EXPOSED, 8-05-03:
Senior Academics Alert APA Division 44
Concerning James Cantor's Exploitation of DIV 44's good name
in National Academy Press publicity for Bailey's book.
 NEWLY EXPOSED (11-14-03):
The supportive ties between the leadership of APA DIV 44 and the infamous Clarke Institute:
DIV 44 President James S. Fitzgerald has even conveyed a DIV 44 Presidential Award to "The Clarke",
calling it "the premier research center on gender dysphoria research and clinical care..."
Why is Fitzgerald so glowingly supportive of the Clarke's pathologization of trans women
as being either extremely gay men or male sexual paraphilics?
As a gay man, could Fitzgerald be a Fourattist type who has big hangups about trans women?
APA DIV 44 members need to ask Fitzgerald about that...and they need to think hard
about the bizarre image that DIV 44 is thus gaining in the eyes of trans women around the world.
Division 44 of the American Psychological Association (APA) recently became an unwitting player in the Bailey book controversy, due to its apparent endorsement of Bailey's book on the National Academy Press website.
The appearance of DIV 44 endorsement was created by selective editing of a glowing review of Bailey's book recently published by Dr. James Cantor in Division 44 newsletter. The posting of this "endorsement" by Robin Pinnel in the NAP website was undoubtedly done with full knowledge and encouragement of both J. Michael Bailey and James Cantor. It has to be in there with their knowledge and consent, and it's more than likely they themselves submitted this creative idea to Pinnel.
So, what is DIV 44 and who is Cantor?
Division 44 is the "Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues" of the APA, and Dr. James Cantor, of the trans-notorious Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, is Chair of Division 44's Science Task Force.
Astonishingly, Cantor has recently been given a role in guiding Division 44's thinking about relations with the transgender community! As a protege of Ray Blanchard at the Clarke and a disciple of Blanchard's methods and teachings, Cantor has since been seeding the American Psychological Association with Baileyan and Blanchardian teachings about trans women (that we are mentally disturbed gay men, fetishists, liars, etc.).
In the spring of 2003, as part of the Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence, LeVay, Pinker, Buss, Derbyshire and Pinnel preparations for a simultaneous publicity campaign to garner support for Bailey's book among key scientific audiences, James Cantor wrote his glowing review of Bailey's book for APA Division 44's 2003 Summer Newsletter. (A copy of Cantor's review is attached below).
The DIV 44 2003 Summer Newsletter, including James Cantor's review of Bailey's book, was brought to our attention early in this investigation by our many correspondents. We were thus aware of Cantor's plans to seed DIV 44 membership with Baileyan ideas and his plan to promote Bailey's book at the APA Convention in August 2003. Later, in July 2003, we saw to our amazement the selective clips from Cantor's book review appear on the National Academy Press website, suggesting that the American Psychological Association was endorsing the book, as follows:
"...the first scientifically grounded book about male femininities written for a general audience. ...Bailey sympathetically portrays these peoples' experiences and explores the roots of their development. · Bailey's respect for the people he describes serves as a role model for others who still struggle to accept and appreciate homosexuality and transsexuality in society."
-- Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues (American Psychological Association) newsletter, summer 2003
Upon reading this endorsement, many trans women immediately realized that Pinnel, Bailey and Cantor had pulled a fast one on Division 44, using the Division's good name to create the impression that the APA itself endorsed Bailey's book as being very scientific, very transfriendly, etc., which is completely the reverse of the actual situation, since the book is one of the most insidious literary attacks on trans women ever created.
We also became aware that Cantor was going to play a key role in shaping Division 44 discussions concerning trans people at the APA Convention. In particular he was responsible for the following sessions on Thursday August 7, 2003 as found in the DIV 44 newsletter:
August 7, 2003
1-2:50: Science Committee Meeting (Cantor)
3-3:50: Joint session with Division 17: Working with Transgendered Clients: Assessment, Treatment, Identity Politics, Science (Cantor and Embaye)
In addition, Cantor would play a key role in liaison with Division 17 of the APA (The Society of Counseling Psychology) concerning their Section on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Awareness (SLAGBA)'s effort "to explore and more fully understand the experiences of transgendered persons" as in the following entry in the Division 44 summer newsletter:
We realized that in addition to hyping Bailey's book and Blanchard's and Bailey's teachings in all those conference sessions, Cantor would deliberately downplay the overall trans community's powerfully negative reactions to Bailey's book, as he did in his review below where he says:
"It is unfortunate that a vocal few (vocal over the Internet, anyway) do not actually address Bailey’s points, referring only to rumors about the content of the book and to assumptions regarding Bailey’s motives." - James Cantor, DIV 44 Summer Newsletter, 2003
Such statements are typical of the way Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence, Cantor, Zucker, LeVay, Pinker, Buss and Pinnel have continually dismissed the deeply felt reactions of the vast majority of the actual transgender community. They dismiss the entire trans community as being nothing more than a "vocal few" on the internet!
Furthermore, consider this direct report from a trans woman who attended a July 9, 2003 presentation on transsexualism by Cantor at the the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, formerly (and infamously) known as the Clarke Institute:
"A most striking and disturbing issue was raised at the very beginning of Cantor's presentation. Like Blanchard and many members of the psychiatric community, Cantor refers to transsexuals based on their birth gender. Therefore, what any modern, reasonable person would refer to as a transsexual woman (a woman who was assigned the gender "male" at birth), Cantor and the CAMH refers to as a "transsexual man", or even, later, a "male homosexual transsexual." - in Issue 1, Volume 3 Summer 2003
James Cantor thus treats all input from trans women as being invalid and of no significance. Our vast community presence and voice on the web he dismisses as "a vocal few" on the internet. Furthermore, he stridently insists on calling all trans woman "transsexual men" as a matter of scientific terminology, without any concern about the cruel emotional impact such hate-speech has on these women!
Nevertheless, James Cantor presents himself and Bailey as compassionate friends of the transgendered, and Cantor is the person assigned to guide Division 44 into "better relationships with the transgender community". Good luck on that one, Division 44!
In response to Pinnel's, Bailey's and Cantor's surreptitious exploitation of Division 44's good name in the National Academy Press website, and trans community concerns that Cantor would conceal news of the widespread negative responses to Bailey's book from APA Convention attendees, a group of senior academics sent an open e-mail letter to all Division 44 members on August 5, 2003. That open letter follows.
Lynn Conway

Date: Tues, 05 Aug 2003
To: DIV44
Subject: Information for APA DIV 44 meeting in Toronto
Dear members of APA Division 44:
We the undersigned wish to alert you to major unfolding events in the transsexual community in response to the publication by the National Academy Press (JHP) of J. Michael Bailey's alarming book The Man Who Would be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. The issues now involve APA Division 44, as you will see below.
Prof. Bailey's book maintains as "scientific" fact that transsexual women are either effeminate gay men or bizarrely autosexual paraphilic men. There are no other alternatives. Bailey denies (or ignores) the concept of gender identity dysphoria--insisting that trans people change sex because of sexual reasons. Bailey bases his restrictive taxonomy on interviews with a half-dozen transsexual women and extrapolates these anecdotal accounts into a theory encompassing all transsexual women.
There are also serious questions about the ethical conduct of Dr. Bailey's research. It appears that the research was conducted without IRB approval. A number of the subjects in his study have filed formal complaints of research misconduct with the office of the Vice President for Research at Northwestern University. The substance of the complaints is that 1) they were not informed they were subjects of research; 2) on the contrary, they provided the personal information exclusively to persuade him to write letters of recommendation for surgery; 3) the women were not offered letters to sign for informed consent; and 4) selected anecdotes from their private discussions with Bailey were exploited directly in his book to "prove" his theories.
Whether you are aware of it or not, Division 44 of the APA is already a part of this controversy as it has apparently endorsed Prof. Bailey's book according to the National Academy Press:
"...the first scientifically grounded book about male femininities written for a general audience. ...Bailey sympathetically portrays these peoples' experiences and explores the roots of their development. · Bailey's respect for the people he describes serves as a role model for others who still struggle to accept and appreciate homosexuality and transsexuality in society."
-- Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues (American Psychological Association) newsletter, summer 2003

The impression of DIV 44 endorsement is created by avoidance of mentioning that the quote is taken from Dr. James Cantor's personal review of Bailey's book in your Summer 2003 Division-44 Newsletter, as seen at:  [Ed.: dead link updated 6-19-08]
We are concerned that DIV 44 is being used this way by Prof. Bailey, Dr. Cantor and the National Academy Press to promote Bailey's book, and thus promote teachings that transsexual women are either homosexual men or sexually paraphilic men. We suspect that most DIV 44 members are unaware that the Division's good name is being used in this manner. We encourage you to inform the NAP that DIV 44 does not endorse Bailey's book.
The full background on the Bailey controversy can be found at:
There you will find information on the book, critical responses, correspondence with the National Academies, evidence of research misconduct, and media coverage.
Some of those items are attached, including an NTAC Press Release, an alert to HBIGDA, a recent Chicago Tribune article "Author Ripped for Transsexual Research", and news of the confrontation of Bailey by John Bancroft (President of the Kinsey Institute) at the recent IASR conference: Bancroft told Bailey in front of the entire conference audience: "It is NOT Science!"
The transgender community is extremely concerned about the defamatory and threatening nature of Bailey's book. It not only stigmatizes transsexual women, it could have a chilling effect on patient-client relationships and on the effectiveness of therapeutic counseling.
We invite you to evaluate Bailey's book and to consider its negative impact on both transsexual women and the practice of psychology devoted to LGBT concerns.
Lynn Conway
Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Emerita
University of Michigan
Member, National Academy of Engineering
Deirdre McCloskey, Ph.D.
UIC Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, and English
University of Illinois at Chicago
Tinbergen Professor of Philosophy, Economics, and Art and Cultural Studies,
Erasmus University of Rottterdam
Ben Barress, M.D., Ph.D.
Professor of Neurobiology and Developmental Biology
Stanford University
Barbara P. Nash, Ph. D.
Professor of Geology and Geophysics
University of Utah
Joan Roughgarden, Ph.D.
Professor of Biological Sciences
Stanford University

The following review appeared on page 6 of the Summer 2003 American Psychology Association Division 44 Newsletter (PDF: requires reader) and is being used by the National Academy Press and Joseph Henry Press in PR for The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey.


page 6

Division 44 Newsletter Summer, 2003
The Man Who Would Be Queen

by J. Michael Bailey
The National Academies Press, 2003
Review by James M. Cantor
J. Michael Bailey’s The Man Who Would be Queen represents the first scientifically grounded book about male femininities written for a general audience. In three sections—devoted respectively to gender atypical boys, adult gay men and those MtF transsexuals who are attracted to men, and then fetishistic cross-dressers and those MtF transsexuals who are not attracted to men (autogynephilic transsexuals)—Bailey sympathetically portrays these peoples’ experiences and explores the roots of their development.
Readers seeing these topics for the first time will come to understand these mixes of traditionally masculine and feminine characteristics, free from the sensationalism they receive in the popular media. Readers more familiar with these areas will come to appreciate that none of these human conditions—hetero-/homosexuality, cross-dressing, gender non-conformity, and transsexuality—can be fully understood on its own. Human sexual behavior must be understood in its entirety, if it is to be understood at all.
In introducing us to vivid and engaging people, Bailey takes us on a tour that would leave few readers unchanged. Just as interesting, however, were the hints about how Bailey’s own ideas became changed by his experiences in working with these issues. He notes he “became less skeptical, if not yet convinced” of the idea that the correct intervention for gender atypical children is to change society (rather than the children), a philosophy he learned from thinkers including “Clinton Anderson, scientist Simon LeVay, and journalist Phyllis Burke” (p. 26). Likewise, he notes having become more openminded about the veracity of transsexuals’ memories of desiring to change sexes even in childhood, after discussing it with Ken Zucker (the head of the Child and Adolescent Gender Identity Clinic at C.A.M.H. in Toronto). Watching the evolution of a scientist’s thinking is particularly welcome in a field where so many other authors on these topics polarize and entrench.
Bailey’s engaging style and clear fondness for the people he describes invite all readers to appreciate these peoples’ experiences better, on both scientific and human levels. Although respectful, Bailey describes his subject matter warts and all. He unapologetically includes potentially controversial topics including the strong preference in the gay male community for masculine sexual partners and against effeminate men, the well-established finding that highly gender atypical boys nearly always become gay men in adulthood (and the shame many adult gay men experience in recalling their own childhood femininity), the frequency of sex trade work among androphilic transsexuals, the difficulties many MtF transsexuals experience in passing as women, and the challenges to the politically correct idea of MtF transsexuals literally being “women trapped in men’s bodies.” Yet, Bailey notes specifically that there is nothing objectively shameful in, for example, childhood femininity or sex trade work. It is the combination of Bailey’s willingness to challenge ideas based only on prejudice as well as ideas based only on political correctness that establishes the book as an even-handed introduction, rather than as a mouthpiece for either the socially conservative right or academic left. Writing as an openly heterosexual and non-transsexual man, Bailey’s respect for the people he describes serves as a role model for others who still struggle to accept and appreciate homosexuality and transsexuality in society. In the following passage, Bailey writes about Cher, an MtF transsexual:
Cher has been having a rough time lately. She has fallen out with Amy, a homosexual transsexual who used to be her closest friend. Cher thinks that once Amy got her surgery, she no longer needed her, and she feels used. When she goes out with Juanita, who has become her best friend, men are constantly approaching Juanita (who is 15 years younger and very sexy), but they approach Cher cautiously, if at all….She is also broke, and is being sued by her relatives for her father’s inheritance. Despite her troubles, she continues to visit her circle of (primarily transsexual) friends, helping them plan their transition, listening to their boyfriend problems….She is a good friend to them, although her advice is not always appreciated or heeded. I think about what an unusual life she has led, and what an unusual person she is. How difficult it must have been for her to figure out her sexuality and what she wanted to do with it. I think about all the barriers she broke, and all the meanness that she must still contend with. Despite this, she is still out there giving her friends advice and comfort, and trying to find love. And I think that in her own way, Cher is a star.” I think she is too, and I am grateful to Bailey for having introduced her.
POSTSCRIPT: As I write this postscript, it is has been four weeks since The Man Who Would Be Queen has been released. Of all the ideas Bailey presents, only the meaning of autogynephilia appears to have drawn any controversy. Although his book is unapologetic in its accuracy, Bailey notes quite distinctly which ideas are well-established scientifically and which are hunches and suspicions to help readers tie the data together. It is unfortunate that a vocal few (vocal over the Internet, anyway) do not actually address Bailey’s points, referring only to rumors about the content of the book and to assumptions regarding Bailey’s motives. I can recommend only that readers refer to the content of the book itself (available to read on-line, free of charge at ), explore Bailey’s own webpage ( ), and decide for themselves.
Division 44 Newsletter Summer, 2003

As if the misuse of Cantor's review in the National Academy Press website weren't enough, Steven Pinker of M.I.T. (an APA psychologist who knows nothing about transsexualism, yet who is another strongly committed Bailey supporter along with Cantor) [later of Harvard; ed.] posted a short review of Bailey's book in the Guardian in June 2003. Pinker, Bailey and Pinnel (the NAP publicist) then extracted the following words from Pinker's review, and posted them on the National Academy Press' website in July 2003:
"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, Bailey and Pinnel deliberately referring to all trans women as "transsexual men" right on the National Academy Press website, long after this controversy had erupted and they had been told many times to please stop doing this. These are not the Guardian's words. These are the psychologist Pinker's words, taken straight from Bailey and Blanchard. They are not words used anywhere else in the world other than at the Clark Institute and in Bailey's book. In our time this is HATE SPEECH! It is 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.

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"