The Bailey Smokescreen, Ignoring Science and playing to the Gallery.
By Sophia Siedlberg.
Every now and then, Professor J Michael Bailey appears, along with his supporters to argue against those who are his critics. I can sympathize with him for doing this considering the sometimes hate filled personal attacks Bailey has been subjected to. But there is a problem.
There seems to be a methodology to this defensive approach Professor Bailey is taking. And to someone who does not actually have an axe to grind with Bailey it does come across as rather sinister.
The debates always follow the same predictable pattern. The handling of criticism follows the same pattern; in fact you walk away from a debate wondering whether or not Bailey is up to something.
So to make life easy for people who feel they need to debate certain issues with Bailey and his colleagues, I have decided to present a sort of guide to his “debating tactics” in the hope that when someone is driven to frustration trying to get through to him with a valid point, they at least have this guide as a form of reference to his tactics.
Tactic 1: “Playing to the Gallery”
Professor Bailey seems to love controversy. He will write what is presented as a scientific paper and often there is scientific content within whatever document he has written. However, he plays this goading game by inserting comments that are guaranteed to upset certain readers. My favorite example would be the one in his “Gay eugenics” paper where he draws the comparison between the “Freedom of Choice” for parents to “avoid having homosexual children” and the analogy by saying “Should non Jewish parents be forced to have Jewish children?” Given that the paper in question is clearly describing a form of negative eugenics, adding the hot button commentary about “Non Jewish parents being forced to have Jewish children” is very provocative. The explanation from one of his colleagues (Professor MB Miller) is that there is a truth in science that often seems to go against social norms. He cited the example of Galileo saying things that were very uncomfortable for the church of the time. But Galileo was in possession of the scientific facts and the church was not.
I do not have an issue with this explanation, if anything I am grateful that Professor Miller was open enough to explain why Bailey “Plays to the Gallery” but I think the difference between Galileo and Bailey is that Galileo simply wanted to prove a scientific argument, Bailey wants to provoke people and claim it is a scientific argument, thus rendering his critics (especially other academics) unable to question him without looking reactionary in some way.
Tactic 2: “Liar Liar Liar”
When someone does respond to Bailey playing to the gallery, we find a small but often identifiable group of people jumping to his defense when Bailey has provoked a response. The defenders appear calling the respondent a “liar”. It is always (if not invariably) a variation on “Defaming Bailey” or “Lying about the science”. The “liar, liar, liar” tactic is often employed in two ways. If he describes a group of people in a particular way, and anyone from that group of people says “This does not describe me”, then Bailey or one of his defenders simply says: “Shut up! You are lying; science proves you are lying.” If the respondent is confronting Professor Bailey about a given statement, (let’s use the “Non Jewish parent being forced to have Jewish children” example) someone will say something like: “That sounds like anti-Semitism,” and a typical response would be: “Liar, Liar, Liar. I have never advocated killing Jews. I am not a Nazi. Look, there is a full stop in the sentence which clearly puts the comment in a benevolent context.” The playing to the gallery tactic is often Bailey laying the bait and the moment someone takes it we get the “Liar, Liar, Lair” routine.
Tactic 3: “Strength in numbers”
If someone confronts Bailey’s science because it does not describe them accurately or because they are responding to the play to the gallery traps, you will find his defenders appearing. It usually starts with one defender objecting to the respondent claiming the respondent is a liar. Often this is laced with personal attacks on the respondent. These attacks can range from comments on the mental stability of the respondent, even to comments on the respondents style of writing. I saw a defender some time ago say to female to male transsexuals: “I see by your masculine writing style you are proving Bailey right. You are a man trapped in a man’s body.” Often at that point the respondent objects and then another defender will appear supporting the claims of the first defender. Claiming that the respondent is actually “damaging to what they represent.” If the respondent is a transgender activist, we invariably read: “You are damaging the transgender community.” If the respondent is an academic, “You are damaging academia.” If a scientist, “You are damaging science.” As time progresses more and more defenders appear, usually targeting an individual and often trying to get others involved in the debate to side with them in arguing against the respondent.
Tactic 4: “Political correctness and Bullying”
The respondent, when on the verge of giving up the debate is then confronted with the second guilt induction (The first being “You are damaging to what you represent”). This is actually fascinating to watch. The respondent is often accused of representing a “mainstream” opinion that is “McCarthyist” or “Oppressive against the truth” or “Political correctness gone mad.” In this scheme of things we find the opinion that opposes Bailey as being “reactionary” in some sense (according to Bailey). Now remember we have about two or three people often increasing in number targeting an individual, claiming the individual is a reactionary bully. But if you stand back from the debate, you often notice that by now the defenders are clearly the bullies.
Tactic 5: “Freedom of speech or choice”
This is perhaps the most intriguing part of a Bailey debate. You see numerous defenders either the original defenders and sometimes “Converts” in the debate deliberately using rhetorical tactics to silence the respondent. (Or respondents).
“You are a liar, shut up” and “You are a self righteous liar” and “Oh look at your website, it shows how unreliable you are; you have no right to speak”. Then they will claim that the respondent or respondents of “Trying to curtail Bailey’s freedom of speech” and “Bullying and intimidating Bailey.” However, it is evident to the objective observer that the bullying and silencing is coming from Bailey and his defenders not the respondent.”
Every time the tactic appears, it becomes evident that everything has a reverse meaning. “The freedom to speak” really means “The freedom to silence others” or “Try to tackle the intimidation and bullying” really means “To intimidate and bully others”. This extends back to the playing to the gallery. In the eugenics paper “Freedom of choice” really means “Freedom to make sure parents do not have homosexual children” It is invariably “this statement” means “The exact opposite of this statement”.
The Broader Tactics.
These are perhaps less easy to observe in a single debate. Usually Bailey will publish something and follow a repeating pattern. Take his Book “The man who would be Queen” (TMWWBQ). He published what in reality was a “Playing to the gallery” provocation, with the science drawn from Professor Ray Blanchard’s “HTST and Autogynephilia” model of transsexualism. Up until that point the model proposed by Blanchard was not widely supported. While in some cases the model has merit, the problem with this model is that it never seems to apply universally. Bailey’s “Playing to the gallery” took the form of claiming that the theory is universal. And he backed this up with numerous lurid descriptions of people who were transsexual in his view.
Broader Tactic 1: “La la la, I am not listening”
Initially invitations to debate this on the part of people responding to Bailey are ignored. The responder would write a paper or in frustration describe their experiences with Bailey’s and we initially get silence. It is almost as if Bailey is figuring how to respond, and at some point he does with the familiar pattern I have already described.
Broader Tactic 2: “OK, I invite comments”
You can tell anyone from Bailey’s school of tactics (Dr Alice Dreger and Dr. Kenneth Zucker being the most notable examples). They will “invite comment” to a given “paper” (Usually a play to the gallery laden narrative backed up by “Science”) and then edit the comments they receive in a follow up narrative to suit themselves. They take comments out of context and then use them against those who commented.
Broader Tactic 3: “The silence of the quacks”
This is perhaps the most telling tactic. Confront Bailey or his colleagues over some underlying thread of their writings as a whole. With Bailey it would be eugenics or the androcentric view he holds of those he describes. (He always refers to people he studies as non viable males). You may if you are lucky get a short sharp denial but more often they simply do not respond. It is like: “La la la, I am not listening” but it has
the disadvantage of being another play to the gallery “Why are they not responding to that?” With Alice Dreger, she goes silent when asked about her describing people as “Disordered”. There is a good reason for this (and is easier to explain). She had spent a fair few years actually opposing notions of people being disordered. Then last year (2006) she completely took the reverse view. Anyone she was looking at was by default “disordered”. It was such a blatant U turn. It would destroy her claim that she is consistent. So she stays silent about it.
Broader Tactic 4: “Study the squeals of lab rats in pain”
This one seems quite recent. Basically if all else fails with regard to discrediting critics of Bailey, their criticism is subject to “analysis” usually proving some initial “Disordered thinking”. The prime example would be the TMWWBQ” defense by Dreger. When TMWWBQ was published in 2003 there was a considerable amount of anger. It was evident by 2006 that the tactics already employed with regards to more persistent critics were not working. So along comes Dr. Alice Dreger, maintaining that these critics were actually displaying behavior that was in itself disordered and should be “studied”. The conclusion was not that the people criticizing Bailey were angry, rather they were mentally ill and their criticism did not count.
Broader Tactic 5: “I am a martyr”
This is essentially the “Political correctness and bullying” tactic on a broader scale. If any disciplinary action or any complaint against Bailey is upheld, we are often confronted with this unedifying display of self pity.
“I woke up in cold sweats every night after the transsexuals threatened to get me” and “They stopped me getting the Lambda Award because I tell a truth they do not want to hear”. A curious example would be: “Watch my lips, I did not have sex with that patient.” (Sound familiar?). The way Bailey portrays it, you would think there are gangs of transgendered terrorists who are out to destroy Bailey. Dreger’s “I write this blog in fear” is a classic example of portraying a critic as some insane stalker out to kill Dreger and her child. The truth is that the critic in question (Andrea James) was told that Dreger had decided she was not going to be allowed to present her case at a conference or lecture. Dreger wanted her “Freedom of Speech” (Freedom to silence others) let’s say.
Broader Tactic 6: “Unlike with unlike”
This tactic is very clever. Let’s explore an example. Bailey writes a Gay Eugenics paper and clearly describes his view on homosexuality. That established, he starts, “Homosexual transsexual” followed with “There is no such thing as a bisexual. You are either gay or straight” and “we are studying intersex people to determine how homosexuality works.” It does not take much to notice that as Bailey moves on from his “Eugenics paper” we find that whoever he talks about, he links them with homosexuality. Two things happen here, the first being that each of the groups attributed with being homosexual then object to it, hurting the feelings of the gay community. Bailey is being divisive every time he pins “homosexual” on to whoever it is he wants to “study” (slander). They object upsetting the gay community. (Who in truth fail to remember the “Eugenics paper”). Secondly, by attribution alone he lines up the next target for the neoconservative fundamentalists to shoot at using “freedom of choice” (Eugenics).
Conclusion:
Can anyone debate with Bailey and his cohorts? The answer to that question is plainly no. Every question, criticism or comment is blocked by bullying, silencing or rhetorical tactics. With breathtaking hypocrisy they then maintain that the people they are bullying are in truth bullying them. Whatever they propose in terms of health care is guaranteed to come to pass because they have a well organized system of bypassing every safeguard in the book.
The only way around it is to describe their tactics and every time you as a reader feel you are being confronted by a tactic, name it from this paper and watch what they do. (Of this I am myself curious).
As for me, well Bailey can try it on again, but I am wise to it. Whatever Bailey does, he is cornered. I have done this (I will be open about it) because I am utterly unimpressed with Bailey’s machinations when trying to discuss a valid point. I also believe that one of his colleagues (Dr. Kenneth Zucker) is responsible for undermining the health care I have been receiving for the past year. So these people either put up or shut up. I have had enough.
