See the intersex debate page between Tom Mazur and others!
See the MAIS & GD debate page about transsexual cause!
Debate about Michael Beiley's ideas about Transsexuality, based in that paper from M.Italiano:
Beiley's "at it again"-the omission and
distortion of BSTc findings
by M. Italiano
It seems that J. Michael Bailey, author of the new book, The Man Who Would
Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism (1), perhaps the
worst book ever written on transsexualism, is at it again.
In writing what he considers a scientific, yet popular, treatment of the
subject, Bailey omitted from his book, some of the most important
transsexual data to date- two Dutch reports (2, 3), which indicate that male
to female transsexuals have a female sized brain structure. Have no fear,
though. After this inconceivable omission, Bailey has tried to cover for
himself, by a brief treatment of these reports, in an apparently updated
section of his website, which addresses some of the criticism his new book
has received (4). His treatment of the brain studies in his website is
almost as bad as his book.
For instance, in trying to maintain his claim that there are two seperate
types (and ONLY two!) of transsexualism- a "type of gay man" (Bailey's own
words- pg.178 in his book) (Type 1), or a heterosexual man with misdirected
heterosexuality in the form of an SRS driven autoerotic "paraphilia", known
as autogynephilia (type 2), he cites Anne Lawrence's report, where she
interprets the data of the brain studies, to claim that the BSTc may
actually be a marker for autogynephilic transsexuals (5).
How does she do
this? Of course, by assuming that the reports of the subjects in the Dutch
paper are not to be believed (or perhaps, that they were lying).
For
instance, she claims that they were "arguably all autogynephilic" (5), even
though two were reported as male-oriented (and thus would be considered,
type 1- homosexual transsexuals) and one as oriented toward males and
females (3). In order to suggest that they were autogynephilic instead of
oriented toward males, as was indicated in the report, (ie., that the
reports are not to be believed), a reference is given to a 1987 paper by Ray
Blanchard (who coined the term autogynephilia), which showed that homosexual
transsexuals secured hormones earlier than do autogynephilic transsexuals.
WOW! Imagine, using ONLY ONE variable from a study of patients at the Clarke
Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, to explain why the information presented
about a group of patients in a totally seperate study from the Netherlands,
should not be trustworthy. Not to mention, that this same Blanchard, also
claimed that the homosexual transsexuals are early onset transsexuals and
the autogynephilic transsexuals are late onset transsexuals. If Lawrence
used THIS Blanchard variable instead, she would have difficulty, of course,
with the fact that there was no size difference between the transsexuals who
had early onset transsexualism (T2, T5, and T6) as opposed to those who were
reported to have had late onset transsexualism (subjects T1 and T3) (3).
Furthermore, it also would not square with the data that two early onset
transsexuals (T2 and T5) were female oriented, whereas one early onset
transsexual (T6) was male oriented (3). Nor would it square with the report
that one late onset transsexual (T3) was reported as being female oriented
and another late onset transsexual reported as being male oriented (T1) (3).
Of course, again it may be suggested that all of this too, should be
"arguably" contested.
BUT, why shouldn't we call in to question Lawrence's
"arguable" changing of the data being reported? Or, perhaps, moreso, why
shouldn't we call into question, Bailey's use of Lawrence's data, and her
fine reputation (she maintains an excellent resource for m to f
transsexualism), for his own "rescue", when he does not carefully point out
these important implications of the data in his website, and does not even
cite the studies in the first instance, in his book! Surely, if we read the
Dutch report carefully (3), it does seem to correlate not with a type of
transsexualism, but with gender identity itself. Not only do we have male
oriented transsexuals AND female oriented transsexuals co-existing as early
onset transsexuals, thus showing heterogeneity within this group, but we
also have male oriented transsexuals and female oriented transsexuals
co-existing as late onset transsexuals, showing heterogeneity within this
group also. Thus, we have heterogeneity WITHIN the two groups and a
homogenous state BETWEEN the two groups.
Further omissions by Bailey, who in his trite treatment of the BSTc
studies, claims the BSTc studies as not being "close to supporting the
interpretations they have inspired" (4) , is that the first female to male
transsexual brain studied, actually has a male BSTc. Admittedly, it's only
one subject, but this intriguing case, when compared with the control
females, flies in the face of Bailey's conceived notions. Again, it's the
"easy way out" for him to omit this data, which conflicts with his
conclusions. In like manner, is his omission of a 7th male to female (T7)
who, although did not transition (he was 84 in no later than 1999 when the
paper was submitted), was nonetheless described as "A nontreated individual
with cross-gender identity feelings (T7) which were already present since
his earliest childhood" (3). Perhaps, the only consolation that this
non-transitioner wasn't reported by Bailey, was that his late presentation,
would have probably garnered him autogynephilic status, due to his age.
Incidentally, this "non-transitioner" would have already been 37, when
Christine Jorgenson received the pioneering operation.
Bailey's claim that, "The Dutch group was unfamiliar with (or ignored)
the theory of autogynephilia" (4), doesn't seem as accurate, as that Bailey,
was unfamiliar with (or ignored) the BSTc studies. Certainly, he ignored
them in his book. His statment, "The study is thus irrelevant to the
question of whether there are one, two, or more subtypes of transsexuals"
(4), seems to be his belief, and is probably supported by little scientific
evidence itself, relying upon little more than Lawrence's disbelief of the
data (5), as well as Bailey's own selective omission of other data (4).
That the BSTc extends its sexual dimorphism into adulthood, of course,
still does correlate with gender identity, although since it seems to occur
later, may only be a developmental co-occurring phenomenon, with, perhaps, a
related cause. This brain result, however, is not likely, as the Dutch
authors point out, to be related to post-natal hormone levels. Certainly,
the non-transitioning
transsexual, whom Bailey leaves out, would seem to discount Bailey's
assumption that taking hormones influenced the BSTc. Bailey, claims of
course, that the study does not rule out the possibility of post-natal
hormonal influences on the BSTc (or even the influence of other factors on
the BSTc). But, then again, anything may be a possibility. As Stoller once
wrote in his book, Sex and Gender (6), "Perhaps transsexualism is caused by
the "baleful influence of a two-headed turtle, upon whose back, the earth is
carried. Try to disprove that one.
"If Bailey believes there are only two types of transsexuality, and that
the brain structure which is uniquely involved in autogynephilic
transsexualism, may also be found in other paraphilias, that is an
unfortunate. Where would that leave the many homosexually related
paraphilias peculiar to "homosexual transsexuals"? From his book (1), we
would be lead to believe he would "reason" to "blame" it on INAH-3. I guess
one "paraphilic marker" deserves company, which of course, leaves the
question, what if both brain structures, the BSTc and INAH-3, were left
"un-masculinized"?"
Well, it seems that we would certainly be in for a sequel. Could a
sequel get any better than the original? Could it get any worse?
Yes, indeed, it does seem, that Bailey is at it again.
REFERENCES
1) Bailey, J.M. (2003) The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of
Gender-Bending
and Transsexualism. Joseph Henry Press.
2) Zhou, J.-N., et. al. (1995) A Sex difference in the human brain and
its relation to transsexuality.
Nature, 338: 68-70.
3) Kruijver, F.P.M., et. al. (2000) Male to Female Transsexuals have
Female Neuron Numbers in
a Limbic Nucleus. J. Clin. Enddocrinol. Metab., Vol. 85, No. 6:
2034-2041.
4)
http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversey.htm#brains
5) http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/ages.htm
6) Stoller, R.J. (1975) Sex and Gender Vol. 2: The Transsexual
Experiment. Jason Aaronson, N.Y.
Wal Torres,M.S.,Ph.D. opinion:
I like very much Italiano's ideas about that subject. I dont know Bailey's book, because
I dont like that kind of "transsexual fake scientific book".
If that kind of book were edited during the 50's, 60's, even 70's, I would
understand.... they had not enough scientifical, neuro-endocrinological data.
But today, after Dorner's work in East and latter united Berlin since the 60's....
Gorsky's in
California since the 70's... Pfaff's in New York since the 60's.... Raisman &
Field in England since the 70's.... Imperato McGinley since the 70's.... since
Swaab & others, in Holland, since the 70's.... Bonsall & Michael in Georgia
since the 70's... Resko, Roselli, & others, in Oregon since the 70's...
Kawamura & others in Japan since the 90's... Pinsky & Kaufman in Montreal since
the 70's... about gender neural diferences in basal brains, in rats, non human primates,
human primates and alive human primates,among much others, for me it is
something Kafkian to read that sort of Bailey's book.
Bad ideas for the past, and really Kafkean ideas for the present.
Another thing I would like to say, is that horrible "autogenophylia idea", is
philosophycally and logically wrong.
Why?
First of all,
because it mix up two logical and philosophical different situations: sexual
orientation (heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual),is a drive, is not a self
characteristic,
but surely is a relation between two people characteristic. Hetero, homo or bi is
the relation, not the people. As perfectly said in 1963 Gore Vidal, in
his "The City and the Pillar" revised version, in his "manifest" at the end of
the book.
Transsexuality, as a gender dysphoria (GD), is a personal characteristic, and
not a characteristic of the relation between people. Transsexuality is directly
related to Gender Identity, as said Italiano, and sexual orientation never is
related with gender identity, but always with sexual drive!
Transsexuality is not a drive, as sexual orientation, but is
an inner feeling about yourself, your life and body, your feelings and your being.
To mix up those two concepts as the same kind of phaenomenum (as if there was any
relation between them, ontically), is a big logical mistake.
Bailey's ideas are supported, based, in that kind of philosophical and
logical mistakes. Knowing it, that was enough for me, to dont read all that
"scientifical fake book".
Surely transsexuality may have not one cause, but some conditions, mainly during
gestation, that can determine it. A discord between the gender of the brain, and
the gender of the genitals. That could be a consequence of genetic DAX1 problems,
or endocrinogenic MAIS problems, or other problems in the brain differentiation,
that we are not sure today.
But surely is a discord of gender, between the brain and the genitals.
Would you like to say us your opinion about those subjects?
Please, answer us that form below!