e.g., "Sex, Time, and Power," by Leonard Shlain) takes the transpersonal view that each of us has a masculine and a feminine side, and a mature, balanced individual can use one or the other situations change.

    Buss believes that men want to have sex with many women, and that women want men to give them economic resources. Buss uses the inaccurate Kinsey research on sexual behavior instead of the accurate University of Chicago research. The latter found that the vast majority of Americans are in monogamous, committed relationships, and that these individuals are happier than individuals with more than one sexual partner.

    Buss's bias is apparant in the section that attempts -- and fails -- to explain why women engage in casual sex. Buss ignores the research identifying the reason women become promiscuous: stress. E.g., teenage girls in abusive families are more likely to have sex. The evolutionary perspective is obvious: women who used casual sex to survive famine, war, or other life-threatening situations survived and became our ancestral mothers.This research came out mostly after 1994, so Buss didn't include it in the original edition. That may have been OK then, but leaving it out of the 2003 edition is misguided.

    That women want men to give them economic resources is a central theme of "The Evolution of Desire." But Buss ignores the fact that in hunter-gatherer societies (which comprise more than 99% of human evolution) no one owned more than he or she could carry. Buss notes that women prefer men with social status, but then says that this is because high-status men give women more economic resources. Buss fails to mention the "gene's eye view" reason explaining why women prefer high-status men. In polygynous societies (almost all human societies are, including our own "serial monogamous" society), high-status men father more children. In many societies, only the sons of leaders can become leaders. E.g., the 2000 presidential election was between the son of a president, the son of a senator, the son and grandson of four-star Navy admirals, and the son of a wealthy banker. A woman who marries a leader and produces the son who becomes the next leader will have a disproportionate number of grandchildren.

    "The Evolution of Desire" discusses only the evolution of human behavior, and never mentions that human bodies and brains also evolved. Buss draws no connections between our bodies, brains, and behavior. E.g., his section on how women's sexual behaviors vary over their menstrual cycles never mentions that hormones (including estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone) contribute to these behavioral changes.

    Buss never mentions that humans have a unique, difficult-to-explain anatomical feature: a huge cerebral cortex. This brain area enables us to think in abstractions, use language, and, perhaps most important for sexual strategies, to lie to each other. Buss sometimes mentions lying as a sexual strategy, and even notes the "evolutionary arms race" of men and women deceiving each other, and catching each others' deception. But he never connects the dots that sexual lying (and catching sexual lies) may have driven our ancestors to evolve huge brains.

    Buss notes in passing that love is the number one quality women desire in a partner. But his view that love consists of solely of commitment, kindness, and sincerity is inadequate.

    Buss erroneously states that similarity attracts. He correctly notes that most studies finding similarity between couples looked at factors that facilitate meeting, e.g., living in the same neighborhood. But he supports his view by quoting studies finding 25-50% correlation in values, personality types, etc., between couples. But 25-50% is poor correlation, in other words, couples are more dissimilar than similar on these measures. If couples were more similar than dissimilar, the correlations would be 50-100%.

    The chapter about couples staying together as they age opens with a fine quotation from Marjorie Shostak about how love changes from the fiery passion of youth to the warm and dependable love of middle age. But this chapter is about jealousy, emotional manipulation, and "keeping competitors at bay." Buss doesn't acknowledge the existence of love, so he can't write about how love changes through the stages of life.

    My last criticism of "The Evolution of Desire" is that Buss never discusses differences between monogamous and polygamous societies. This becomes apparent in the section about the "feminist viewpoint" that men "tend to control resources worldwide" and "oppress women" and try to "control women's sexuality and reproduction." But most societies aren't patriarchal, as Buss believes, rather are instead kyriarchical: a few men control everybody else ("kyri" is the Greek word for overlord). Such societies are polygynous, and the median woman is better off than the median man. Such societies are mostly run by the Grand Pooh-bah's senior wives. And these hierarchical societies were created by women selecting to mate with certain men and not others.

    More about Buss later...
    Buss is also a colleague of Bailey's in IASR (more on IASR later...).

    Gregory M. Cochran

    "Gregory M. Cochran is a freelance physicist who studies the evolution of disease in Albuquerque, New Mexico." - American Scientist Online.
    Cochran is "A forty-five-year-old Ph.D. physicist who lives in Albuquerque with his wife and three small children, Cochran makes a living doing contract work on advanced optical systems for weaponry and other devices." - The Atlantic Online, February 1999.
    Cochran is "now an adjunct professor with the University of Utah's strong department of anthropology - - - " - Steve Sailer, VDARE, 08/17/03
    We found this listing for Cochran in the Univ. of Utah directory:
    COCHRAN,GREGORY; Faculty - Unpaid; Anthropology Department.
    However, Cochran is not listed among the regular or adjunct faculty in the Anthopology Dept. faculty listings. ]
    Whatever that all means, Cochran is variously referred to and extolled by his HBDG buddies as being a "free-lance genius", an "evolutionary biologist", etc. For example, Steve Sailer, HBDG founder and leader says of Cochran: "The Cochran-Ewald theory of the causation of chronic disease - - - was one of the most important scientific theories developed during the last century." Hmm. Have you ever heard of him before? Einstein, yes. But Cochran???
    However, Cochran is well known, widely quoted and highly extolled for his racial-genetic-profiling science and homosexual-causation-science by various neoconservative and far-right groups, such as the British National Party, as in this article:
    Time is running out for Western Civilisation, by Chairman Nick Griffin
    But is he well-known among the general public? Seems he's not. Of course that could change as his views on racial genetics and the causes of homosexuality become better known...
    Cochran first got noticed in the emerging evolutionary biology/psychology community for his work with Paul Eward of Amherst College:
    [ Note: Ewald is not on the current Biology Faculty roll at Amherst - Does anyone out there know where he is now? ]
    Do Germs Cause Cancer? Forbes Global, 11/15/99:
    Here are some excerpts from page 2 of that article:
    "Paul Ewald, a professor of biology at Amherst College, is the pioneer of this view of microbial disease. - - - Evolutionary theory leads me to conclude that sexually transmitted pathogens cause a lot more problems than we are yet aware of," Ewald says. "They must survive a long time in the host, hidden from the immune system; the only ones that survive will have figured out that trick."
    Ewald credits the sharpening of his thesis to his unorthodox collaborator, Gregory M. Cochran, a Ph.D. in physics who researches optics for the military and works on evolutionary biology as an avocation. Ewald and Cochran argue that researchers should give germs at least equal standing with other unproved theories when they tackle ailments like psychosis and diabetes. Cochran sums up the new germ theory this way: "Big, old diseases have to be infectious."
    Schizophrenia is very common-- 1% of the population has it--widespread, ancient and costly from a Darwinian point of view. Heredity clearly plays some role in susceptibility to the affliction. But can that be the whole explanation? Defenders of the pure-gene view have to come up with some way around the matter of reproductive fitness. They argue that the underlying factors for the disease may have provided our Stone Age ancestors with some unspecified advantage in surviving to adulthood. But Cochran says there is no particular reason to believe this story.
    "Besides, it's so bad for your fitness [that] it should have disappeared very, very recently, let alone a long time ago--things move fast when you have a fitness differential that big," says Cochran. - - - "
    Ewald and Cochran speculate that genetic evolution causes all positive results while germs cause all diseases and disorders. In their world, disorders and defects such as schizophrenia, cancers and homosexuality (and thus transsexualism) can be stamped out by identifying and stopping the "germs" that cause them. Meantime, human advancement can be "managed" by proper statistical evaluation of and inverventionist attention to the "gene pool". Ewald and Cochran teach that human advancement can be made by integrating these two thrusts: (i) making progress through genetic advancement and (ii) elimination of defects by elimination of "infectious diseases", as at the following symposium:
    Modern Medicine and Evolutionary Biology Attempt Integration
    November 12, 1999
    "A medical education symposium sponsored by Indiana University School of Medicine, Northwest Center for Medical Education, will address issues concerning the integration of modern medicine and evolutionary biology. According to Dr. Virgil Hoftiezer of the Northwest Center, the merging of the two views is controversial, but is also providing a new foundation for medicine.
    Gregory M. Cochran, Ph.D., a freelancer in physics and evolutionary epidemiology from Albuquerque, New Mexico will present, Catching On To What’s Catching: The Startling Scope of Infectious Diseases.
    Paul W. Ewald, Ph.D. of Amherst College, Massachusetts, will speak on The Future of Darwinian Medicine: The Transition from Understanding to Evolutionary Management.
    Cochran came to Steven Sailer's attention early on and was invited by Sailer to join the HBDG. Sailer now frequently quotes Cochran in support of his (Sailer's) racist and anti-immigrationist neoconservative ideological propaganda, such as in this posting to VDARE:
    From: steveslr@a...
    Date: Sat Feb 24, 2001 6:06 am
    Subject: Human Genome Disinformation

    Human Genome Disinformation
    By Steve Sailer 2/23/2001
    Human Genome Project scientists have been conspiring with journalists recently to lard press reports on their findings with politically-correct disinformation.
    Nobody was bamboozled more than former GOP vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp, who informed us, "The human genome project shows there is no genetic way to tell races apart. For scientific purposes, race simply doesn't exist." I asked evolutionary biologist Gregory M. Cochran about this Race-Is-Not-A-Scientific-Concept party line emanating from the Human Genome Project.
    "I don't know what they are talking about. I suspect it's all political. These days, you could certainly screw up your academic career with a single truthful comment," snorted Dr. Cochran. "No such thing as race? Then how can population geneticists like L.L. Cavalli-Sforza calculate your ancestry from different parts of the world to the percentage point? How come forensic anthropologists can determine a suspect's racial makeup from hair or semen left at the scene of a crime?"
    I asked Cochran, "Can differences in only a small number of genes account for racial differences in looks, physical abilities, personality, and other capabilities?"
    "Sure they can," Cochran replied. "We don't know for sure for any particular trait, but it's often a definite possibility."
    "Go ask the guys working on the Dog Genome project about how few genes separate Dachshunds from Weimaraners." Cochran suggested. "Go ask the cattle breeders. There are only a few genetic differences between Guernseys and Longhorns. Yet they sure act different. It's not cultural. Longhorns don't learn how to stampede like Longhorns by watching Western movies!" - - -
    Sailer has also long been a promoter of Cochran's overall "germ-theory", as in this message posted to VDARE (regarding an article he had written for UPI). Note that Sailer gets his own title-line wrong here (it should have been "Not genes but germs cause most chronic diseases", as in the first sentence of the actual article...):
    From: steveslr@a...
    Date: Tue Jan 16, 2001 1:45 am
    Subject: Genes, not germs, cause most deadly chronic diseases

    Dear Friends:
    The Cochran-Ewald theory of the causation of chronic disease, devised by free-lance genius Gregory M. Cochran, was one of the most important scientific theories developed during the last century. I strongly recommend that you do what you can to help educate your doctor in thinking Darwinistically.
    Steve Sailer
    Genes, not germs, cause most chronic diseases
    Monday, 15 January 2001 10:06 (ET)
    UPI National Correspondent
    "LOS ANGELES, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- Not genes but germs cause most chronic diseases. So argues evolutionary biologist Paul Ewald in his new book, "Plague Time: How Stealth Infections Cause Cancers, Heart Disease, and Other Deadly Ailments," (Free Press, 282 pp, $25.00).
    The Amherst professor is trying to drag the medical establishment into the Darwinian age. While modern research often aims to uncover genetic factors in major diseases, Ewald contends that "human genome mania" often violates the fundamental principle of biology, Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. Darwin argued that families with harmful hereditary traits will die out over time, asserts Ewald, and would be replaced by lineages whose hereditary constitution better enables them to survive and reproduce. - - -
    Such reasoning was forcefully introduced to Ewald in the early 1990s by a letter from a physicist named Gregory Cochran. After America won the Cold War, this New Mexico rocket scientist had turned to developing formulas for estimating which diseases are hereditary and which are infectious. The key number proved to be the ailment's "reproductive fitness burden." In other words: Compared to a healthy person, how many fewer descendents will a sufferer procreate? - - - "
    More recently, Sailer (along with Derbyshire and others on the HBDG list) began to shift his attention away from racist and anti-immigration issues and towards the issue of homosexuality (and transsexualism). This was happening all across the religious and conservative right, as a result of the Supreme Court decision advancing gay rights in the summer of 2003. These HBDG members were by now also enraged at "homosexuals" for their successes in preventing their buddy Bailey and his book from being taken seriously.
    Sailer turned to and resurrected Cochran's 1992 scientific speculations to craft some new scientifically-homophobic neoconservative propaganda. In this case, he designed some propaganda for spreading the mystique that homosexuality is a "disease" caused by a germ, a germ carried by homosexuals. Sailer first published this propaganda on on August 17, 2003:
    Gay Gene Or Gay Germ?
    By Steve Sailer - VDARE, 08/17/03
    Some Excerpts regarding Cochran's role in the Gay Germ theory:
    " - - - The New Germ Theory actually originated in 1992 when Cochran got to wondering about the causes of male homosexuality. "The only thing we've seen worse in magnitude of genetic load [i.e. homosexuality’s negative effect on Darwinian fitness] was sickle cell anemia," Cochran told me on Friday.
    Male homosexuality could be a similar “self-destructive” genetic defense against a major infectious disease, just as the “sickle cell gene” defends against malaria at the price of increasing susceptibility to sickle cell anemia. But nobody knows what that illness could be. It would have to be major – and, presumably, relatively modern, like falciparum malaria, which is puzzling.
    Or, as Cochran suggests, an infectious disease itself could cause homosexuality. It's probably not a venereal germ, but maybe an intestinal or respiratory germ. If it spreads like the flu, and if it needs to strike at a particular stage of development before or shortly after birth, then more male homosexuals might be born in one season than another, just as more schizophrenics are born in late winter and in early spring, especially in cities with cold winters. This should be easily testable.
    It's radically unfashionable to call homosexuality a disease. But you can't think rigorously about the gay gene theory without drawing straightforward analogies to genetic diseases. Both reduce the number of descendents, which is the number that counts in evolution.
    Many have reacted with horror to Cochran's theory because it implies that homosexuality might be preventable with the right antibiotic or vaccine. Parents might decide that, since they are putting themselves through all the trouble of raising a child, they ought to increase the likelihood of grandchildren. - - - "
    Thus we see how Cochran's evolutionary biological speculations are used by HBDG's leader Sailer to underpin racist, anti-immigrationist and homophobic (transphobic) propaganda with what Sailer claims to be the sound science of a "free-lance genius".

    John Derbyshire
    We learned about John Derbyshire when he wrote a glowing review of Bailey's book for the National Review, a major right-wing magazine in the U.S. We posted a page about Derbyshire's review (containing a copy of his review) in the Bailey investigation website on June 30, 2003:
    Homophobic writer John Derbyshire
    writes a glowing review of Bailey's book
    for the conservative magazine National Review
    June 30, 2003
    As you will learn there, John Derbyshire, the author of several earlier minor books, had recently had a book published by the National Academy Press (JHP) entitled Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics.
    However, Derbyshire is also a virulently homophobic person, and has written extensively about his views on that subject. For more background on Derbyshire, for examples of his writings on homosexuality, and for a discussion of his close connections with J. Michael Bailey, see our webpage which asks the question: "Who is John Derbyshire?"
    Here are some classic Derb quotes:
    "Let us consider what is in people's minds - - - when homosexuality is mentioned? Buggery, that's what."
    "More to the point - - - is a widespread revulsion, found in both genders, all times and all places and cultures,
    towards the man who plays the part of a woman."
    "There is a fundamental human contempt towards a man who permits himself to be penetrated"
    "Even those penetrations consented to and not forced lower the status of the person so penetrated ...
    The penetrator is engaging in an act of domination, desecration and humiliation of another ..."
    "Women expect a certain amount of penetration as coming with the territory of femaleness ... "
    "Young people — and I would include college-age under “young” — need some guidance and authority
    to turn their raging romantic and sexual urges into healthful and socially desirable channels."
    " - - - homosexuals are an out group (no pun intended). They are an unpopular minority — unpopular, at least,
    with huge numbers of their fellow citizens, and likely to remain so for a very long time to come."
    " - - - while homosexuality can be, and in my opinion ought to be, tolerated as a fringe activity
    for people who are determined to follow that inclination,
    attempts to proselytize and normalize homosexuality ought to be resisted - - - "
    "The point is that open homosexuality is - not necessarily, but all too often -
    an infiltrating, exclusivist, corruptive, and destructive force."
    "Any organization that admits frank and open homosexuals into its higher levels will sooner or later
    abandon its original purpose and give itself over to propagating and celebrating
    the homosexualist ethos, and to excluding heterosexuals and denigrating heterosexuality."
    "I do believe, with a high degree of certainty, that after a few more appointments of the
    Canon John/Rev. Robinson kind, my church will cease to be a vehicle for the teaching of Christ's gospel,
    and become instead a dating service for homosexuals."
    By some strange coincidence, Derbyshire's book was published within a month of J. Michael Bailey's book, and by the very same publisher. Now isn't that a "surprise"!
    Furthermore, Derbyshire is clearly intimately familiar with Bailey's "theories" and his "transsexual classification" scheme. Bailey has taught him well, as you will see in his review - i.e., taught him that trans women are actually sexually deviant men and are of one of two and only two types. Derbyshire and Bailey have been on book promotion tours together, sharing the same tables and touting each other's books.
    As a homophobic and now transphobic spokesperson for the right wing in the U.S., Derbyshire seems determined to permeate right wing literature with Bailey's defamatory transsexual classification scheme. Could it be that sensing they've "lost control of the gay issue", the right wing and religious right are turning their attention to trans women as their new primary target for defamation?
     For more about Derbyshire, see:
    Revelations of Bailey's and Academy Press' close PR connection
    with right-wing homophobic writer John Derbyshire
    John Derbyshire also has the dubious distinction of being listed and biographied in the One People's Project "Rogue's Gallery", for his extensive publication of homophobic rants in conservative media.

    Jon Entine
    Jon Entine is a columnist and a successful author of "controversy-generation books", such as his 1999 book:
    Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It
    Entine got a lot of notoriety and mileage out of that book, and must have been a good role-model for Bailey.
 speculates the Steve Sailer ghost wrote much of Entine's book. For some insights into Entine's work, and his collaborations with Steve Sailer (founder of the HBDG), take a look at the following page, excerpts of which are given below:
    Taboo: Why Steve Sailer and Jon Entine Don't Want to Talk About It:
    "You may remember Jon Entine came about with the book , "Taboo: Why black athletes dominate sports and why we're afraid to talk about it." It first came out in 1999, and Steve Sailer helped Jon write that book for years. In the book, they talk about the genetic superiority of black athletes that are so exceptional that whites are at a considerable disadvantage in sports, and Asians (being genetically limited to small statures and flexibility sports by their pseudo-scientific theory) will never be able to realistically compete with blacks in masculine sports like running, basketball, and football.
    In general terms, blacks are more likely to enter and succeed in sports than whites and Asians; this we are not refuting. However, Steve Sailer and Jon Entine base their pseudo-science on media stereotypes. They talk about genetic superiority of blacks, that whites and Asians can't compete with blacks. They are condescending toward Asians, like a comical stereotype, and believe blacks are uncivilized animals who are mentally inferior and only suitable for athletics. They judge the races, and are proven wrong to the whole world. Their twisted theories on race and genetics have been shot dead so many times, and yet they are not held accountable for their fallacies. Now is the time to analyze and hold them accountable - - -
    - - - Who is this Jon Entine that writes so scientifically and professionally on race, genetics, and sports, yet proved to the world he doesn't know squat about this subject? Like Steve Sailer, Jon Entine is not a professional doctor, scientist, or anthropologist in the field of race or genetics. Jon is a communications major and a journalist. For someone who has held high positions at NBC and ABC, his racial research is primarily based on media stereotypes. Because he has connections with the media, he can publicize his biased works easily. The only skill Jon and Steve possess is their eloquent writing skills, so they can fool the public into believing they are scientists. "
    Jon Entine has the dubious distinction of being listed and biographied in the One People's Project "Rogue's Gallery", for his deceptive spreading of subliminal racism.

    Patricia Hausman
    Hausman is a Member of the National Advisory Board of the Independent Women's Forum (IWF), a neoconservative women's group that was formed in 1994.
    "Much of her work focuses on the nature and origins of human sex differences, as well as their implications for public policy."
    From her bio: "Hausman is a behavioral scientist and nutritionist with broad interests in developmental psychology and the health sciences. Her business, Lakeside Consulting, conducts conducts research and policy analyses for clients in both the public and private sectors. Much of her work focuses on the nature and origins of human sex differences, as well as their implications for public policy. Dr. Hausman is the author of seven books, of which more than four million copies are in print. She holds a bachelor's degree in biology, a master's degree in nutrition, and a doctorate in human development. She is a member of the national advisory board of the Independent Women's Forum."
    Hausman's IWF writings include:
    Plenty of Nonsense (A report on the findings of the Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology) (November 2000)
    Confession without Guilt? (This report claims that MIT "jumped the gun to avoid a sex discrimination controversy, and managed to shoot itself in the foot".) (February 2001)
    She writes for the conservative National Review Online too:
    I Am Woman, Hear Me Whine: Garbage in, gigantic wage gap out

    Hausman and the raging homophobe John Derbyshire are collaborators: In this article by Derbyshire, the Derb says "I am indebted to Patti Hausman for directing me to that link"
    Hausman and HBDG founder and VDARE propagandist Steve Sailer are also active collaborators, as you'll see in this message, where Sailer thanks her for suggesting the words "Cognitive Dissidence", which Sailer used in the title of his VDARE essay on:
    The Michigan Mess: On Cognitive Dissidence About Quotas - And The Need For A Constitutional Amendment - Steve Sailer, VDARE, 6-29-03.
    Note that the IWF has run many articles about transsexualism and transgenderism that were then circulated widely in right-wing circles. Most of these articles contain smirkingly transphobic language, and at best contain contrived attempts at a "compassionate conservative stance" on trans. Here are links to some examples, most of which are from 2002-03 in a recent ramp-up of transphobic articles on the IWF site:
    She Ain't Necessarily So
    One Last Observation
    Gender Benders
    When Harry Became Sally
    Sex and Bondage 101
    Hold the Estrogen! Daily Hot Flash Feature Debuts on IWF Website
    DOCKET WATCH: Pension benefits for the transgendered?
    DOCKET WATCH: Transsexuals Welcome—Apply Within

    HOTFLASH: Same-Sex Dorms Deemed "Heterosexist"
    HOTFLASH: Political Correctness in the Toilet
    Of course, being part of a neoconservative organization that makes a special point of trashing trans women isn't much cause for concern among elite academic circles, and Hausman is taken quite seriously in such circles. After all even feminists, such as Janet Raymond and Germaine Greer, have been doing the same thing for decades. Meantime, Hausman gives presentations on things like "Why Don't More Women Choose Engineering as a Career?" at regional symposia of the National Academy of Engineering...

    Kevin MacDonald


    - - - tbd - - -


    William C. Martin
    - - - tbd - - -



    Edward M. Miller
    Edward M. Miller, PhD, is in the Department of Economics and Finance, University of New Orleans (UNO). Following is information from his entry in the current faculty profiles at UNO. You'll note that he is a "research professor", which may mean that he does not teach or have tenure at UNO (anyone know about this?). Also note his very curious specialty of "Racial and Gender Differences"...given that he is an economist:

    Research Professor
    Ph.D., MIT, 1970
    At UNO since 1984

    Dr. Miller is the author of over 150 articles. His research focuses on investments, capital budgeting, and general social science research (including the application of psychology and genetics to economic behavior). His list of publications is very extensive, just in professional financial and economic periodicals includes the Journal of Financial Management and Analysis, Journal of Political Economy, Journal of Portfolio Management, Journal of Macroeconomics, Journal of Finance. He worked at a high level in government before becoming an academic. He often teaches in investments and capital budgeting.

    Office: BA 344
    Phone: (504) 280-6913

    Marketable Securities
    Capital Budgeting and Theory
    Industrial Organization and Productivity
    Racial and Gender Differences
    Well by now you probably guessed that there's something weird going on with this guy. And you were right: It turns out that Miller is one of Lewis Andrews' favorite Wild Taboo Stalkers, for having made strongly racist "scientific" statements in 1996 about the intelligence of black people. A big controversy erupted when the student newspaper at UNO wrote an article about his theories entitled "Racism - Providing Grist for David Duke's Mill".
    For more about the controversy that then erupted around Miller, see the following page on the "Wild Taboo" website:
    The Miller controversy over IQ and Race at the University of New Orleans
    There you will find that in defense of his theories, Miller said incredible things like:
    "You claimed those you talked to on the UNO campus did not agree with me that "blacks are less intelligent than whites." Given that all reported studies show higher test scores in whites than in blacks (over a thousand studies), this is surprising. Perhaps you talked to those who were not professionally interested in intelligence and who had not read the professional literature. However, the correct way to find out what the opinion of the experts is to read their works (I have put several standard sources on reserve under Miller) or to conduct a survey of them. Synderman & Rothman's 1987 article describes the survey they conducted of over a thousand experts. - - - Unfortunately due to what is often called political correctness (and in many cases a sincere desire not to offend) this information is not known to most in fields such as education, anthropology, business, or some branches of psychology. It is certainly not known to most in the media. - - -"
    Furthermore, in defense of the fact that he is an economist and not a psychologist or anthropologist, Miller bizarrely defended himself as follows:
    " - - - This is false. As an economist I am very well trained in statistics, perhaps more so than most in anthropology, education, or psychology . To work on race differences (and why blacks are poorer than whites) one must be able to read in psychometrics, behavior genetics, and population genetics. These fields are highly mathematical and often use techniques beyond the training of most psychologists, education professors, anthropologists, etc. It is actually easier for a well trained economist to understand much of the literature in these fields (he merely has to learn a some vocabulary) than for a general purpose psychologist or anthropologist without a good mathematical training (who must learn some complex math). For instance, very few anthropologists have the statistical training needed to read the psychometric literature on racial differences in intelligence (and even fewer bother). Economists who spend their lives analyzing data (ours is usually already collected for us) are very comfortable with data analysis. - - - "
    Hmm. Does this stuff remind you of someone? Gadszooks - it almost sounds like the mighty JMB himself!
    Anyways, Miller didn't stop with racial-genetic-caricaturing. He went on to hatch a theory of homosexuality! As you'll see below (check out his starting assumption for building a theory of homosexuality), it's very dangerous for economists of such limited mental capabilities as Miller to stray beyond noodling around mathematically within established paradigms of traditional economics.
    Miller on homosexuality:
    Miller has published a theory he hatched regarding a genetic basis for homosexuality, in which he presumes as axiomatic at the outset the "homosexuality" = "male femininity", and then goes on to speculate why such male femininity would have been genetically propagated even though gays have a lower reproduction rate than other folks. Here is a link to Miller's paper, from (where else!), the Stalking the Wild Taboo website:
    Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution: Towards a Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality
    Miller's starting assumption, which goes unquestioned:
    Homosexuality is an "extreme on male masculinity-femininity continuum"
    This diagram is typical of Miller's thinking, in which he flattens out a multi-dimensional space (containing at least gender identity and sexual orientation as orthogonal dimensions) into a flatland - and then uses this simple diagram to convey both (i) the starting axiom (which goes unquestioned) for building his genetic theory of homosexuality, and (ii) the end result of that theory (never recognizing that he's gone in a circle and came back where he started from...).
    BTW, in his paper, Miller makes extensive references to (surprise, surprise) HBDG members Bailey, Blanchard and Buss and the Clarke Institute's Zucker. None of these guys consider the possibility that transgenderism is along a different and independent dimension from sexual orientation. Thus they do not admit of even the remote possibility that gender identity is a distinct phenomenon from sexual orientation. Then, as biological essentialists, they view trans women as simply being "homosexual men". In their world, we'd be at the very right, tail end of the "homosexuals" in the above figure....


    See Miller's writings on eugenics on


    "Eugenics: Economics for the Long Run" , Edward M. Miller



    See also the following entry about Miller on the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism (ISAR) website:



    Note: Many of the links on the Wild Taboo website regarding the controversy about Miller's racist statements and theories have died. We'd appreciate it if anyone out there can find some of those early items - especially the original column in the student newspaper: Driftwood July 25, 1996 Column: Racism - Providing Grist for David Duke's Mill

    Charles Murray
    HBDG member Charles Murray was the author with Richard J. Herrnstein of The Bell Curve.
    This book, widely perceived as racist by most moderate people, generated a huge controversy and made a lot of book-royalty money for Murray.
    The design of this controversy-generating book was tightly done, involving enough science and math to overwhelm and obscure the real issues. This insured that the book would be positioned as an icon in a socio-ideological battle between racists neoconservites on one side and liberals on the other, and that it would be difficult to discredit as obviously invalid science. This book is a classic role-model for the ongoing stream of neoconservative "science controversy" books that have appeared in the recent years.
    This book (especially given Bailey's access to Murray via the HBDG) undoubtedly would have been a key role-model as a scientific-controversy-generation-book as Bailey began work on his book.
    The American Psychological Association felt the need to negotiate the differences between the "two sides" to the Bell-Curve controversy, and did so by posting a webpage containing opposing reviews of the book entitled: Two Views of The Bell Curve: (1) Breaking the Last Taboo, a Review by Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., and (2) Soft Science With a Neoconservative Agenda, a Review by Donald D. Dorfman.
    Murray is now the "W. H. Brady Scholar in Culture and Freedom" at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) in Washington, D.C., a major conservative "think tank".
    The following information on AEI, and on Murray's role in it, is found in the following Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Intelligence Report:

    Into the Mainstream: An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable
    By Chip Berlet

    American Enterprise Institute

    Founded in 1943, the Washington, D.C.-based American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is one of the most influential conservative think tanks in America. While its roots are in pro-business values, AEI in recent years has sponsored scholars whose views are seen by many as bigoted or even racist.

    For example, Dinesh D'Souza, the author of The End of Racism, holds an Olin Foundation research fellowship at AEI. D'Souza has suggested that civil rights activists actually help perpetuate racial tensions and division in the United States, and has even called for the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. After his book was published, black conservatives Robert Woodson and Glenn Loury denounced it — Woodson released a statement saying it "fans the flames of racial animosity" — and broke their own ties with AEI.

    Another AEI-sponsored scholar, Charles Murray, is more controversial. Murray, who has a Bradley Foundation research fellowship at AEI, is the co-author of The Bell Curve, a book that argues that blacks and Latinos are genetically inferior to whites and that most social welfare and affirmative action programs are doomed to failure as a result. The book, described as a reheated "stale stew of racial eugenics" by historian Godfrey Hodgson, cites the work of some 16 researchers financed by the racist Pioneer Fund*.


    Steven Pinker
    Pinker is an evolutionary psychologist, now a professor at Harvard University. He has no research or experiential background whatsoever in transsexualism or GID. However, he is one of the strongest of "scientific" supporters of Bailey, Bailey's book and Baileyan theory.
    Here is the statement of support that HBDG member Pinker provided for Bailey to use on the Back Cover of TMWWBQ:
    "With a mixture science, humanity, and fine writing, J. Michael Bailey illuminates the mysteries of sexual orientation and identity in the best book yet written on the subject. The Man Who Would Be Queen may upset the guardians of political correctness on both the left and the right, but it will be welcomed by intellectually curious people of all sexes and sexual orientations. A truly fascinating book."
    -- Steven Pinker, Peter de Florez Professor, MIT, and author of How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
    Pinker's statement of support rather openly teaches one of the key design principles that HBDG authors (like Pinker) have oft exploited in order to craft a "controversy-book" that sells well: It must be positioned to "upset the guardians of political correctness on both the left and the right", and then, as both sides become emotional about the contents, it is defended as "scientific truth" while neither side notices that it contains no science...
    Note that Pinker's book The Blank Slate, published by Viking Press in Hardcover on 0-26-02, was in the publication pipeline while Bailey worked on his book. Pinker was undoubtedly a core member of the HBDG's e-mail discussions and intellectual milieu regarding the notions that biology is destiny.
    [See this link for a comprehensive deconstruction of Pinker's book.]
    Unfortunately, most of the HBDG'ers who are Bailey's top supporters interpret Pinker's sweeping theory as meaning that biology determines your proper place in society (as a function of race, IQ, gender, orientation, etc.). As a corollary, many of HBDG's neoconservative interpreters of Pinker's biology-is-destiny theory claim that some people (like gays and trans people) are "genetically defective" and should not be allowed full human rights because they are not properly "reproductive".


    Pinker and his work are lionized by his friend Steve Sailer on VDARE:

    Steve Sailer, a principal contributor to VDARE, is one of Pinker's close buddies and admirers. Consider what Sailer says about Pinker in his November 24, 2002 VDARE essay "Pinker's Progress". Note that VDARE has been declared a "hate-site" by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

    "Reading The Blank Slate is particularly enjoyable to me because Pinker and I are so much on the same wavelength. We even have similar expansive concepts of evidence, relying not just on refereed journals but also on Tom Wolfe, Dave Barry, and the great Calvin and Hobbes comic strip...Further, Pinker is an enthusiastic subscriber to my iSteve mailing list. And arguments that I've made over the years pop up throughout The Blank Slate...For example, according to Pinker, his section on IQ on pp. 149-150 embellishes upon various of my articles. My VDARE series on how to help the left half of the bell curve was apparently a particularly fruitful source... "

    If you have any doubts that Pinker is an active participant in the Baileyan defamation of transsexual women, consider the following:
    Pinker, who knows nothing about transsexualism, posted a short review of Bailey's book in the Guardian in June 2003, about the time that the HBDG members realized that Bailey's book was generating a storm of negative feedback. The review was published in an entry of three short reviews under his name in the Summer 2003 Reviews in the Guardian, as follows:
    Steven Pinker
    A Devil's Chaplain (Weidenfeld & Nicholson) confirms that Richard Dawkins is not only a brilliant scientist and thinker but among the best prose stylists writing today. J Michael Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen (Joseph Henry) is an engaging book on the science of sexual orientation. Though highly sympathetic to gay and transsexual men, it has ignited a firestorm by claiming that transsexuals are not women trapped in men's bodies but have either homosexual or autoerotic motives. John Carey's The Intellectuals and the Masses (Faber) shows how many 20th-century literary intellectuals had a contempt for ordinary people comparable to Hitler's. Though a decade old, it is worth reading for the chastening continuity it shows with today's "social critics", down to their despising fast food and popular entertainment.

    Pinker, along with Bailey and Pinnel (the NAP publicist) then extracted the following words from Pinker's Guardian review, and posted them on the National Academy Press' website in July 2003, deleting Pinker's name as the author of the words:
    "J Michael Bailey’s The Man Who Would Be Queen is an engaging book on the science of sexual orientation. ...highly sympathetic to gay and transsexual men..."
    -- The Guardian (London), June 28, 2003
    Read those words again. Here we have Pinker deliberately referring to transsexual women as "transsexual men" right on the National Academy Press website, long after this controversy had erupted and the National Academies had been told many times to please stop doing this. And he clearly did this to support what he then knew was a growing controversy about the very same practice in Bailey's book.  These are not the Guardian's words. These are prominent academic psychologist Pinker's words. They are not words used anywhere else in the world to refer to transsexual women, other than at The Clark Institute and in Bailey's book.
    In our time, these words of Pinker are HATE SPEECH designed to have a corrosively cruel emotional impact on trans women. It is HATE SPEECH - nothing more, nothing less. Yet there it is, right on the National Academies' website. And Steven Pinker is the "anonymous" author of those words...
    Why would a respected academic of Pinker's carefully constructed stature stoop so low as to actively support Bailey's transphobic book, and use transphobic hate speech to do it? After all Pinker is an expert with words. He knows exactly what he is doing when he uses such words. And he works in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a city having a large trans population. Way back in 1997, Cambridge even passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression. (Boston became the second city in Massachusetts to offer such protections in 2002). Doesn't Pinker realize that his hate speech reference to trans women as "transsexual men", and his strong open support of Baileyism, is going to stain his reputation at Harvard as time goes by?
    We cannot possibly imagine why Pinker is lending his good name to the Baileyan attack on trans women. Someone needs to send Pinker the quotes from Bailey's book and ask him why he so passionately supports Bailey's ridiculously unscientific defamations of trans women...What's going on with this guy? What gives him the right to intervene in the personal lives of trans women and call them "transsexual men"?
    Since Pinker feels perfectly fine calling us "transsexual men", we wonder how he would feel if the tables were turned: We trans women have many questions about Pinker's personal life, and wonder what it is in his orientation/identity that made him think about us this way. Does anyone out there know Pinker's sexual orientation? Someone should stop by Harvard and ask Pinker if he is a gay man, and let us know what he says. And if he will not answer that simple question about his own sexual orientation, then what gives him the right to say hateful things about our personal identities, including those of large numbers of identifiable professional women in academe?
    Hmm. What could be going on here? For some possible clues, check out the photos of Pinker...Could he be a Fourattist-type gay man?...i.e., an inherently feminine gay man who is freaked out by the notion that trans women (whom he thinks of as feminine gay men) get "coerced into mutilation surgeries and turned into women (ughh!)". It's got to be something like that, otherwise why the heck would he be defaming us by calling us "transsexual men"?...
    Another recent photo of Pinker:
    For a more extensive bio of Pinker, see The Guardian's Profile of him: Steven Pinker: the mind reader
    See also Andrea James' detailed page on Pinker: Steven Pinker on transsexualism

    J. P. Rushton
    Rushton is Professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, in London, Ontario.
    He is the author of the book Race, Evolution and Behavior, and is widely perceived to be a deeply racist person.
    Rushton was a great role model for Bailey as someone who helped create, and then rode, an evolutionary psychological (in this case racist) controversy to generate excellent book sales. His reviews had a similar quality to Bailey's initial reviews, many extolling the book and many defaming it, as follows:
    Intentional misrepresentation of evolutionary psychology, March 1, 2002
    Reviewer: Hsuchi Ting (see more about me) from College Station, Tx USA

    The caveat of evolutionary psychology and individual differences research is that genes do not determine our behavior. It may direct us to certain behaviors, but we are still constrained by the social norms. Mr. Rushton purposefully misrepresented the entire evolutionary theory simply for the shock value. It is unimaginable that anyone would praise this book.
    Leaving the theory aside, the most howling error was his intentional use of fuzzy math. His methodology in comparing the skull size of corpses from different era and race were not fairly representated. In fact, other scientists have found that if African Americans were given the same number of subject size, and not being purposefully excluded from the study, the correlation in his research would amount to no more than 0.1(meaning that no attributes can be pinned down to racial differences because no connections could be found).
    Lastly, the APA has published a book called "The Rising Curve" to explain, in great detail, that main cause for racial differences was socioeconomical, but not racial . By parading this shoddy research as a heoric result of David versus Goliath attitude, Mr. Rushton only weakens the value of his work as he clearly showed that the intellectual honesty was second only to the retail values.
    Here's a positive review from the "Stalking the Wild Taboo" website (no surprise there):
    And there's more about Rushton on the Wild Taboo website:
    Rushton's racist book still sells well and is now in its 3rd edition. Unlike Bailey's book, Rushton designed a clever controversy-generator that caused much angst but wasn't killed off so easily by the scientific community. Bailey however went "over-the-top", and created such a one-sided book that once his HBDG supporters had written their "outstanding reviews", no one else appeared to counter the landslide of negative reviews. We doubt that Bailey's book will even sell out its first printing...
    For more background on Rushton, see the following Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Intelligence Report:

    Academic Racism: Key race scientist takes reins at Pioneer Fund

    Excerpts from that Report:

    "Rushton, a British expatriate who teaches at the University of Western Ontario, first courted infamy in 1989 when he published work focusing on the sexual characteristics of different races. His findings: Blacks have larger genitals, breasts and buttocks — characteristics that Rushton alleged have an inverse relationship to brain size and, thus, intelligence.
    When Rushton took the helm of the Pioneer Fund, he was joined on the board of directors by a scientist who may be even more extreme: Richard Lynn, a psychologist at the University of Ulster who published one of the most stunning recent examples of race science in the July 2002 issue of the eugenicist American Renaissance magazine.
    Blacks are not only less intelligent than other races, Lynn asserted, but also "more psychopathic." Putting a new twist on the "science" that once supported slavery, Lynn concluded that because of their "psychopathic personalities," blacks are more aggressive than other races, less able to form long-term relationships, and more sexually promiscuous, reckless and prone to lying.
    But Lynn's pal at Pioneer has identified at least one countervailing factor. "Blacks have a genetic edge," Rushton said, "when it comes to sports." "
    For more background on the Pioneer Fund, which Rushton now leads, see the following Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Intelligence Report. Note that the Southern Poverty Law Center officially lists The Pioneer Fund as a "hate group"(the '*' is the designation code):
    Into the Mainstream:
    An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable

    Excerpt re the Pioneer Fund:

    Pioneer Fund*

    With an original charter to pursue "race betterment" for those "deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution," the Pioneer Fund was founded in 1937 in New York.

    Many involved in the early years of the fund, including its first president Harry H. Laughlin, maintained "contacts with many of the Nazi scientists whose work provided the conceptual template for Hitler's aspiration toward 'racial hygiene' in Germany," according to an Albany Law Review article by Paul Lombardo. In The Funding of Scientific Racism, scholar William Tucker reveals how Pioneer board members and grantees sought to block the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

    In recent decades, the Pioneer Fund has funded most American and British race scientists, including a large number cited in The Bell Curve. According to Barry Mehler, the leading academic critic of the fund, these race scientists have included Hans Eysenck, Robert A. Gordon, Linda Gottfredson, Seymour Itzkoff, Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin, Richard Lynn, R. Travis Osborne, Roger Pearson, J. Philippe Rushton, William Shockley and Daniel R. Vining Jr.

    Last year, Rushton became the fourth president of the fund. He disavows the terms "inferior" and "superior" but, as psychologist Andrew S. Winston points out, Rushton has produced a chart in which blacks "are said to have, on average, smaller brains, lower intelligence, lower cultural achievements, higher aggressiveness, lower law-abidingness, lower marital stability and less sexual restraint than whites, and the differences are attributed partially to heredity."

    Pioneer grantees have also included white supremacist Jared Taylor. According to Hold Your Tongue, a book by education expert James Crawford, the Pioneer Fund also "aided the Institute for Western Values — the same group Cordelia May [Scaife, sister of Richard Mellon Scaife] paid to distribute [the racist book] The Camp of the Saints — in publishing the autobiography of Thomas Dixon," whose racist novels helped spark the Klan's rebirth in 1915.

    Pioneer also has given grants to the American Immigration Control Foundation*, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Roger Pearson's Institute for the Study of Man, Jared Taylor's New Century Foundation* and Project USA, an anti-immigration group run by a FAIR board member.



    See also Rushton's writings on eugenics on

    "The New Enemies of Evolutionary Science", By J. Philippe Rushton

    "The Mismeasures of Gould", By J. Philippe Rushton


    There is a more thorough biography of Rushton, documenting his "scientific racist" positions and giving more information about the Pioneer Fund, in this page on
    Rushton also has the dubious honor of being listed and biographied in the anti-fascist One People's Project "Rogue's Gallery", as one of the principle scientific racists of our time.

    Steve Sailer
    Steve Sailer is the organizer of the Human Biodiversity Group and the Human Biodiversity Institute, and is a prominent member/author of VDARE - an anti-immigration group interested in protecting the 'purity of the gene pool in the US'.
    Sailer is a prolific writer of essays and neoconservative propaganda on that topic, and has long exploited the works of racial-profiling scientists and pundits such as Brand, Cochran, Entine, Miller, Murray, Rushton, etc., to justify his positions.
    However, Sailer is also a homophobe and transphobe, and has increasingly in the past few years turned his attention towards these "disorders" and how they should be conceptualized and "handled".
    For example, Sailer is the author of recent conservative intellectual propaganda that homosexuality is a "disease":
    Gay Gene Or Gay Germ? By Steve Sailer - VDARE, 08/17/03
    In this essay, Sailer refers to "My friend J. Michael Bailey, the chairman of the psychology department at Northwestern University, is probably the leading researcher into sexual orientation in America." He then goes on to exploit the ideas of HBDG members Bailey, Blanchard and Cochran to craft and support the the mystique of the "gay germ", in which homosexuality and thus (in their minds) transsexualism are thought to be "diseases" caused by a germ:
    "Perhaps the simplest alternative to the “gay gene” theory: the “gay germ” theory proposed by my friend Gregory M. Cochran. A defense industry physicist during the 1980s, at the successful end of the Cold War, Cochran has transformed himself into the most radically insightful evolutionary theorist of recent years. He's now an adjunct professor with the University of Utah's strong department of anthropology. - - -
    The New Germ Theory actually originated in 1992 when Cochran got to wondering about the causes of male homosexuality. "The only thing we've seen worse in magnitude of genetic load [i.e. homosexuality’s negative effect on Darwinian fitness] was sickle cell anemia," Cochran told me on Friday.
    Male homosexuality could be a similar “self-destructive” genetic defense against a major infectious disease, just as the “sickle cell gene” defends against malaria at the price of increasing susceptibility to sickle cell anemia. But nobody knows what that illness could be. It would have to be major – and, presumably, relatively modern, like falciparum malaria, which is puzzling. - - -
    Or, as Cochran suggests, an infectious disease itself could cause homosexuality. It's probably not a venereal germ, but maybe an intestinal or respiratory germ. If it spreads like the flu, and if it needs to strike at a particular stage of development before or shortly after birth, then more male homosexuals might be born in one season than another, just as more schizophrenics are born in late winter and in early spring, especially in cities with cold winters.
    The Gay Germ essay appeared on Sailer's VDARE on 08-17-03, right at the time Bailey's book was running off the rails following a flurry of national news about his being under investigation for research misconduct and widespread condemnation by the transgender community.
    Sailer felt compelled to come to Bailey's rescue. He must have felt angst over how his buddy Bailey was being ridiculed in the media - and over all the negative reviews that were accumulating on - and on 08/16/03, the following glowing review by Sailer of Bailey's book appeared on
    Wonderfully readable book on gay males and transsexuals, August 16, 2003
    Reviewer: Steve Sailer (see more about me) from Studio City, CA United States

    Please note that this book has been the subject of an organized smear campaign among transsexuals, which accounts for most of unhinged reviews you'll see below.
    Professor Bailey is the chairman of the psychology department at Northwestern and probably the leading researcher into homosexuality in America.
    The first two thirds of the book are about male homosexuals, who, as you'll note, aren't complaining. It briskly reviews most of the scientific evidence on male homosexuality, which shows that most of the stereotypes about gay men tend to be more or less true on average. I've studied this issue for years, and everything I've ever seen points to the validity of Bailey's conclusions about male homosexuals.
    Bailey has outraged transexuals by publishing in the last third of the book in highly readable form the evidence that has been mounting for a number of years in scientific journals that the standardized explanation of transsexualism -- "I always felt like a girl on the inside, even when I was a linebacker, then a Navy SEAL, then the most feared corporate raider on Wall Street" -- is not very persuasive. Bailey suggests that male to female transsexuals tend to fall into one of two categories -- extremely effeminate homosexuals or masculine men who have an odd fetish called autogynephilia, which is a kind of heterosexual narcissism.
    Is this true? Beats me. My main exposure to transsexualism is the wonderful travel writer James/Jan Morris' memoir "Conundrum," which repeats the "I always felt like a girl" party line. It struck me at the time that Morris' descriptions of how he was a military officer, an adventurer, and fathered five children while feeling like a girl on the inside sure sounded bogus, but I hadn't heard at the time the alternative explanation of autogynephilia. Anyway, it would be easy to see why nobody would want to be associated with autogynephilia.
    In sum, a fascinating and informative book that a well-organized pressure group doesn't want you to read. What better reason to read it?
    However, by posting this review, Sailer revealed himself to be (i) a close ally of Bailey's, (ii) well informed on how trans people were deconstructing Bailey's book, and (iii) a strong supporter of Bailey's teachings that most trans women (other than the 'paraphilic ones') are actually "homosexual men" (and thus presumably 'diseased').
    For HBDG's founder and leader to write that review, along with all the other "coincidences of HBDG support over the preceding months, cast deep suspicion on the HBDG as containing a core group of homophobes and transphobes who had been working closely with Bailey ever since he began work on his book (in 1999). You'll also note in the above review that Sailer projects what must have been a long-held HBDG hope: namely that Bailey could be elevated by his core HBDG supporters into being "the leading researcher into homosexuality in America".
    For even more about Steve Sailer, see Andrea James' detailed page: Steve Sailer on transsexualism
    See also the webpage Steve Sailer Sucks, where you will find evidence that Sailer is "one of a handful of extreme "scientific racists", affiliated with and often paid by extreme right-wing groups like VDare and others. He has written numerous pseudo-scientific articles on the internet that will fit his racist agenda that any race other than his own race, the White race, is inferior. He has a racist and condescending tone toward other races."
    Steve Sailer also has the dubious distinction of being listed and biographied in the anti-fascist One People's Project "Rogue's Gallery", as a major promoter of "scientific racism" through his writings in the conservative media.

    Dan Seligman
    Columnist, Forbes Magazine.
    Out of the blue, columnist Dan Seligman wrote an article in Forbes Magazine on 10/13/03 that was highly offensive to trans women. The article was entitled:
    Transsexuals And the Law: Are people who change their gender entitled to the protection of antidiscrimination laws? Thorny questions arise when judges deal with this topic.
    In this article, Seligman says: "A good recently published guide to all these questions is The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, by J. Michael Bailey, 46, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University who teaches an undergraduate course in human sexuality."
    In thinly veiled service as Bailey's mouthpiece, Seligman used this article as a pretext to come to Bailey's defense. Among other things, he calls Deirdre McCloskey an "autogynephile" in the article - thus defaming Deirdre amongst her professional financial and economic community. He went after Deirdre because she has been vocal in her criticisn of Bailey's book. And, like Bailey, Seligman didn't defend Bailey's book against the valid complaints of itscritics, but instead used the bogus ideas in Bailey's book to smear one of its key critics.
    Now why on earth would Forbes magazine run an article right now about transsexualism, especially one that proclaimed Bailey to be an expert on the subject and that attacked one of Bailey's more vocal critics?
    Was this just a coincidence?
    Or, my goodness, was Bailey already being nationally recognized as an"expert on transsexualism" by people who didn't personally know him?
    No, this was no coincidence!
    And no, Bailey is not becoming known as a national expert on transsexualism...
    Seligman was merely yet another one of Bailey's HBDG buddies, someone who undoubtedly was in frequent e-mail contact with him, and someone to whom he must have turned in his moment of need. Seligman was vainly trying to protect Bailey from the huge wave of disgust being heaped on him, and was still promoting HBDG's vain hope that Bailey could somehow be anointed as the national expert on homosexuality and transsexualism.
    Seligman thus became yet another HBDG turkey to stick his head up out of the grass and get noticed by us! This was another key HBDG member coming to Bailey's rescue. We now knew we were onto something: HBDG was indeed Bailey's core group of intellectual associates and supporters. They would defend him vigorously, and their defenses (such as Seligman's raising questions about transsexualism and the law) would reveal their neoconservative homophobic rationale for supporting Bailey.
    And these HBDG men were the ONLY people coming to Bailey's defense! Curious, eh?
    See Andrea James' detailed deconstruction of Seligman's article on her page Dan Seligman on transsexualism
    [Can someone out there find us a photo of Dan Seligman to add to our HBDG rogues' gallery...?]

    Glayde Whitney





    Eugenicist and Race-Scientist:

    Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida


    See the extensive biographical file on Whitney on the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism (ISAR) website:



    See Whitney's writings on eugenics on


    "Raymond B. Cattell and The Fourth Inquisition", by Glayde Whitney


    "Ideology and Censorship in Behavior Genetics", by Glayde Whitney




    "Whatever Happened to Eugenics?", by Glayde Whitney



    "Many world events contributed to the growth of anti-eugenic egalitarianism, not least among which was the suffering associated with the world-wide depression which followed World War I. The growth of Nazism and the outcome of W.W. II provided an unfortunate boost to anti-eugenic sentiment. It was a propaganda coup of tremendous proportions to be able to paint eugenics with the tar brush of Nazi anti-Semitism...The propaganda damage was done, and it became unacceptable to even mention the possibility of race differences in behavior...


    Incredibly...popular media and scientific publications stridently proclaim that biological [genetic] races do not exist. We are now in critical times, a race is occurring around us between humanitarian applications of modern genetic science (eugenics, that is) and the suppression of knowledge by PeeCee ideologues. The media, by-and-large trained by egalitarians, know no better than to attack as "racist", "repellent", or "repugnant" almost any admission of information concerning behavior and genetic diversity among human races. Yet at the same time the human genome project in combination with a wide variety of research in the neurosciences [brain science] and behavioral medicine and genetics in general, is quickly taking us beyond the point where race differences can be obfuscated or denied...


    Meanwhile...eugenics continues to encounter politically motivated attempts to suppress. As the scientific advances continue at an accelerating pace, it remains to be seen if rational humanitarian applications of sound genetic knowledge can be implemented for the benefit of mankind, or if we will slip into another era of anti-intellectual totalitarianism."


    - Glayde Whitney



    Glayde Whitney was Past President, Behavior Genetics Association





    This page is part of Lynn Conway's
    "Investigative report into the publication of
    J. Michael Bailey's book on transsexualism
    by the National Academies"