A matter of perspective: a transsexual woman-centric critique of Dreger's "scholarly history" of the Bailey controversy.

As someone who is both an academic scientist and a transsexual woman and activist, I would very much welcome a proper historical analysis of the controversy over Bailey’s book The Man Who Would Be Queen: one that fully explores the many ethical issues raised by both the book and the backlash that ensued, one that thoughtfully articulates the perspectives of both researchers/gatekeepers and their transsexual subjects/ clients while taking into consideration the institutionalized power that the former group holds over the latter. On paper, Dreger seems well suited for the task given her experience as a science historian, ethicist, and an advocate for sexual minorities in her past work with the Intersex Society of North America. Unfortunately, while Dreger describes her article as a ‘‘scholarly history,’’ it fails in this regard for numerous reasons, several of which I will address here. The first rule of thumb when conducting a historical analysis—particularly one involving any backlash or tipping point event—is to provide the necessary background and the sociopolitical context in which the involved parties are situated within in order to understand the underlying forces that helped to shape the ways in which people reacted and events unfolded. In her lengthy article, Dreger devotes approximately 14 pages to Bailey’s conceiving and writing the book and the subject matter contained therein, 17 pages to describing the backlash against the book (with an overwhelming emphasis on purported attempts by a handful of trans activists to ‘‘ruin’’ Bailey), and 13 pages to clearing Bailey of most of the charges of misconduct that were made against him. In other words, it is primarily a Bailey-centric reading of the controversy. What is conspicuously absent from Dreger’s account is an adequate examination of transsexual women’s realities and perspectives on the issue. Indeed, in her discussion of the backlash, she offers one mere paragraph to address the role that ‘‘the long history of oppression against trans people’’ may have played in fueling trans activists’ responses to the book. And in that paragraph, she offers one brief and vague acknowledgement of the fact that ‘‘trans people...have had their identities unnecessarily medicalized and pathologized’’ without even mentioning that it is Bailey himself (and other psychologists/sexologists) who pathologize us. From a trans perspective, the Bailey controversy is part of a much larger story, one that has unfolded over the last half century, during which time there has been growing resentment and resistance within the trans community to having our identities and realities defined by nontrans researchers/ gatekeepers. Because Dreger overlooks this background and power dynamic, her article is largely an ahistorical ‘‘scholarly history.’’ Dreger glosses over or completely ignores three realities of trans women’s lives that are crucial to appreciate if one wants to truly understand why the backlash against Bailey’s book occurred. First, transsexuals’ gender identities and lived experiences as members of our identified sex are deemed to be less socially and legally valid than those of nontranssexuals (Currah, Juang, & Minter, 2006). Most of the discrimination, demonization, harassment, etc., that trans people face in our daily lives is predicated on this double standard. For this reason, transsexuals are constantly placed into positions where we have to account for, and/or fiercely defend, our gender identities in order to obtain the same rights and respect that nontranssexuals take for granted. Second, transsexual women are routinely sexualized in our culture (Serano, 2007). This can be seen in the media, which sexualizes our motives for transitioning by portraying us as either sexual deceivers who ‘‘prey’’ on unsuspecting heterosexual men, or as men who J. Serano (&) Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley, LSA Building #3200, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA e-mail: serano@berkeley.edu