It is very simple to prove this. Bailey insists that he knows more about his research subjects than they do and when his research subjects do not give the answers he wants to confirm his theories, then he states they are just liars. We in OII (Oganisation Intersex International) have proved just the opposite. The person lying and deceiving the public is none other than the psychologist who is projecting his own mythomania onto others.

In his book, Bailey wrote that Cheryl Chase told him that transsexuals frequently join intersex groups believing they are intersexual. He states that they are not. They do this (he assumes) because they want to believe that there is a real biological woman inside them as well as a psychological one (p. 175). This is discussed in the context of the autogynephile’s self-deception, something that he says has misled gender identity clinics for many years – and why they had not been noticed nor accounted for. He is also known for his “research” which supposedly proves that all men are heterosexual or homosexual and that bisexuals are liars. There are no bisexual men according to Bailey.

The actual deception involved in his transsexual theory is very ironic. Bailey and Dreger both should have known that the main star in the book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen” was intersexed. We in OII (Organisation Intersex International) have confirmed that she is. When we read Dreger’s paper, we were stunned that a person who prides herself on being an intersex activist would stoop so low as to verbally depict an intersexed person’s genitalia without her consent. Dreger did that in the recent paper in which she defends this lying psychologist, Bailey. When we read the descriptions of Anjelica Kieltyka’s genitalia in Dreger’s article, it should have been obvious to any intersex activist and to Bailey himself that she was born with what Dreger calls a “disorder of sex development.” (See footnote)

Bailey also published very private details about Anjelica’s sex life without her knowing that the material she was sharing was to be public. This salacious description of her most intimate sex life is humiliating to her.

Once again, Dreger has come to the defense of another transphobe and has humiliated another intersex person, something she has done many times before. Bailey cannot hide behind Dreger because Dreger unwittingly revealed who was telling the truth all along.

It was Anjelica Kieltyka.

Anjelica has never agreed that she was a representative of autogynephilia and furthermore, this outright lie about her has shamed not only the fraudulent historian, Dreger, and the lying psychologist, it has perpetuated a fraud against the whole intersex community by using one of us to prove such a vulgar theory about transsexuals. How can an intersexed women such as Anjelica prove anything about male-to-female transsexuality? The whole theory is based on a fraud and the humiliation of intersex people.

Bailey is a liar and a deceiver (something he projects onto all transwomen) and he has gotten caught red-handed by:

ANJELICA

In his book, Bailey himself agreed that Anjelica was not only the number one case study of his theory but that she was open and honest. Why was he not open and honest about her facts? She is not a male to female transsexual and she has repeatedly stated she is not an autogynephle. So who is telling the truth?

Welcome to the intersex community, Anjelica.

In solidarity,
Curtis E. Hinkle
Founder, Organisation Intersex International

Footnote: Kieltyka explained to Bailey how, before she had sex reassignment surgery (SRS), [...omitted because what Dreger wrote is salacious and not necessary to understanding what intersex is] (made easier by having been born with only one testicle), p.7.

I noticed that Dreger chose to use the word ‘only’ in ‘only one testicle’; why that choice of terminology? Why not just say ‘having been born with one testicle’. Having ‘only one’ might suggest that the author regards having less than two testicles is in some way deficient, or defective. An interesting perspective for an intersex activist.

I have since spoken at length with Anjelica and there are many other aspects of both her body, her endocrine system and her early childhood that further
confirm her intersexuality.

I am not going to further humiliate Anjelica by revealing private medical information about her without her formal consent and Bailey and Dreger should have been even more cautious since they are researchers and Dreger is a professor at a medical university.

What is Bailey lying about:
Bailey not only said she was an autogynephile, he makes her his STAR, his main case study and he did that over her repeated objections. That is lying. This would make her out to be lying about not being an autogynephile. We have proved that she does NOT even fit his own definition of an autogynephile. He should have listened to the person who was telling the truth, Anjelica. She is not an autogynephile and it has been humiliating to her to be the main case study for one when she has repeatedly been trying to make him tell the truth.

An academic complained about my use of the word “liar” when referring to Bailey and couched her opposition to my use of the term by saying that I was using a term that was “anathema to scientific inquiry.”

My response: Then why does Bailey who claims he is a researcher refer to many of his subjects as liars?

I agree that researchers should not use the term “liar” when referring to research subjects, especially when the research subjects are NOT lying. My article is not research. It is political activism and I am not a researcher. I am an intersex activist.

I wish that academics would STOP their political activism which they dress up as scientific research.

As an activist who has been harmed by these people who are lying, I think that it is very accurate to simply state the truth. These academics are lying.

Is there something wrong with simply stating the truth to academics?

Also, it is not OII which is doing a disservice to the intersex and trans community, it is precisely those academics who are spreading lies about us and they do this even when they know they are lying. This is an abuse of power and academic privilege over very marginalized groups and it is time that people denounced it for what it is: ABUSE.
An analogy:

Let’s say that Bailey had used you as an example of a pervert that was supposedly a perversion that only affected men (remember women cannot be described by this theory). Even though your genitalia had been described, he went ahead and used you as a prime example of that perversion and you had insisted from the beginning that you did not belong to that category. Then some people here spot that you are intersex. How could an intersex person validate a theory of a perversion that CANNOT affect women? You should have been eliminated from the beginning. The fact that the person keeps lying about you might very well reflect his ignorance and sloppy methods but the fact remains, he would be lying and with your intersex variation, you could prove that you were telling the truth. (This would be trickier to do if this perversion were something that affected the whole population regardless of sex. But this perversion only affects men. An intersex subject could in NO way validate such a theory. Bailey is not only a liar, he is a dumb liar).

Now here is Dreger’s dilemma and I think she knows it. If Bailey tries to justify this because he knows who is a “genetic” male and who is a “genetic” female, that will just make more and more people in the intersex community feel abused by Bailey and I bet AIS-women are already concerned.

“does it matter what an individual thinks about these things if they don’t allow it to interfere in how they conduct business, their work, friendships, family, etc.?”

No, people have the right to feel anyway they like on any subject, same-sex marriage included, as long as it would not affect working with someone who believed otherwise. Just because you don’t believe in one thing, doesn’t make you less efficient or apt at your work unless you let it influence you in this way. I think someone with opinions against certain issues are as valued as employees as those who hold them fast. Thus, why there should be no discrimination in employment for the Christian, homosexual, black, etc…

And, Warren, you might want to clear up those articles…they’re, well, shameful as a professional.

Thanks for the compliment…

Timothy…

“When Jerry Falwell announced that employment and housing were civil rights not special rights, I could see the writing on the wall. It’s all now just a matter of time.”

Indeed.

And most social change has used just such a methodology. Mixed-race marriage is a good example. For decades it was allowed in some states until the population – and the courts – recognized marriage as a basic right.

So too do I favor an incremental approach to same-sex marriage. As much as I would like for it to be legal in all states immediately, that would not change the public opposition or hostility. Only by illustration of the lack of negative consequences can people’s minds be changed.

I find it interesting that in Vermont, where the first civil unions were established, the legislature is considering following their neighbor and legalizing marriage. And there is minimal opposition from the constituents. Probably because there is no public observation of any negative consequences to recognition of same sex couples.

In other words, the sky didn’t fall – and chicken little turned out to be quite tasty when roasted with potatoes and carrots.

I think it is pretty easy to make some predictions about civil equalities. So here goes:

Non-discrimination laws will continue to spread until passed by congress and signed by the next president, whoever it is. These have support of the majority of Republicans and nearly all Democrats and Independants.

Either Vermont, New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, or New York will be the next state with gay marriage and it will be within the next two years (and I’m guessing in that order). This will slowly spread over the next decade to include all of New England. Then Oregon and Washington will overturn their amendments as will the more libertarian midwestern and great-lakes states. It will be probably 20 years before the SCOTUS declares that marriage laws cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. By then they will have the support of the mainline denominations and of the majority of the people.

This all just seems too obvious based on recent history, public polling, and demographic aging.

When Jerry Falwell announced that employment and housing were civil rights not special rights, I could see the writing on the wall. It’s all now just a matter of time.

I am surprised that the authors stated this “It is important, we think, to recognize that social science cannot settle the debate over same-sex marriage, even in principle.” Because the reasons for banning it seem rooted in many social science questions. We are not a theocracy, and thus, such civil institutions cannot be decided on the basis of one faith interpretation, but rather science as to whether or not it does harm. We know from research already that same-sex couples can and do form long-term, monogamous, happy relationships; and that they raise children as healthy as their heterosexual counterparts.

The post then goes on to say “First, whether same-sex marriage would prove socially beneficial, socially harmful, or trivial is an empirical question that cannot be settled by any amount of armchair theorizing.” The the arguments around “socially beneficial” would seem to be obvious.

How is it not in societies best interest to promote monogamy between consenting adults, and to create more legal responsibilities within existing families? Same-sex families exist already, I’m not sure what argument can be made that giving them legal obligations to one another is harmful. The only state to legalize same-sex marriage, Massachusetts, has the lowest divorce rate in the country…and I don’t think we can use civil unions as a “test,” because many couples do not get them who would await same-sex marriage. See the rates of same-sex couples in CT who are getting civil unions…much has been written on how most are not taking advantage of those laws because they are inherently discriminatory.

Legally, it really cannot be argued that these benefits should not extend to the same-sex couples. The ONLY reasons you cannot marry someone of the same gender is due to the SEX of that person. If you are refusing someone based on their sex, then that constitutes sex discrimination…ex: I cannot marry a woman “only because” she is another woman. This becomes particularly difficult to argue in states which have ERA (equal rights ammendments). It’s not about orientation under the law, but gender equality. You have to have a reason for excluding a group of people, and I haven’t seen a good legal argument yet for doing so. It is the government’s duty to protect the civil rights of all people, even when those rights are unpopular or not supported by the majority. Interracial marriage would have certainly lost a “popular vote” in its time.

I have no doubt that this legal truth will evidence itself in the years to come…until that time, it seems most get so caught up in “orientation,” and forget that at its core, it is an issue of sex equality, not orientation, under the law.

So folks, banter back and forth about the “social science” or “religious” perspectives…in the end, this issue will be resolved by law.

A woman can’t marry a woman in this country only because of her sex….that’s sex discrimination, and that’s illegal.

What exactly is the “bet” here? The sight of gay people marrying might fill straight people with such horror that they’ll abandon marriage in droves? Isn’t that kind of, you know, stupid?

How could Massachusetts and a few other states be any kind of “reasonable” experiment when these gay couples have to exist in a society that still, by and large, treats them as second class citizens – that says that their marriages aren’t good enough to be recognized in other states, that still doesn’t afford them the safety to express their affection in public, that still mostly rejects their relationships???? I’d love to know your response to this!