The central figure, J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University, has promoted a theory that his critics think is inaccurate, insulting, and potentially damaging to transgender women. In the past few years, several prominent academics who are transgender have made a series of accusations against the psychologist, including that he committed ethics violations. A transgender woman he wrote about has accused him of a sexual impropriety, and Dr. Bailey has become a reviled figure for some in the gay and transgender communities.

The hostilities began in the spring of 2003, when Dr. Bailey published a book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen,” intended to explain the biology of sexual orientation and gender to a general audience.

“The next two years,” Dr. Bailey said in an interview, “were the hardest of my life.”

Many sex researchers who have worked with Dr. Bailey say that he is a solid scientist and collaborator, who by his own admission enjoys violating intellectual taboos.

In his book, he argued that some people born male who want to cross genders are driven primarily by an erotic fascination with themselves as women. This idea runs counter to the belief, held by many men who decide to live as women, that they are the victims of a biological mistake — in essence, women trapped in men’s bodies. Dr. Bailey described the alternate theory, which is based on Canadian studies done in the 1980s and 1990s, in part by telling the stories of several transgender women he met through a mutual acquaintance. In the book, he gave them pseudonyms, like “Alma” and “Juanita.”

“I think for me, for the work I do, honestly, I don’t really care what his theories are,” said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, of Dr. Bailey. “But I do want to feel like any theories that affect the lives of so many people are based in good science, and that they’re presented responsibly.”

But that, say supporters of Dr. Bailey, is precisely the problem: Who defines responsible? And at what cost is that definition violated?

(Some of my comments below were previously posted on my own website.)

Autogynephilia is described as an attraction to the image of oneself as a woman (referring to M-to-F transsexuals). It is a controversial theory intended to explain transsexualism, originated by Ray Blanchard and advanced by Anne A. Lawrence and J. Michael Bailey, in which transsexualism is caused either by homosexuality taken to an extreme (in androphilic males), or by paraphilia in the form of a misdirected sex drive (in non-androphilic males), rather than being a matter of intrinsic identity, as indicated by traditional conventional wisdom.

I do think that the theory of autogynephilia could possibly explain why some M-to-F transsexuals are the way they are, but I don't believe that autogynephilia and/or homosexuality are the only factors. I believe that, in many transsexuals (myself included), one's sense of sex/gender identity is, in itself, an explanation for transsexualism. Just as some individuals can be born as intersexuals (hermaphrodites), exhibiting obvious physical evidence, other individuals can be born with brains that are "hard-wired" as one sex, while having genitalia (and all other physical characteristics) of the other sex. Naturally, many of us seek to achieve equilibrium in our lives, one way or another.

As long as autogynephilia isn't used to put forth the notion that transsexualism is strictly a matter of either psychology (paraphilia in gynephilic males) or homosexuality "taken to an extreme," I'm fine with it. The classical concept of transsexualism being neurological in nature, and therefore, a case of intrinsic identity, should not be dismissed, and I don't think the introduction of additional theories necessarily detracts anything from that. I think there is room for both theories (and others), until medical science proves or disproves any proposed causes. Also, who's to say transsexualism couldn't be caused by a combination of those factors, at least in some cases?

I do agree with Mara Keisling, in expecting that "theories that affect the lives of so many people are based in good science, and that they’re presented responsibly." Whether Dr. Bailey is a saint, a demon, or something in-between is a separate issue, of which I have no firsthand knowledge, but I do think that there are some who attack him (and others) because they don't approve of the theory of autogynephilia. I can understand why some transsexuals are initially insulted, or even threatened by the theory, though. Back when I first heard of it, the theory seemed a bit of a stretch, but the more I researched it, the more I realized the explanation could be plausible in some cases (probably a small minority), even though I consider it irrelevant to my own situation.

If Dr. Bailey has engaged in unethical practices, then he deserves criticism for that. However, the theory of autogynephilia itself should not be criticized simply because one of its proponents is the subject of controversy.

Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege