The Man Who Would Be Queen

infinitely engaging and readable, this book and author have been hounded into obscurity by trans activists. yet this book might be the missing piece to understand how we got to gender identity and trans identity dominating the conversation. note the book was published in 2003 and straddles a time when researching the differences in, and causes of, homosexuality was still possible. the middle section of the book was chock full of fascinating studies; it's true that we love to study human behaviour! and even 20 years ago, Bailey is clear that the study of 'gay' (the author's research does indicate there is a genetic component to being gay) is not to manipulate out of it, or eradicate it. his in-depth study of feminine boys/gay men is a necessary primer to flesh out the section on transsexualism.

for example, arousal studies have never been able to conclusively prove true bisexuality in men (meanwhile, most women are aroused to some degree by both sexes). and although straight and gay men have the same inclinations towards casual sex, straight men tend to be sexually jealous (a major cause of domestic abuse). gay men and women are more likely to be upset by emotional betrayal: falling in love with someone else. both gay and straight men have a preference for younger partners, with straight men exhibiting it more strongly. women gravitate to slightly older partners. (there are evolutionary reasons as to why men and women would have specific attractions) gay men have an overwhelming preference for masculinity. so much so that being 'femme' is a detraction for most gays. (this is the most convincing evidence I've seen that very feminine gay men might find better acceptance as women: after all, with their strong sex drives, desire for masculinity, and relative difficulty to attract gay men, their frustrations would be immense). there is a simple enough classification for gay men: those that want to have sex with gay men are egalitarian homosexuals, and those that want to have sex with straight men are transsexual.

the first chapters describe a feminine boy that had almost a mirror experience to the boy in This is How it Always Is (right down to the accepting friendship with a quiet (but not feminine) boy that was broken by parents that were uncomfortable with the feminine boy). in This is How It Always Is the boy is allowed to 'be' a girl, but in The Man Who Would be Queen, it is the boy's future sexuality that is considered, not his present or future gender. With many studies to back him up, the author is perfectly comfortable predicting that the feminine boy will grow up to be sexually attracted to men. (this might be a contested idea now? but if it's contested that would be a social resistance, not one backed by data)

the famous Ken Zucker is introduced as a moderate. his position is that if a child with GID (gender identity disorder) grows into an adolescent with GID, chances are much higher that he will choose transsexuality (and surgery) as an adult. So yes, Zucker's starting position is that it is beneficial to NOT be trans so you can see why the community went for his blood. (You could also argue that a non-medicalized path and self-acceptance are also positive outcomes for individuals). Zucker's approach is individual and family therapy to get the child to accept the reality of their sexed body and, in stark contrast to the permissive parenting style in This is How it Always Is (and, to be honest, the impulses of most parents today), to take away all the 'girl' toys. Yes, that is cruel but Zucker's rationale is based on consistency.

Zucker is contrasted to a group of 'left-wing' (and often gay) clinicians and theorists who don't think gender non-confirming behaviours requires a diagnosis of GID or a therapeutic approach, that it is society that should grow more tolerant of such behaviour and drop the name calling. And to be honest, this is where my sympathies lie. So it was a shock to read about the Richard Green study where 2-6% of feminine men went on to be transsexual - a rather significant number for my 'let's relax and they'll figure it out' attitude. So maybe our parenting styles have partially yielded the explosion in numbers of trans?

Next there was a case of cloacal exstrophy where the medical professionals gave advice that the parents initially agreed with, but then found hard to follow. at the age of 7, they told their tomboy daughter she had been born a boy and she immediately reverted to being a boy with no significant backlash from school or his community. (Today we are very aware that parents should not make decisions about ambiguous genitals on their children) Although I have argued that medical conditions or intersex has no relation to trans, you can see how this distrust in medical authorities (who want to put intersex children into boxes for their convenience and the convenience of society) gave us 2 results: the disdained language of 'assigned female/male at birth' and a growing confidence that parents can and should push back at medical authorities, bestowing on these parent the title of 'expert' (on their children)

(You can also see that, when medical/intersex is the underlying condition, people immediately get on board. It's no wonder the trans community wanted to both jump on that acceptance bandwagon, and take a shortcut to legitimacy by pointing out concrete, physical differences)

the social constructionists get some press with their rejection of sexual orientation as a fundamental part of human nature. instead they only see sexual behaviours as influenced by culture. They point to the acceptable homosexual behaviour in ancient Greece, Rome, British all-male boarding schools, and a tribe in New Guinea, where the culture provides no stigma to said behaviour. To this, the author counters that hairless, adolescent males look a lot like women, and in environments with few women, this might be a case of substituting their first choice, for an acceptable second, prison being another such space. Bailey classifies these men as heterosexual, whereas the social constructionists would reject any sexual orientation label, only a fluid sexual behaviour. Here we see the underpinnings of today's 'progressive' idea that same-sex attraction reduces a person to their genitals (Bio-essentialist! is the new 'ist' name-calling). For these progressives, pansexual is the only non-problematic orientation to avoid the charge of transphobia.

there is also a reframing of the word transsexual. Bailey wants the readers to forget any preconceived ideas of what motivates a transsexual - like feeling trapped in the wrong body, hating their penis, or wanting a sex change. instead Bailey refocuses transsexualism as a desire to become a member of the opposite sex, where this desire could be mild (and fleeting) or strong enough to the point of obsession. (The new fashion is to use transgender instead of transsexual but I'd argue that the general public just pasted the outdated definition -trapped in the wrong body, wanting a sex change, etc- onto the new word. in other words, transgender/transsexuals are still misunderstood as being in a constant state of distress)

remember the topic of this book is feminine boys/gay men, and their possible journey to transsexualism, ie: a transsexual is gay. so now we come to the reason that Bailey was hounded out of polite society: this very readable and engaging book now introduces the autogynephilic to the public: the non-gay, non-feminine boy who is primarily attracted to himself as woman. He even has a 3 page chapter with a quick diagnosis to differentiate between autogynephiles (often previously married with children, cross-dressers, weren't feminine as boys, worked very masculine jobs, discovery of transsexualism much later in life) and homosexual transsexuals. it's notable that gay, feminine men have found an accepted niche in many parts of the world: the hijras in India, the mahu in Tahiti, the xanith in Oman, and the berdache in some First Nation tribes, but there is no equivalent in these nations for autogynephiles.

The final nail for Bailey's coffin? He profiles a cross-dresser (which has traditionally been called a transvestite) and explains clearly why this type belongs with the autogynephiles. In fact autogynephilia can really be understood as a sexual orientation as opposes to a gender category. Becoming sexually aroused during cross-dressing and masturbating while cross-dressing are hallmarks of autogynephilia. It's not like Bailey invented the categories but his ability to communicate them to the layman is why this book is considered so dangerous. when he was hounded out of public life, we got a preview of what views about trans-sexuality would be acceptable today.