- Interim Investigative Report on
- Bailey's affiliations and ideological
- 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
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:
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 far...as you will see, there is
some really amazing stuff in here...
- 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? Arent
we all the same? Male-female, white-black-yellow, lower class-upper
- 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, well begin with them. First let us take
an on-line overview of the whole area of human differences.
- Lets start with Edward O. Wilsons keynote
address, Science and Ideology, given to the 1994 convention of
the National Association of Scholars in Cambridge MA. Its
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
- 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
- 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
- Two (Miller, Rushton) are fellow members of the HBDG:
Hardin: The master biologist/ecologist speaks for himself.
W. Itzkoff: Author of seven books on evolution and intelligence.
M. Miller: One of the most creative of the new evolutionary
thinkers. (member, HBDG)
Levin: A philosopher sees issues from a biological standpoint.
Philippe Rushton: The outspoken author of Race, Evolution,
and Behavior.(member, HBDG)
- 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
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
- For more about the overall Bailey controversy, see the trans community websites
that are coordinating the community's
response to Bailey's book:
Blanchard-Bailey-Lawrence Information Clearinghouse
into the publication of Bailey's book by the National Academies
- Ray Blanchard
is the director of the infamous gender clinic at
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
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
- 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,
- 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
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
- 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
- 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 Amazon.com 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:
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
- 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?...).
an Editorial Review of this book from Amazon.com:
"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
- During the main phase of the investigation of Bailey's book, during
2003-2004, Burr was silent. He let other HBI members (notably
and Derbyshire) speak for and defend Bailey
against the ensuing charges of research misconduct.
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
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
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.
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
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
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:
scientists. The fact that sexual orientation is clearly
men is still a
relatively new concept to many scientists, several of whom
initial doubts about
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
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
"You'd expect to get
a large number of 'bisexual' responses in the military,"
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
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
Hamer's finding. The
professor had written "Although the probands reported a wide
range of sexual
behaviors, identities, and fantasies, [Hamer and Pattatuci]
the men into
homosexual and heterosexual." "The ' wide range', "Hamer
here." He snaps open a copy of his study, pins it to his desk,
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
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
to men but were in
the process of coming out and felt more at ease at that point
than 'gay', which was a more radical term for them. They were
increasingly fewer women for the same reasons."
But the third
difference between the sexes was perhaps the most striking, and
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
orientation trait 100 percent. For women the answer is:
as homosexual as
homosexual men. And straight women are not as straight as
- 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
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
-- David M. Buss, author of
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 Amazon.com 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
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
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
"Gregory M. Cochran is a freelance physicist who studies
the evolution of disease in Albuquerque, New Mexico." -
- 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." -
Atlantic Online, February 1999.
- Cochran is "now an adjunct professor with the University
of Utah's strong department of anthropology - - - " -
- 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:
is running out for Western Civilisation, by Chairman Nick
- 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
Eward of Amherst College:
- [ Note: Ewald is not on the current
Faculty roll at Amherst - Does anyone out there know where
he is now? ]
Germs Cause Cancer? Forbes Global, 11/15/99:
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:
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 Whats Catching: The Startling Scope of Infectious
- 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,
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
- 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
- "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
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
- From: steveslr@a...
Date: Tue Jan 16, 2001 1:45 am
Subject: Genes, not germs, cause most deadly chronic diseases
- 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)
By STEVE SAILER
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 VDARE.com on August 17, 2003:
- Gay Gene Or Gay Germ?
Steve Sailer - VDARE, 08/17/03
- Some Excerpts regarding Cochran's role in the Gay Germ
- " - - - 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. homosexualitys 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
- 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:
- 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
Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem
- 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:
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
- 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
- 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,
- 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
- "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
- John Derbyshire also has the dubious distinction of being
listed and biographied in the
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:
Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk
- Entine got a lot of notoriety and mileage out of that book,
and must have been a good role-model for Bailey.
- XSteve.com 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:
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
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
- 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)
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:
Am Woman, Hear Me Whine: Garbage in, gigantic wage gap out
- Hausman and the raging homophobe John Derbyshire are collaborators:
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
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:
Ain't Necessarily So
- One Last
Harry Became Sally
- Sex and
the Estrogen! Daily Hot Flash Feature Debuts on IWF Website
- DOCKET WATCH:
Pension benefits for the transgendered?
- DOCKET WATCH:
Transsexuals WelcomeApply Within
Same-Sex Dorms Deemed "Heterosexist"
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
Don't More Women Choose Engineering as a Career?" at
regional symposia of the National Academy of Engineering...
- - - tbd - - -
- - - - tbd - - -
- 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:
EDWARD M. MILLER
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:
Miller controversy over IQ and Race at the University of New
- 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
- 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:
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
- 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
"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:
"Science Friction: HOW CENTURIES OF
RADICALLY BIASED 'SCIENCE' LAID THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE CONTROVERSIAL THEORIES OF
A TENURED UNO PROFESSOR", by Michael Depp.
- 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
- HBDG member Charles Murray was the author with Richard J.
Herrnstein of The
- This book, widely perceived as racist by most moderate people,
generated a huge controversy and made a lot of book-royalty money
- 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:
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
- -- Steven Pinker, Peter de Florez Professor, MIT, and author
the Mind Works and The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human
- 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.
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
- 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:
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:
Michael Baileys 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.
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
- 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
- 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
- Rushton is Professor
of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, in London,
- 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 Amazon.com 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,
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:
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
- 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):
array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts
to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable
Excerpt re the 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 www.eugenics.net:
- "The New Enemies of Evolutionary Science", By J. Philippe Rushton
"The Mismeasures of Gould", By J.
- 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 www.xsteve.com.
- Rushton also has the dubious honor of being listed and biographied
in the anti-fascist
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
- For example, Sailer is the author of recent conservative
intellectual propaganda that homosexuality is a "disease":
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.
homosexualitys 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
- 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 Amazon.com - and on 08/16/03, the following glowing review
by Sailer of Bailey's book appeared on Amazon.com:
- 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
- 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
- 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
- In sum, a fascinating and informative book that a well-organized
pressure group doesn't want you to read. What better reason to
- 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
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
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:
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
- 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...?]
Eugenicist and Race-Scientist:
Florida State University,
See the extensive biographical
file on Whitney on the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism (ISAR)
See Whitney's writings on eugenics
"Raymond B. Cattell and The Fourth
Inquisition", by Glayde Whitney
"Ideology and Censorship in Behavior
Genetics", by Glayde Whitney
"REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY FOR A NEW
EUGENICS", by Glayde Whitney
"Whatever Happened to Eugenics?", by
"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...
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...
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
- Glayde Whitney
Glayde Whitney was Past President,
Behavior Genetics Association
- This page is part of Lynn Conway's
report into the publication of
J. Michael Bailey's book on transsexualism
by the National Academies"