Last week’s transgender hearing shows great progress, but much work lies ahead.
Pride should continue into July, when the gay story becomes part of the American story.
advertisement
advertisement
|
paul varnell
Friday, October 17, 2003
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY psychologist J. Michael Bailey’s recent book “The
Man Who Would Be Queen” has been criticized by transsexual advocacy groups.
But most of Bailey’s book is about gay men and that part of his book should
have received far more critical attention than it has.
Bailey’s primary claim is that the link between femininity and homosexuality
is well established: “My research demonstrates a large degree of femininity
in gay men.” And Bailey thinks this gay femininity is rooted in the brain.
Gay men’s brains are a mosaic of male and female parts, he says.
For example, Bailey says, gay men were feminine in childhood. They move in
feminine ways, have feminine voices (a “gay accent”) and tend to
be feminine in their sex roles. They have feminine interests: show tunes, decorating,
fashion, dancing. They have more psychological problems than heterosexual men
such as depression and anxiety, just as women do.
These are long-familiar stereotypes about gay men. But Bailey claims the stereotypes
are true and true of most gay men. No doubt some gay men fit part of the stereotype,
but the problem with stereotypes is that believing them causes people to overlook
gays who do not fit the stereotypes, even if they are far more numerous.
Bailey vacillates about the proportion of men who are gay, but he finds 2
percent or even “at least 1 percent” plausible estimates. Yet avowed
gays are at least 4 percent of voter turnout. And the 1992 National Health & Social
Life Survey found that in large cities such as Chicago where Bailey lives,
more than 9 percent of men identify as gay or bisexual. (Bailey himself thinks
most “bisexual” men are gay.)
THE PROBLEMS WITH Bailey’s use of stereotypes of gay femininity to support
his notion of gay men’s feminized brains are that they are based on exaggerated
notions of gender differences. There are also very plausible non-biological
explanations for the instances of stereotyped behavior Bailey mentions.
Gay men may not feel more depression and anxiety than heterosexual men, though
they may be more willing to label and acknowledge those feelings. But gays
obviously face additional stress growing up and living in a potential hostile
environment, so anxiety could be a valid response.
Most of our speech patterns and body language are learned behavior, differing
from culture to culture, rather than brain regulated. Thus Americans think
Frenchmen act gay. And much of “gay” gestures and affectations
are social performance. Kinsey noted that most gay men can drop them readily.
Gay men who enjoy receptive anal sex probably do so not because they feel
feminine but because their prostate gland is stimulated that way. Nor does
Bailey trouble himself about “tops,” or men who enjoy both receptive
and insertive sex.
BAILEY’S VIEW THAT gay men were feminine boys is based largely on some
gay men’s recollections. But retrospective memories are unreliable: Most
people recall the things that fit the prevailing cultural view. In a culture
suffused with notions of gay femininity, gay men likely recall more feminine
behavior (and heterosexual men less) than was actually the case.
And like most heterosexual researchers, Bailey views team sports as the distinctive
masculine activity. He assumes a false dichotomy of either playing those sports
or being feminine.
Boys may have preferred individual sports, like running, swimming, diving,
gymnastics. Or they might have enjoyed entirely different activities. Basically,
Bailey tries to update and “biologize” the hoary psychological
theory that gays suffer from faulty gender identity. But Bailey’s view,
like the older one, dies the death of a thousand cuts and counter-examples.
WHEN DID BAILEY go wrong? He buys into simple-minded notions of exaggerated
gender difference. And although he is not very forthcoming about his methods
in this book, his past methods of gathering research subjects or data (like
reviewing ads in gay newspapers) seemed to skew his results without his realizing
how they might be systematically unrepresentative. Then Bailey over-interprets
his findings and those of people he agrees with.
Bailey’s view of gay men also seems shaped particularly by visits to
gay dance bars in Chicago. But the generally younger, single gay men at dance
bars are hardly typical of all gay men in Chicago’s gay enclave, much
less of those living elsewhere.
|
