Interim Investigative Report on
Bailey's affiliations and ideological associations
by Lynn Conway
Initial Posting: 10-22-03
Updated Version of: 8-04-05
Breaking News: The SPLC Investigative Report
Important note: HBDG members now disassociating themselves from the group.
Why did he do it?
Bailey's intellectual, affiliational, associational and supportive milieu: The Clarke Institute, IASR, HBDG and VDARE
Human Biodiversity Discussion Group (HBDG)
How did we find out about HBDG?
Why is the HBDG affiliation of such interest regarding Bailey's book?
Evolutionary Psychologists, Reproduction and the issue of "Biodiversity": An essay by Sonia John
Original Roster of the Human Biodiversity Group Members
  • PART-II: Investigative files on key HBDG members associated with Bailey as role models, mentors, colleagues and supporters
    These pages contain interim investigative notes regarding Bailey's affiliations. We post it in this interim evolving form in order to communicate current information and coordinate additional searches and investigations in this area by community members. Please report any similar connections, links and evidence that you uncover to Lynn Conway and Andrea James. See also Andrea James' pages:
    The Usual Suspects: J. Michael Bailey's supporters
    Visual maps of J. Michael Bailey's connnections

    Breaking News: The SPLC Investigative Report.
    Our investigation of HBDG, HBI, the Pioneer Fund, VDARE, etc., joined forces this past fall with a parallel investigation of these same groups by the prestigious Southen Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Based on intelligence from our investigation, SPLC probed further into these organizations. Based on our collective results, the published an expose' of Bailey, Blanchard, Sailer, et. al. in a special SPLC Investigative Report on transgender hate crimes (Winter 2003, Issue 103). Here are links to key articles in that special report (which confirm the results of our expose of these same people):
    The Southern Poverty Law Center exposes Bailey, Blanchard and Sailer:
    Queer Science: An 'elite' cadre of scientists and journalists tries to turn back the clock on sex, gender and race
    By Heidi Beirich and Bob Moser of SPLC
    The Southern Poverty Law Center exposes widespread anti-trans violence:
    'Disposable People': A wave of violence engulfs the transgendered, whose murder rate may outpace that of all other hate killings
    By Bob Moser of SPLC
    Rage on the Right: A rage is growing on the right.
    Before it is done, untold numbers of men and women may have to die, casualties in America's ongoing culture wars.
    By Mark Potok, Editor, SPLC Intelligence Report

    Important note: HBDG members now disassociating themselves from the group.
    Potential members were apparently invited to join the "elite" HBDG group in 1999 if their work appeared interesting (from the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology) to Steve Sailer and a core group of members. Some of the folks who joined HBDG were not active in the group over the past few years, and only recently discovered that it evolved into an "elite" group of racists, white superiorists and homophobes who have used HDBG as a rallying-point and coordinating point for their "intellectual" activities.
    Upon learning SPLC's revelation of the true nature of the current-day HBDG/HBI, some original members are coming forward to publicly disassociate themselves from the group. We are listing these people and including their statements about the matter below, so that their disassociation from HDBG is clear.

    Why did he do it?
    One of the most fundamental questions we've pondered ever since the Bailey book was first published is "Why did he do it?" Why would an otherwise previously respected psychologist do what is now clear to many people: i.e., set out to write a book that deliberately demeaned its subjects, that would erode any respect he might have had as a scientist, and that would subject himself to scorn and derision for the rest of his career?
    "If Michael Bailey had purposefully set out to write a book that deliberately demeaned its subjects; if he had set a goal of eroding any respect he might have had as a scientist; if he had intended to subject himself to scorn and derision, he could hardly have done better than producing the innappropriately subtitled The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism - - - The Man Who Would Be Queen is a sadistic book, one that deliberately belittles and ridicules. Its mean spirit far outweighs any redeeming qualities it might possess. It is a shameful book by a shameless author who should not be surprised at the scorn and disdain to which he has subjected himself."
    - from the Editor's Review, Journal of the IFGE, Fall 2003. Issue #103
    This question goes to motives and circumstances, which can often be inferred and triangulated by investigating the social affinities, affiliations and ideological associations of the particular individual. In doing this we are seeking those close connections that reveal strong similarities in outlook, ideology, career planning and implementation, social feedback and approval, social power and support that characterize the milieu in which the particular individual (in this case Bailey) operates and is supported.
    We now visualize from extensive evidence that Bailey has for years operated within closed intellectual circles in which he was supported ever more strongly the further his ideas strayed from mainline scientific and clinical thought regarding transsexualism. The more he strayed back towards old-time confusions of transsexualism with homosexuality, and simply declared that it is a scientific fact that most transsexualism is a disordered form of homosexuality, the more support he got in those circles.
    As an apparently "politically moderate" chair of the psychology department at a major university, Bailey was in a position to be gradually elevated in the media (by influential people in his affiliational circles) as "the national expert on sex, especially homosexuality". If this had in fact happened, Bailey would have been in an excellent position to declare homosexuality, and especially transsexuality (which he and his supported all view as "extreme" form of homosexuality) to be "biological disorders" -m taking a kind of "compassionate conservatism" stance scientifically while posing as a moderate politically.
    If Bailey had been successful in being thusly elevated, and then scientifically declaring that transsexual women are just gay "men" (i.e., that transsexualism has nothing to do with gender identity) - then his associates could have pressed for the devolution of the many legal advances made by transsexual people in the U.S. over the past decades - especially with regard to obtaining new birth certificates in their new gender in most states, and being able to legally marry as members of their new gender in most states.
    Among his right-wing associates Bailey must have seemed a godsend: a potentially famous professor who could declare himself "gay-friendly", and yet who could provide the keys to locking the door on gay marriage by stopping even the marriages of postop trans women. In those circles, Bailey's ever more nutty and defamatory writings about transsexual women must have gotten strong approval.
    And so he "did it". He wrote "Women Who Were Once Boys" (WWWOB) and posted it on the web in 2000, and then defended it with a heavy hand in IASR and SEXNET circles. With the help of Blanchard, Lawrence and Zucker, and given his control of SEXNET, Bailey managed to suppress all vocal criticism within the general sexology community (more later about IASR and SEXNET). He also learned how to suppress almost all criticism from the many trans women who stumbled across WWWOB on the web, by publicly defaming them into the sexology community - declaring them to be "autogynephiles" (that usually silenced them instantly), and letting them know he'd done that to them. Of course all of this was done outside the HBIGDA community (Bailey has never been a member of HBIGDA, the community of scientific and clinical experts on transsexualism), who watched him with concern and guarded silence.
    [ For a timeline regarding Bailey's research and the publications of WWWOB and TMWWBQ, see this link.]
    Bailey's successes in forcing his viewpoints onto the general sexology community and in suppressing all vocal criticism apparently led him to gain the confidence to go ahead and write The Man Who Would Be Queen (TMWWBQ), with his earlier WWWOB chapters on transsexualism at its core. And with the help of his right-wing associates, he got TMWWBQ published by the National Academy Press (JHP) in 2003.
    The only things Bailey and his friends overlooked were the 40,000 or so assimilated trans women in the US who wouldn't be so easily pushed over, dominated and intimidated into silence as were his IASR colleagues, and who would organize in large numbers to investigate him and then expose him for what he was.
    Did Bailey fully realize how over-the-top his thinking had become? Or did he think that with the help of his associates and role models he had designed a book that would simultaneously generate "just the right level of controversy" and also position him as the "expert scientific mediator for resolving the controversy" - a controversy that would also sell lots of books and get him on all the TV talk shows?
    As we know now, things didn't turn out that way. The "Queen" is sinking out of sight, and Bailey's reputation is going down with it.
    To better triangulate on how this fiasco happened, we began looking into Bailey's affiliations and associations this past summer. We wanted to get a glimpse into the closed little intellectual world Bailey has lived in for many years - the world in which he built up his fantasies of becoming "Dr. Sex" - only to have the bubble burst when he published his ridiculous book and people simply saw it for what it was. This interim investigative report and also Andrea James' page on the HBDG contain some of our findings so far.

    Bailey's intellectual, affiliational, associational and supportive milieu:
    The Clarke Institute, IASR, SEXNET, HBDG, VDARE, etc.:
    This section (TBD) will provide introductions to and links to the trans community's investigations of all these Bailey-affiliation groups - - -
    Also see Andrea James' pages on "The Usual Suspects: J. Michael Bailey's supporters" - - -
    In addition, Andrea's excellent visual maps of "J. Michael Bailey's connnections". Those maps will help you gain perspective on how these groups overlap and are connected together. - - -
    For now we will focus in on the HBDG group here on this page - - -

    Human Biodiversity Discussion Group (HBDG)
    A discussion group of the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI)
    Steve Sailer, Founder and President
    So, who is Steve Sailer, founder and president of HBI?
    In his own words Sailer says "I'm a reporter, movie critic for The American Conservative, columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute, which runs the invitation-only Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.- - - The Human Biodiversity Institute promotes the study of biological differences among humans and their impact on society. Major areas of interest include race, sex, and sexual orientation."
    For an introduction to Sailer's thinking (which anchors and shapes this group's membership and agenda) see the details of his speech, "The Genetic Revolution", given on the occasion of Lady Thatcher's visit to a Hudson Institute conference on December 11, 1999. For more information about Sailer, see his entry in Bailey's HBDG associate's list below.
    How did we find out about HBDG?
    The HBDG came to our attention in July 2003 when investigator Kathy Padilla of Philadelphia found the coincidence of that list's containing both J. Michael Bailey and John Derbyshire as members. Derbyshire had already come to our attention as an intensely homophobic right wing person who for some reason was strongly supporting Bailey, via a review of Bailey's book in the National Review on June 30, 2003. (We'd gotten an early look at that review on the Derb's website on June 17, 2003). Kathy tossed Sailer's and Derb's names together into the search engines, and up came HBDG. Here's Kathy's message alerting us to Sailer's group:
    Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003
    Subject: A Group Bailey & Derbyshire both belong to & the other members
    To: Lynn Conway, Andrea James
    Click here: Roster of Human Biodiversity Discussion Group Members
    Upon reading the HBDG membership list, which dated back to 7/20/99, we were astonished to see that not only were Bailey and Derbyshire on the list, but so was Ray Blanchard, as were the evolutionary psychologists David Buss and Steven Pinker who were now amongst Bailey's strongest diehard supporters. Amazingly, all these guys had been associated with Bailey ever since he'd begun working on his book back in 1999! Hmm. The plot thickens...
    In addition, the HBDG contained numerous pundits, columnists, and ideologues who had written highly controversial books that sold well by inflaming the very controversies they were writing about. Examples of such controversy-generation-exlploitation books were The Bell Curve co-authored by member Charles Murray, Alien Nation by member Peter Brimelow, The g Factor by member Chris Brand, Race, Evolution, & Behavior by member J. P. Rushton, etc.
    Why is the HBDG affiliation of such interest regarding Bailey's book?
    There are several reasons why this group seemed so interesting to us. First, it seemed that the social-controversy-generation tomes by many pundit-type authors on the list provided Bailey with a pattern to follow. We sense that those other books suggested to him how to create a new "controversy-book" on the "science of transsexualism" which had as its underlying theme a bogus "scientific" claim that transsexualism was simply a form of homosexuality (or in some cases a paraphilia), and thus that transsexual women were just "men" after all. If he could foist this apparently new scientific result out on the public via some fashionable and credible publisher, he could attack the long-established view that transsexualism was a gender identity disorder - causing a controversy to erupt in which he could play scientific mediator between the right-wingers (the homophobes who want to believe Bailey is right) and the existing scientific and clinical community who now operate under the GID model of transsexualism. By being positioned as a "politically moderate", gay-friendly Chairman of Psychology at a major university, Bailey could emerge as a darling of the right for his views on transsexualism, while maintaining an appearance of neutrality and scientific credibility.
    Such a book, properly published and promoted, could then become an icon in the right-wing agenda of rolling back the legal and social advances of trans women (which they incorrectly viewed as spearheading the homosexual agenda of gay marriages - thinking that trans women really are gay men). The HBDG list is full of "role-models" for Bailey to use and interact with regarding the effective design of a properly controversial book.
    Thus we began many web investigations over the summer of 2003 of the members of this group and the links among them. We found a subset of members that were actively involved in supporting Bailey, and then found further links among them and various right wing homophobic/transphobic groups. We then began to notice that many of the people on the list were very actively engaged in either promoting Bailey's book by using their credentials as scientists to gain access to review podiums, or in defending it via glowing statements about Bailey in what were otherwise transphobic reviews in major media.
    We'd already noticed that Steven Pinker and David Buss, both evolutionary psychologists (who know nothing about transsexualism but support Bailey on HBDG socio-ideological grounds), had strongly lent their names as scientists in support of Bailey (in statements used in the book's cover sheets, and in reviews in major media).
    Our suspicions of behind the scenes coordinated support of Bailey by these HBDG members were then confirmed again and again as various HBDG members came out in support of Bailey over the summer of 2003 (as Bailey was beginning to do down in flames in the media, and undoubtedly reaching out for help to these people). Furthermore, we say no other people come out to support him once the controversy got underway! Only HBDG members came to his defense!
    First was John Derbyshire's review of Bailey's book in the National Review, which tipped us off to him and led Kathy Padilla to Bailey's connections with this group.
    Then the infamous "scientific racist" Chris Brand, also a member of the HBDG, defended Bailey on his website!
    And then ,on August 16, 2003, Steve Sailer stuck his head up by writing a review of Bailey's book for, in which he vilified trans women and strongly supported Bailey. Sailer followed this, on August 17, 2003, by posting an essay "Gay Gene or Gay Germ" on the VDARE website, in which he concludes that homosexuality a disease caused by "germs". You really need to read that essay to get an idea of how Sailer thinks and how he propagandizes science to support his socio-ideological ends.
    In that essay, Sailer says: "My friend J. Michael Bailey, the chairman of the psychology department at Northwestern University, is probably the leading researcher into sexual orientation in America.", and he uses Bailey's teachings to support the mystique of the "Gay Germ". That essay had undoubtedly been in preparation for some time before August, back in a time when Bailey would have been an apparently "neutral authority" and thus a good reference to use for the essay. Maybe Sailer thought that those outside his circles wouldn't know of his right-wing connections, nor notice the VDARE essay, and thus see how his support indicates that Bailey is anything but a "neutral scientist" in socio-ideological matters.
    This support by Sailer came at a point in time when Bailey had just been widely noticed in major media as being under investigation for research misconduct. We sensed that Bailey, under extreme pressure to counter the bad news in the media about him, had turned to his closest friends and appealed to them to help him. The fact that Sailer was a key "first responder" in efforts to bail Bailey out indicated that Bailey's connections with Sailer, and thus to HBDG, run very deep.
    Then, out of the blue, columnist Dan Seligman wrote an article in Forbes Magazine on 10/13/03 that was highly offensive to trans women. The article was entitled: Transsexuals And the Law: Are people who change their gender entitled to the protection of antidiscrimination laws? Thorny questions arise when judges deal with this topic. In thinly veiled service as Bailey's mouthpiece, Seligman in this article also rallied to Bailey's defense, among other things calling Deirdre McCloskey an "autogynephile" - thus defaming Deirdre amongst the financial and economic community for criticizing Bailey.
    Seligman gives himself away by saying in his article: "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."
    Now why would Forbes magazine run an article 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? Goodness, was Bailey already being nationally recognized as an"expert on transsexualism"?
    No, this was no coincidence! Seligman is just another one of Bailey's close HBDG associates, someone to whom he must have turned in his moment of need. He was merely promoting HBDG's vain hope that Bailey could be anointed as the national expert on such questions. Seligman thus became another one of the HBDG turkeys to stick his head up and get noticed by us! This was another key HBDG member coming to Bailey's rescue. We now knew we were onto something: that HBDG was Bailey's core group of intellectual associates and supporters, and that they would defend him vigorously and in contexts (such as Seligman's raising questions about transsexualism and the law) that revealed their ideological reasons for doing so.
    We'll use the actual roster of members of the HBDG below as a table for accessing our growing files on those members who are Bailey's close associates and supporters. But first, as essay on "Biodiversity" to set the stage for thinking about this group and its issues.

    Evolutionary Psychologists, Reproduction and the issue of "Biodiversity":
    Transgenderism: Fertility and the Ancient Texts
    An essay by Sonia John

    For a number of years I had a friend from Germany living in my city while she was pursuing a degree in International Relations. A philosophical type from an early age, when she was about ten she asked her grandfather, who raised and butchered pigs for a living, what was the purpose of life. He answered, "reproduction."

    I think that one of the reasons GLBT people threaten the world view of the conservative sectors of societies is because of low GLBT reproductive rates. The imperative to reproduce, to assure the survival of the ego, family, clan, tribe, nation, etc., is so firmly ingrained in our biology and culture that most people scarcely think about it. This is scarcely surprising, because through most of human history survival was often in doubt, but this is not a threat that has obtained in most of the world in modern times. Nonetheless, lowered fertility is one tangible and emotionally-felt answer some would give to the question, "what harm do GLBT people really cause society?"

    Although ZPG (zero population growth) as a political movement has always been very marginal, invisible almost everywhere, its goal has nonetheless been met--and very alarmingly to some, exceeded--in a few European countries, and that goal is close at hand in some other European countries as well. If it weren't for the influx of immigrants, who have higher fertility rates than the native-born, the US and Canada would probably also be at or on the verge of ZPG. All of this fertility reduction has occurred by voluntary action, without the assistance of plagues or war, and unlike most previous fertility declines, it has occurred in an environment of peaceful prosperity.

    As usual, a trend such as this has first been manifested in the "advanced" societies. Many people assume that a decline in fertility will also eventually occur in the less-advanced societies but that strong population growth will still be the norm there for at least a number of decades. This situation is tailor-made for xenophobes, whether grounded in fears of racial, cultural, military or economic eclipse. Up to this point, it has mainly been conservative religious groups, abetted at times by ultra-nationalistic political elements, that have labored in vain to limit the use of fertility-reducing technology, finding their justifications in ancient religious texts. But a wider variety of conservative groups are also pro-natalist because they--and a great many others who would not necessarily identify themselves as conservative--view perpetual population growth as a fundamental requirement for the financial well-being of businesses, governments, and eventually, according to the rosy scenario, individuals.

    Although the bulk of the decline in population growth in the developed countries can be attributed to popular birth control practices, a certain amount of it is also likely the consequence of greater acceptance of gay and lesbian people--and now, the transgendered. Given the more relaxed contemporary attitudes toward homosexuality, marriages of convenience (and whatever children are thereby produced) occur much less frequently. The same is increasingly true for transgendered people, especially as they are now coming to understand their own nature at earlier stages of their lives.

    The alarm raised amongst fertility advocates by GLBT people:

    It is perhaps understandable that the emergence and acceptance of transgendered individuals, above all the others in the GLBT grouping, would most viscerally alarm fertility advocates because the chemical and surgical interventions transpeople typically undertake significantly impair or destroy their procreative capabilities. If it were possible to change one's genitalia and body chemistry and not lose the natural ability to procreate--as in some distant imagined future--transpeople might be much less alarming to the overall pro-natalist society.

    The concern about fertility also is important in understanding resistance to liberalizing marriage laws. The purpose of the institution of marriage is seen by many people as primarily a framework and an incentive for reproduction. For many, a childless marriage is still seen as an unfulfilled and pointless one, just as is sexual intercourse with no immediate procreative purpose. Childlessness after a certain age--regardless of marital status--is still often seen as tragic and as an affront to established norms of masculinity and femininity. These attitudes easily find their way into legislation, such as that which narrowly restricts the definition of marriage and which furnishes significant tax incentives to child-bearing.

    It's also understandable that some scientists would become involved in the debates about GLBT people. The persistence in the population of GLBT individuals--long viewed as a relatively inconsequential minority--has been a puzzle for psychology and biology because it seems to contradict Darwinian tenets. But now, with growing awareness of the true number of GLBT people and the "problem" they represent for fertility, the concerns of scientists with conservative leanings have acquired an additional urgency.

    The controversy over the causes of GLBTism, which is likely to continue apace over the next decades, informs the attitudes of various interest groups that are concerned with public policy on GLBT issues. There is some tantalizing but as yet no conclusive evidence that the presence or expression of GLBTism is caused principally by genetic or biochemical factors, but some features of the gender-variant landscape are well-established:

    1. GLBT individuals are generally the offspring of non-GLBT parents;
    2. GLBT parents are likely to give birth to non-GLBT children;
    3. GLBT individuals exist in all societies and represent approximately the same proportion of populations everywhere;
    4. GLBT individuals, in their majority, can be induced by the forceful application of social, legal, etc. pressures to conform to societal norms, including procreation.

    Point #4 above is crucial because it has almost always been the means by which societies, absent until recently any knowledge of modern genetics, have handled their "undesirable" GLBT members. It is a major point of agreement by all who object to GLBT expression, whether they view it as an innate characteristic or as a sinful choice inspired by some devil figure.

    The conservative movement towards GLBT eugenics:

    It is likely that some dream of having the potential to intervene in genetic processes to reduce the number of GLBT individuals who are born, and this capability may emerge during our lifetimes; whether its application would ever become accepted as ethical is an open question. It may also be that there are extremists plotting organized genocidal strategies against GLBT people, but such plans stand, in my opinion, little chance of success in the constitutional democracies that govern in most developed countries today. This is not to say that these eventualities are impossible, and so it is worthwhile to have alert sentinels who are willing monitor the activities of fringe groups as well as the progress and application of potentially unethical scientific research.

    In a political environment that forecloses options of being able to directly control the number and specific types of people who are to be born, traditional and conservative elements are limited to advocating general pro-natalist policies that reward those who express a preferred behavior, along with repressive and stigmatizing policies to deal with those whose behavior they do not sanction. The struggle over these policies represents the working out of social and cultural evolution rather than of biological evolution, which requires many millennia.

    It may be true that the majority of people everywhere resist change in their lives, particularly when they believe that change will degrade any advantaged position they may hold. In the early days of NASA, during a congressional hearing on the possible benefits of including women in the astronaut corps, John Glenn stated, "The fact that women are not in this field is a fact of our social order." Note that he did not say that this was a happy or unhappy fact, nor did he justify the status quo by appealing to any authority to rationalize it; he was like many complacent advantaged people who simply say "what is, is." However, it would not technically be correct to say that conservatives always resist change, because many desire to change back to the way things were in the past (one may pick from a wide variety of defunct utopian eras). Also, conservatives heartily endorse evolution in the labor market of capitalist economic systems. What conservatives rarely ever do want is a forward movement of social evolution, even though it is in social evolution that the human race excels as a means of confronting the unpredictable challenges of life on this planet. The main reason for this is that social evolution has the greatest potential for altering the existing power structure, which continues to involve men holding most of the power and women performing most of the duties of reproduction and child-rearing.

    It has never been enough for conservatives who are attempting to influence social policy to state, as John Glenn did, that a particular status quo merely exists and therefore should be preserved; with all of the urgent attacks on the contemporary social order, an appeal to a higher authority is necessary. For the religious side of the conservative house, the ancient scriptural texts suffice as unassailable authority, but belief in religious authority is not what it once was--for many people it has been supplanted to a significant degree by a belief in science. The challenge thus for conservatives is to find scientific authority for their wish to preserve the social status quo, and certain evolutionary psychologists (preempting the science of biology) have heeded their call by appealing in a very biased way to the most ancient text of them all--the human genome.

    For examples of HBI members' thinking on the subject of eugenics and homosexuality, see the following investigative report: "Bailey, Cochran and Sailer on Homosexuality and Eugenics," by Conway and Kieltyka

    But what does the human genome really say about how human beings should evolve?

    Does the genome have an intelligence, does it have preferences? Is this much different from asking if the earth "cares" about whether its atmospheric composition is X or Y, or whether it is the home to a greater or lesser number of plant and animal species? These are, in the end, unresolvable theological debates that obscure the reality that imputed evolutionary preferences are nothing more than the preferences of individuals living today. The important debate is about the kind of society and culture we want to have in the future, and this debate can't be limited to self-appointed scientific or theological Brahmins--everyone, especially the members of the GLBT communities, must participate in it.

    We do know that the human genome is an extraordinarily complex system and that we have only just begun to grasp a few of the mechanics of its functioning. We also know that it is intricately connected by an ecological web to the genomes of other organisms and also to the physical environment, all of which also change over time. Then, we know that it is the nature of the genome to produce an enormous diversity of individuals and that this contributes greatly to its stability and capacity to adjust to changing circumstances--the vulnerabilities of monocultures are well-known. Finally, we take as a given that the genome ought to be allowed to continue to evolve, but the main question here has become, "under whose guidance, if under anyone's?"

    With the advance of technology, our species' potential to effect change in the biosphere--which includes the human genome--is increasing more and more rapidly. Decisions about whether and how to employ this potential have typically been made by those who possess the technology, for the primary benefit of their own groups and in view of their own short moment of time. Long-term considerations have frequently been neglected, as have been considerations of impacts on human outsider groups, non-human groups, and the physical environment.

    There has been a genetic experiment of significant scale--an intervention in the human genome--proceeding for a number of years now in several Asian countries. Using simple technology, many families have been selectively aborting female fetuses to the extent that in some areas of India, for example, 55% or more of the children being born are male. This means that for every thousand children born in these areas, there is an excess of one hundred males who will not be able to find mates, assuming the continuation of the prevalent social norms of monogamy and heterosexuality. Though the government in these areas opposes this sex-selection, the majority of the populace does not, and so it continues, albeit in the shadows. Does anyone have a clear idea of the full ramifications of such an unbalanced ratio between the sexes? To a greater or lesser degree, a preference for male children characterizes most human societies in the world today, and far more advanced (as well as less brutal) technology for sex-selection of children is available in the developed countries, though at a price most in India cannot afford. Even granting that preferences for male children are less pronounced here than in India and the technology less often utilized, what justification is there for allowing (or alternatively, banning) this technology which contravenes the genome's natural output of an approximate parity between males and females?

    I would suggest that society has a serious and legitimate interest in limiting or even prohibiting the use of technology in this way. Furthermore, I would view this technology as "a solution in search of a problem," whose application is driven mainly by the profit motive. Maintaining parity in the sex ratio of newborns is viewed by most as beneficial for societies, but individuals desire exceptions for themselves because of social and cultural beliefs that can also have financial implications; this is where individuals' rights must be weighed against the collective long-term well-being of societies. This situation also illustrates the folly of necessarily equating a beneficial collective genetic outcome with the sum of the genetic outcomes preferred by the individuals within that society. A much more satisfactory solution to the "problem" of those who desire to avoid having female children (and one far less fraught with unforeseen consequences) involves addressing the societal reasons that male children are so inordinately preferred, even if the required adjustments to the social status quo might be temporarily wrenching.

    In a similar way, many of the thoughts and theories emanating from confederations such as the Human Biodiversity Group seem to be "solutions in search of a problem," appealing to popular prejudices and dislikes such as an Indian parent's dislike of having "too many" daughters. With respect to GLBT people, once more the question has to be asked, "what harm do they really do to society?" Clearly, on the positive side, they have made innumerable brilliant contributions to society. On the negative side, is there evidence that they are particularly given to destructive or criminal behavior? This is a case that cannot be made, especially with the understanding that the HIV pandemic is not solely a GLBT phenomenon.

    Why are evolutionary psychologists so obsessed with GLBT people anyway?  The obvious answer is that they simply "don't like them"...

    Consider, then, a research or position paper outlining the present scientific understanding of the etiology of disease (regardless of whether the focus is on genetic or microbial causation, or both), continues with speculation about what this might mean for ameliorating an additional disease or social problem, and then selects the existence of GLBT people as that single important problem (disease). Given the lack of any creditable evidence that GLBT people constitute a societal problem, this selection is tantamount to simply saying "we don't like them."

    Ordinarily in the modern world problems come to light and are assessed for their severity by considering the cumulative costs associated with them--costs borne by individuals and society as a whole. In some respects an analysis of dollars-and-cents costs may be a crude way to measure a problem, but it is a tool that most people can agree on as a starting point. Preliminary conclusions can thus be reached about the relative importance of any number of social or medical problems--obesity, drug addiction, or violent behavior, for instance. These three are fine examples to contrast with the alleged "problem" of GLBT people, because they too are all considered to have at least some roots in genetic predisposition. In the case of violent behavior, which psychologists are apt to categorize under headings such as "anti-social personality disorder" or "explosive anger syndrome," enormous costs result, including physical damage to individuals and property, psychological damage to individuals, lost employment productivity, and the expense of treatment, law enforcement and incarceration.

    What are we to make of those who pursue an interest in ridding the world of GLBT people when there are so many more serious problems that might be confronted? Is it a simple phobia based essentially on a primeval antipathy toward non-procreative individuals and codified in change-resistant religious and political institutions? I believe this to be true, but there is also a related and highly emotional secondary issue in play--the extreme malleability of human sexual and gender behavior. Humans have, in common with other primates, far more sexual energy than is required merely for reproduction, and this energy is often expressed in non-procreative--including same-sex--activity depending on the individual and the social situation. Likewise with gender, given the notoriously arbitrary and shifting precepts of gender normality, variance in this dimension occurs in all shadings depending in part on the time and place. In effect, it's entirely possible that the majority of the human population is "queer" to some extent. If this is true and it becomes accepted as common knowledge, both the technical and political feasibility of a genetic intervention fades to nothing. This is the principal reason that anti-GLBT eugenics advocates place such great emphasis on minimizing the count of GLBT people and on denying the existence of bisexuality: their program requires a small and very clearly definable minority.

    Despite their different belief systems, in the end what the restless conservative scientists object to is the same as what religious conservatives object to: not wayward genetic evolution, but "undesirable" social evolution. Both groups abhor the idea that society could change so as to include and accommodate GLBT people. For them, this means the end of the world as they know it.

    Sonia John


    Suggested further reading:

    See also the following important essay by Joan Roughgarden, Professor of Biology at Stanford University, on the distortions of science by evolutionary psychologists and by Mr. Bailey in particular. Prof. Roughgarden's essay explores how such an unscientific movement could have arisen from within a modern scientific field, and raises serious questions about the underlying intellectual health and credibility of the field of academic psychology: "The Bailey Affair: Psychology Perverted," By Joan Roughgarden


    Original Roster of the Human Biodiversity Group Members:

    We mirror here the original roster of the Human Biodiversity Discussion Group members for your convenience. This roster, dated 7/20/99 contains a lot of useful evidence of connections among Bailey's affiliation and supportive circles. Note that many of the links and e-mail addresses in this early list are now obsolete. Nevertheless it has proven to be a great starting point for further investigation.

    We have modified this roster in only one way:

    We have added links from the key names in the first column to a files of "investigative notes" for each of those people. This enables readers to quickly find and jump to more detailed files about those individuals containing up to date information about them, links to their websites and publications, and information on their connections with other members of HBDG and other conservative affiliation groups.

    Note that in so doing, we do not mean to imply that all of the members of the HBDG are of similar minds or are involved in the Bailey affair.

    Instead what we find is that a key subset of HBDG members, including (importantly) HBDG leader Steve Sailer and a number of evolutionary psychologists, controversial trade-book writers, conservative columnists and right-wing pundits have long been close associates and supporters of Bailey - and have long been aware of and involved in his bringing forth TMWWBQ.

    We strongly encourage readers to probe the details on this page and the files it links to, and then to push out into the web and search for more connections such as these that might help us better understand the story behind Bailey's book - how it came to be - who his supporters were - how they got it published at the National Academy Press (JHP) - how they tried to come to his defense - etc. As you uncover additional connections, please forward them to Andrea James and Lynn Conway.

    [Note: Original HBDG members' names followed by (*) have disassociated themselves from the ideology of core group of presently active HBDG members. Click on the links (*) by their name to read their statements below.]



    Roster of Human Biodiversity Discussion Group Members
    as of 7/20/99 Maintained by Steve Sailer
    H-Bd Member Background Email Address Member Books I'm familiar with URL  status Member  Since  Mode Country Public Contributor
    Andrews, Louis R. Stalking Wild Taboo website Andrews active Andrews 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Arden, Rosalind Journalist, TV producer Arden Upcoming book on intelligence active Arden 3/4/99 e-mail UK Yes
    Armelagos, George Bio Anthropologist, Emory Armelagos bouncing Armelagos 3/19/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Bailey, Michael Psychologist, Northwestern Bailey active Bailey 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Bandow, Doug Senior Fellow, Cato Institute Bandow active Bandow 6/9/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Beamish, Jennifer TV Documentary Producer Beamish Upcoming h-bd documentary active Beamish 7/1/99 e-mail UK Not yet
    Becker, Gary Nobel Laureate Economist, U. of Chicago Becker "Economics of Discrimination" active Becker 4/19/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Blanchard, Ray
    Head of Clinical Sexology Program, Clarke U. Blanchard active Blanchard 3/4/99 e-mail Canada Yes
    Bloom, Howard L. Paleopsychologist Bloom "Global Brain" active Bloom 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Borjas, George Economist, Harvard Borjas "Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy" active Borjas 5/7/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Brand, Chris Silver-service waiter, psychologist, ex-Edinbrough U. Brand "The g Factor" - depublished active Brand 3/4/99 e-mail UK Yes
    Brimelow, Peter Columnist, Forbes Magazine Brimelow "Alien Nation" active Brimelow 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Burfoot, Amby Editor, Runners' World mag. Burfoot "White Men Can't Run" active Burfoot 3/4/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Burr, Chandler
    Science writer, The Atlantic Burr "A Separate Creation" active Burr 3/19/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Buss, David M. Evolutionary psychologist, Texas Buss "Human Mating Strategies" active Buss 7/9/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Calvin, William Theoretical neuroscientist, U. of Washington (William H. Calvin) Calvin active Calvin 6/17/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Cochran, Gregory M.
    Physicist, "New Germ Theory" Cochran 2/99 Cover story in The Atlantic active Cochran 3/29/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Dennett, Daniel C. Philosopher, Tufts Dennett "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" active Dennett 3/16/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Derbyshire, John Novelist and critic Derbyshire "Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream" active Derbyshire 5/10/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Ellis, Lee Sociologist, Minot St. Ellis active Ellis 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Entine, Jon
    "Taboo" on race & sports Entine "Taboo" - upcoming active Entine 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Fallows, James Microsoft, former editor of USN&WR Fallows "More Like Us" active Fallows 3/4/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Farrey, Tom ESPN Columnist Farrey active Farrey 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Frost, Peter Anthropologist, Laval U. Frostébut active Frost 3/4/99 e-mail Canada Yes
    Fukuyama, Francis Public Policy, George Mason Fukuyama "Great Disruption" active Fukuyama 4/25/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Gelernter, David Computer scientist/polymath, Yale gelernter-david@CS.YALE.EDU Gelernter "Surviving the Unabomber" active Gelernter 5/17/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Guest, James Former MP, Australia (James Guest) Guest active Guest 7/20/99 e-mail Australia Not yet
    Hamilton, William D. Biologist, Oxford Hamilton Kin selection, Red Queen theory active Hamilton 3/16/99 e-mail UK Not yet
    Harpending, Henry Anthropologist, Utah Harpending Dads vs. Cads theory active Harpending 5/30/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Harrison, Lawrence International, Harvard Harrison "Who Prospers?" active Harrison 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Hassan, Natasha Opinion Page, National Post (of Canada) Hassan active Hassan 6/9/99 e-mail Canada Not yet
    Hausman, Patti
    Psychologist Hausman active Hausman 6/24/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Heckman, James J. Economist, U. of Chicago Heckman active Heckman 6/9/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Hilton, Anthony Concordia, U. Hilton active Hilton 3/4/99 e-mail Canada Yes
    Hirsch, Ken ? Hirsch active Hirsch 5/5/99 e-mail ? Yes
    Holloway, Ralph L. Anthropology, Columbia rlh2@COLUMBIA.EDU Holloway active Holloway 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Hu, Arthur Computer consultant, journalist Hu Index of Diversity active Hu 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Iannone, Carol Literature, NYU Iannone active Iannone 6/9/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Jacobs, Ken Anthropology, U. of Montreal Jacobs active Jacobs 3/4/99 e-mail Canada Yes
    Kohn, Marek (*) Science journalist Kohn "Race Gallery" active Kohn 3/4/99 e-mail UK Not yet
    Krugman, Paul Economist, MIT; columnist: Slate & Fortune krugman@MIT.EDU Krugman active Krugman 3/25/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Kugiya, Hugo Journalist, Newsday Kugiya active Kugiya 5/17/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Landsburg, Steven E. Economist, Rochester; Slate columnist Landsburg "Armchair Economist" active Landsburg 6/8/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Lopez, Kathryn Jean Editorial staff, National Review Lopez active Lopez 5/21/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    MacDonald, Kevin Psychologist, Cal State Long Beach MacDonald "People that Shall Dwell Alone" trilogy active MacDonald 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    MacKay, Kate Anthropologist MacKay active MacKay 3/12/99 e-mail Canada Yes
    Manners, John H. Journalist Manners "The Running Tribe" - upcoming active Manners 6/19/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Marks, Jonathan Molecular anthropologist, Berkeley Marks "Human Biodiversity" bouncing Marks 3/4/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Martin, William C.
    Sociologist, Rice Martin "Prophet with Honor: Billy Graham" active Martin 4/1/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    McCarthy, John Computer scientist, Stanford jmc@Steam.Stanford.EDU McCarthy Cofounder-Artificial Intelligence; LISP active McCarthy 5/18/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Miele, Frank Senior Editor, Skeptic Magazine Miele active Miele 4/3/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Miller, Ed
    Economist/polymath, U. of New Orleans Miller active Miller 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Miller, John J. Journalist Miller active Miller 6/14/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Murray, Charles
    Political scientist, American Enterprise Inst. Murray "Bell Curve", "Losing Ground" active Murray 3/6/99 Digest USA Yes
    Noakes, Tim Sports physiologist Noakes "Lore of Running" active Noakes 3/4/99 e-mail South Africa Yes
    Nyborg, Helmuth Psychologist, Aarhus U. Nyborg "Hormones, Sex, & Society" active Nyborg 3/20/99 e-mail Denmark Yes
    Olson, Walter Manhattan Institute Olson "Litigation Explosion" active Olson 6/7/99 e-mail USA Yes
    O'Sullivan, John Editor-at-Large, National Review O'Sullivan active O'Sullivan 3/4/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Pinker, Steven Psychologist, cognitive scientist, MIT Pinker "How Mind Works", "Language Instinct" active Pinker 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Ian Pitchford
    Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies Pitchford Human Nature website active Pitchford 3/14/99 e-mail UK Yes
    Polsby, Daniel D. Law Professor, George Mason U. Polsby active Polsby 6/10/99 Web USA Not yet
    Postrel, Virginia Editor, Reason Magazine Postrel The Future and Its Enemies active Postrel 7/20/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Relethford, John Anthropologist, SUNY Oneonta Relethford active Relethford 7/14/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Rodgerson, Richard W. Kinesiologist, U. of Minnesota Rodgerson active Rodgerson 3/4/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Rowe, David Geneticist, U. of Arizona Rowe active Rowe 6/24/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Rushton, J.P.
    Psychologist, Western Ontario U. Rushton "Race, Evolution, & Behavior" active Rushton 3/4/99 e-mail Canada Yes
    Sailer, Steve Dilettante, founder of H-Bd Sailer nada active Sailer 3/3/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Salter, Frank Political sociobiologist, Max Planck Institute Salter active Salter 3/4/99 e-mail Germany Yes
    Sarich, Vincent Anthropologist, Berkeley (emeritus) Sarich Cofounder- molecular anthropology active Sarich 5/27/99 e-mail New Zealand Yes
    Seligman, Dan Columnist, Forbes Magazine Seligman "A Question of Intelligence" active Seligman 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes
    Taylor, Jeremy G. TV Documentary Producer Taylor active Taylor 3/4/99 e-mail UK Not yet
    Tripp, Steven D. Education, U. of Aizu Tripp active Tripp 3/3/99 e-mail Japan Yes
    Unz, Ron K. Software, Public Citizen Unz Proposition 227, Voters Rights Initiative active Unz 7/20/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Van den Berghe, Pierre Sociologist, U Washingtn Van den Berghe "Ethnic Phenomenon" active Van den Berghe 7/12/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Wattenberg, Ben J. Demographer, TV Host, American Enterprise Inst. Wattenberg "Thinktank" on PBS, "Real Majority" active Wattenberg 3/16/99 e-mail USA Not yet
    Whitney, Glayde Behavioral geneticist, Florida State Whitney active Whitney 3/4/99 e-mail USA Yes


    (*) Original members who have disassociated themselves from the ideology of the current core-group of active HBDG members:
    Marek Kohn


    From: Marek Kohn
    To: Lynn Conway
    Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 5:58 PM
    Subject: Re: HBDG

    Dear Lynn,

    As you have published a membership list for the Human Biodiversity discussion group which includes my name, I'm writing to make clear that I reject the racial theories propounded by Steve Sailer and his colleagues.

    I'm also fundamentally opposed to the political ideologies which appear to prevail in those circles; my own politics are of the democratic left.

    My involvement in these matters arises from my book The Race Gallery: The Return of Racial Science. The site I created to accompany the book can be found via my homepage.

    Its introductory page carries the slogan "for free speech : against racism". I believe that in the area of race and science, the second half requires the first: free speech is vital if racism is to be effectively opposed.


    Marek Kohn






    Continued in Part-II:
    Investigative files on key HBDG members associated with Bailey
    as role models, mentors, colleagues and supporters


    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"