Talk:J. Michael Bailey

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Comment[edit]

Would be nice if this "rational" article could demonstrate if there is any sound science demonstrating that female brains are born into to male bodies... instead of playing religious dogmatism... weird from a supposedly rational site...Northern atheist (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite get the question. What would be the alternative? That people don't feel that way? That they aren't born with these feelings? That they are mentally ill? All of these points have been refuted by experts, otherwise these people would be treated with drugs, etc. to "cure" the feelings instead of hormone therapy, operations, etc. to change the body. What more do you expect? And actual XX brain in a XY body? --Irian (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Why would it? Nothing in the article relies on that assumption. It just points out other academics in the field feel that Bailey's model is somewhat simplistic and outmoded. That's perfectly rational. In any case, 'female brains born into male bodies' is another overly simplistic model, far removed from the current state of research. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

--- Could someone give a better link or re-work the description of the last paragraph? From going through different pieces, Alice Dreger's name comes up a lot and looks like: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/health/psychology/21gender.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 she's an active participant in what's gone on around the book. I think the article reflects too much of her perspective, or could use more perspectives.

Uncited claims[edit]

I think this article needs a bit more rationality. I don't agree with his autogynephilia assessment, and I think Contrapoints summarised best why it is offensive and flawed. However, Bailey has also contributed significantly to the science showing that both transgenderism and homosexuality is rooted in biology. The article in it's current state says "Needless to say, the LGBT community roundly condemned the book". We can't have broad brush claims like that. It received condemnation from scientists and praise from others, but to claim the whole LGBT community (who more than likely don't even know the book exists) have condemned it is simply false, especially considering it won awards from LGBT groups. Let's be factual about who condemned it and why it is a flawed argument. --Debunky (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I've done a brief edit to remove the part about being condemned by the entire LGBT community. I think this article needs work because it's weak on references. --Debunky (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Bailey's views on the nature/nurture controversy[edit]

The article quotes Bailey as stating, " If one cannot reliably make a male human become attracted to other males by cutting off his penis in infancy and rearing him as a girl, then what other psychosocial intervention could plausibly have that effect? " What is interesting about that is that Bailey is putting forward an obvious logical fallacy. He is implying that because one particular life experience does not cause a "male human" to become attracted to other males, that therefore no life experience could possibly have that effect. Clearly that does not follow. You cannot reason that because X does not cause Y, therefore nothing could cause Y. Shouldn't the article point out Bailey's gross error of logic? Prince of Glantri (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

My addition was removed here by user Debunky. Dear Debunky, pointing out that Bailey is guilty of a logical fallacy does not in any way "pretend that one argument" is "the entire basis of Bailey's career". If someone makes an argument that is obviously logically fallacious, we should point that out and expose the error clearly; pointing out a particular fallacy implies nothing about how important it is to someone's career, and it is not "vandalism" either. Prince of Glantri (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
How exactly is it a logical fallacy that needs to be "pointed out"? If you didn't know, John MoneyWikipedia began castrating newborn and infant boys, giving them vaginas, and raising them as girls in the 1960's. He shoved estrogen down their throats to "further female development". Money claimed that mens sexual orientation was a 'learned' social construct, and said that these boys would grow up to be heterosexual women who would marry MEN. One of the top sex researchers at the time Milton DiamondWikipedia finally exposed John Money in the 1990's, because it turned out Money had been lying that his cases were successes and that the boys had grown up to be happy girls (they hadn't, they all went back to being men and the most famous case killed himself). I suggest you actually do some reading before you come here to expose a "logical fallacy". Bailey has spent his life work on this topic. This isn't his conclusion, it's actually a perfectly good indicator of sexual orientation having a prenatal origin. Many sex researchers drew the same such conclusions. Just where exactly, is the "gross error of logic". Incase you hadn't noticed – it's titled the near-perfect quasi experiment. Debunky (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I already pointed out exactly how it is a logical fallacy. I was absolutely clear and explicit about why, so your question is misplaced. Bailey's reasoning is that because a particular "psychosocial intervention" does not make a male human attracted to other males, that therefore no "psychosocial intervention" could have that effect. Obviously Bailey is completely wrong. What he is claiming simply does not follow on a logical level. I am totally unimpressed by the fact that Bailey has "spent his life work on this topic"; he lacks all objectivity, and that's painfully obvious from everything he says about this subject. You are free to believe that sexual orientation has a parental origin; I don't believe a word of it. Prince of Glantri (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I actually happen to work in the field, so I find it rather amusing you would posit that postnatal effects play a role in mens sexuality (it's clear they play some role in women). Why do you think paraphilias are almost exclusive to men? Because everything links back to the androgenization/masculinization process of the brain that all male brains go through. Every single longitudinal study has found no link with postnatal effects on male sexual orientation. Absent fathers? No link. Sexual abuse? No link. They are more likely to be targeted for abuse due to gender nonconformity which is visible, on average, from a very early age (a clear indicator of some brain undermasculinization, hypo-masculinization or monotonic effect that occurred in development). If you seriously want to challenge me to a debate because you happen to dislike Bailey then you are straight up clowning and I wonder why you're even on Rationalwiki. What are your theories of development? Given the blatant physiological differences in gay mens face it's pretty clear to anyone with a clue. Oh, and by the way, in 2017 antibodies to the Y-linked antigens which play a role in brain masculinization were found to be much more elevated in mothers of gay sons, confirming the hypothesis that seuxal orientation is indeed formed in the womb. Such antibodies interfere with brain masculinization, thought to be leaving wiring in the area of sexual attraction in the female-typical fashion – or attracted to men. If you seriously think you're smarter than J. Michael Bailey, Dick Swaab, Ivanka Savic, Marc Breedlove, Bill Byne and Simon LeVay, then you're as good as a science denier can get: useless. Debunky (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I assume that by "mens sexuality" you are trying to refer to sexual orientation. You really ought to be explicit, because "sexuality" could refer to a number of different things, as you should know. It is of no consequence to me whether you "work in the field" or whether you find my comments "amusing". You have made several claims without the slightest evidence; I assume you intend to provide none. None of these claims has any relevance to the issue of whether Bailey's argument is logical. It perfectly obviously is not logical. If RationalWiki is really about challenging illogical or unscientific thinking, as opposed to uncritical reverence for people like Bailey, then the article ought to point out clearly that Bailey's reasoning is worthless. Prince of Glantri (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Obviously I am referring to sexual orientation, considering the discussion pertains to that in the article. Where are the claims I have made without evidence? They are supported by 30 years of research evidence. You've only provided denial and no evidence. Either you are a social constructionist, or a religious hack. Spell it out for me :) P.S. stop tweaking your replies every minute, it's annoying.Debunky (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Criticizing an illogical argument is not "denial", it is criticzing an illogical argument. Prince of Glantri (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Your links above have no relevance to whether Bailey's argument is logical or not. They amount to changing the subject, so of course I won't respond to them. Prince of Glantri (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Here we go again. You just accused me of providing "no evidence", yet when I do – you just say it doesn't support Baileys view. Except it does. The conclusions drawn by Bogaert and Blanchard support that. I see your editing on the Freud page – trying to get the criticisms of his theories deleted. Why are you on Rationalwiki? I smell a self hater who read too much Freud. Debunky (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I do not know what you are using the phrase "Bailey's view" to refer to. I am not concerned with discussing all his views, only the argument mentioned in the article. It clearly is illogical and every response you have made has been irrelevant. Prince of Glantri (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
No one cares, Freeknowledgecreator. Bye bye. Debunky (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I am fully prepared to believe that no one cares that you have made illogical and irrelevant responses. Prince of Glantri (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think it's reasonably clear that the proposed change will not be made lol. — Z 11:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Bisexual men[edit]

@Scribbinus you wrote: “Bailey has yet to apologise for the effect his 33 person study had on public health, policy making and the wellbeing of bisexual people” – I don’t think that’s quite true. He was approached soon after his original study by a representative group for bisexuals, and they funded more research in the 2000’s which showed bisexual men existed, and Bailey did apologise. He also said that it was incredibly hard to find the men for that study, and said that open display of bisexuality in men is seemingly rare. So to write that it took him 20 years to publish that recent study is a bit unfair. He was simply going with what his original study found, which is that men who identified as bisexual had homosexual arousal patterns. I do agree that science by press release isn’t a good thing. Debunky (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"open display of bisexuality in men is seemingly rare" - I know half a dozen bi men in my (very small) town alone. He thinks it's rare because he's not the sort of researcher most LGBT people trust, and because, in all likelihood, he's either ignorant or biphobic (given his baffling and absurd 'bisexuality in women is uncontroversial' statement). I'll remove the bit about the apology; that was unnecessarily snarky. But he caused real and lasting harm to the bisexual community by conducting a lazy, unethical and poor quality study. He doesn't get a free pass on that because it was 'too hard' to find participants - especially given that bisexual men are not remotely rare. Bisexual people comprise the majority of the LGBT community.Scribbinus (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I’m understanding of your complaints, however a huge volume of existing research and anecdotal evidence at the time showed that most gay men “came out” as bisexual at the start to retain some “straight privilege” and to feel more comfortable about their sexuality (out of own internalised homophobia), so people tended to doubt that openly bisexual men were even bi because most bi men simply stayed closeted. Every line of scientific inquiry starts with a hypothesis and several assumptions, and that is tested through research. Simply asserting biphobia is a bit strong, IMO, considering Bailey is actually a huge sexual libertarian – and has consistently stated he doesn’t care what people do as long as it’s consensual, and that the internet is a new tool that allows people to explore their sexuality. Debunky (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Blatant copyright violation[edit]

In April, the RationalWiki user Debunky added several paragraphs of text to this article.[1] Most of it was lifted word-for-word from this "Identiversity" article. This is an obvious and blatant copyright violation.

  • Q1: What is the copyright status of the Identiversity article?
  • A1: The website states "© 2020 Identiversity, Inc. All Rights Reserved."
  • Q2: Is it possible that the Identiversity text is copied from RationalWiki rather than vice versa?
  • A2: Very unlikely, as the material added by Debunky included a link to the Identiversity page.
  • Q3: Is the text really identical?
  • A3:
RationalWiki Identiversity
One of the most controversial questions facing researchers has been the nature vs. nurture debate as it relates to sexual orientation. In their 2016 article, J. Michael Bailey and his colleagues describe a key source of evidence pointing to the role of biology—that is, nature—over nurture. Between 1960 and 2000, doctors believed that babies who were biologically male but had malformed penises, or whose penises were lost in surgical accidents, would be better off being surgically altered and socially reassigned female. This belief has changed, as has medical practice. But in the meantime, a generation of individuals born biologically male were raised as girls, creating a kind of “natural experiment.” Scientists were curious—what had their sexual orientation turned out to be. As Dr. Bailey and his fellow researchers explain, in the cases in which the sexual identity of these individuals is known, it has been found to be attraction was toward women. What does this tell us? Since the men are heterosexual, Dr. Bailey and his colleagues explain that this is the result that would be expected if nature, not nurture, accounts for the development of sexual orientation.

"These results comprise the most valuable currently available data concerning the broad nature-versus-nurture question for sexual orientation. They show us how difficult it is to derail the development of male sexual orientation by psychosocial means. If one cannot reliably make a male human become attracted to other males by cutting off his penis in infancy and rearing him as a girl, then what other psychosocial intervention could plausibly have that effect?"

One of the most controversial questions facing researchers has been the nature vs. nurture debate as it relates to sexual orientation. In their 2016 article, J. Michael Bailey, PhD, and his colleagues describe a key source of evidence pointing to the role of biology—that is, nature—over nurture.

Between 1960 and 2000, doctors believed that babies who were biologically male but had malformed penises, or whose penises were lost in surgical accidents, would be better off being surgically altered and socially reassigned female. This belief has changed, as has medical practice. But in the meantime, a generation of individuals born biologically male were raised as girls, creating a kind of “natural experiment.”

Scientists were curious—what had their sexual orientation turned out to be? As Dr. Bailey and his fellow researchers explain, in the cases in which the sexual identity of these individuals is known, it has been found to be “predominantly or exclusively gynephilic (i.e., attraction was toward women)” (Bailey et al., 2016, pp. 72-73).

What does this tell us? Since the vast majority of men are heterosexual, Dr. Bailey and his colleagues explain that this is the result that would be expected if nature, not nurture, accounts for the development of sexual orientation:

“These results comprise the most valuable currently available data concerning the broad nature-versus-nurture question for sexual orientation. They show us how difficult it is to derail the development of male sexual orientation by psychosocial means. If one cannot reliably make a male human become attracted to other males by cutting off his penis in infancy and rearing him as a girl, then what other psychosocial intervention could plausibly have that effect?

I don't know why there's such knee-jerk objection to removing this obvious copyright violation. If you want the material to be included, then write it in your own words. — Unsigned, by: 193.148.18.60 / talk

This does appear to be plagiarism. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 22:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with you removing that. It was copied from my notes application on my laptop which I indeed failed to rewrite. My bad. Debunky (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)