WPATH Website   |    Member Login
July 3, 2007  
Dear Colleagues:
This message is a call for peer commentary on the following target article that will appear in the Archives of Sexual Behavior:

Dreger, A. D. (in press). The controversy surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the internet age. Archives of Sexual Behavior.


In 2003, psychology professor and sex researcher J. Michael Bailey published a book entitled The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. The book's portrayal of male-to-female (MTF) transsexualism, based on a theory developed by sexologist Ray Blanchard, outraged some transgender activists. They believed the book to be typical of much of the biomedical literature on transsexuality&md ash;oppressive in both tone and claims, insulting to their senses of self, and damaging to their public identities. Some saw the book as especially dangerous because it claimed to be based on rigorous science, was published by an imprint of the National Academies of Science, and argued that MTF sex changes are motivated primarily by erotic interests and not by the problem of having the gender identity common to one sex in the body of the other. Dissatisfied with the option of merely criticizing the book, a small number of transwomen (particularly Lynn Conway, Andrea James, and Deirdre McCloskey) worked to try to ruin Bailey. Using published and unpublished sources as well as original interviews, this essay traces the history of the backlash against Bailey and his book. It also provides a thorough exegesis of the book's treatment of transsexuality and includes a comprehensive investigation of the merits of the charges made against Bailey that he had behaved unethically, immorally, and illegally in the production of his book. The essay closes with an epilogue that explores what has happened since 2003 to the central ideas and major players in the controversy.

KEY WORDS: transsexualism; transgenderism; gender identity disorder; autogynephilia; identity politics; institutional review board; human subjects research.

If you would like to write a commentary, please e-mail me. You will then receive an e-mail attachment of the entire ms in WORD. The commentary is due no later than September 30, 2007. Here are the instructions:

1. It should be no more than 10 double-spaced pages, with a maximum of 10 references. References should be prepared using the style of the American Psychological Association (see the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association ). It is the responsibility of the commentator to prepare references properly. If they are not, the commentary will be retur ned to you for correction.

2. Page numbers go in the upper right-hand corner.

3. The commentary should have a title.

4. Underneath the title should be the name of the commentator and his or her institutional (or private) mailing address, including an e-mail address.

5. The commentary should be sent to me as an e-mail attachment, either in WORD or WORDPERFECT.

An expression of interest in providing a commentary is not a guarantee that the manuscript will be sent to you as there will be a cap on the number of commentaries.

The commentaries will be published in the same issue as the target article, with a reply to the commentaries by the author.

Best regards


Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D.

Editor, Archives of Sexual Behavior

e-mail: Ken_Zucker@camh.net





1300 South Second Street, Suite 180
Minneapolis, MN 55454 USA
Reply to: wpath@wpath.org
  This email was generated from the WPATH AMO messaging system and does not necessarily represent official WPATH communications.