From PlanetOut:
The Lambda Literary Foundation withdrew J. Michael Bailey’s book “The Man Who Would Be Queen” from award consideration.
Even the relatively conservative authors at the Independent Gay Forum criticized the book for poor science, stereotypes, and moralizations against gender variance.
Naturally, when a book like this appears, the ex-gay science organization NARTH will defend it:
Among the book’s endorsers is the National Association of Therapy and Reparation of Homosexuality (NARTH), a leading proponent of “ex-gay” reparative therapy. A reviewer on the NARTH Web site “absolutely” recommends the book and said it would be useful for gay men dealing with “unwanted homosexuality.”
The NARTH web site quotes Bailey as saying in the Archives of General Psychiatry that “”homosexuality may represent a developmental error.”
The PlanetOut article notes that Bailey is under investigation by Northwestern University officials for ethics violations.
Several of his research subjects have charged that Bailey distorted their stories to better fit his theories, and that they did not consent to have their stories used in his book. Others have publicly refuted his findings.
Sounds like another academic popular among exgays: Paul Cameron.
Deirdre McCloskey published a review of Bailey’s book in Reason Magazine back in November
>Queer Science
>A data-bending psychologist confirms what he already knew about gays and transsexuals.
https://www.reason.com/0311/cr.dm.queer.shtml
What a surprise. But then again, if NARTH threw out all its junk science, where would it be?
DEAR NARTH I WOULD INTERESTED TO A ADVISING WITH YOUR EXPERT, BUT I FIND MY SELF TO LONDON AND I ASKED MYSELF IF YOU HAD ANY ADRESS OR CONTACTS HERE IN UK. MINE ADRESS FERRANTE SERGIO 27 LULWORTH CLOSE HARROW ENGLAND…. MY E MAIL. FERRnte_sergio@libero.it please.. thanks a lot
Did any of you read the review on NARTH? The conclusion is entitled, “Bailey’s Work Is More Science Fiction Than Fact.” This clearly indicates that the reviewer did not agree with all that Bailey said.
Yes, I read it.
The reviewer is mainly concerned with Bailey’s lack of scientific citations and unscholarly presentation. The reviewer DOES, unmistakeably recommend the book. And he agrees with Bailey to the extent the book supports NARTH’s agenda.
No surprise.
You are right–there is a HUGE conspiracy of these religious fundamentalists who are using their “credentials” to beat down 4% of the population. Do you know any of these guys? Have you ever met them? They are outraged and saddened by the lack of compassion as well.
In the words of a wise man that I will not quote because the quote will then be dismissed:
“If you can make any major worldview look foolish, you don’t really understand it.”
I don’t fully understand Sam’s comment. I would be willing to concede that I do not understand the view (major worldview, if you will) of the HUGE conspiracy of religious fundamentalists. I have met some that are outraged and saddened by the lack of compassion; I have met many who are not.
Is the point merely that we do not understand each other? If so, I would add my voice in support of that opinion!! Or, is the point that because the LGBT community is only “4%” it does not represent a major worldview and is therefore not subject to understanding (as opposed to the HUGE conspiracy of religious fundamentalists)? If the latter, I would respectfully disagree.
I don’t understand what Sam was saying, either. 🙂