The Man Who Would Be Queen: Michael Bailey: {Part Three}

Part 3:  The Man Who Would Be Queen: Autogynephiles.


Having seen many references to this book I have finally got around to tackling it.  The full text is available free  here: The Man Who Would Be Queen

Bailey is clearly fascinated with the topic of transsexualism and immerses himself in their subculture to recruit “subjects” for his research. He is not, at least in this book, concerned with the legislative framework to protect transsexuals. He also doesn’t examine how any such laws interact with those enacted to protect the female sex.  His exposition of the underlying, erotic, motivations for transition does, however, reinforce the need for women’s, sex based, rights.

Bailey, uses prominent researcher Ray Blanchard’s  typology of transsexuals which differentiate between HSTS (homosexual transsexuals) and AGP transsexuals. The wider public, and many commentators, are either ignorant about this typology or reject it. Bailey believes transsexualism could illuminate some fundamental facts about human nature, if, and only if, the topic was treated honestly. It is not treated honestly. The strenuous efforts to shut down debate are, in my view, indicative of how damaging this knowledge is to the demands of transactivists.  People don’t know Blanchard’s typology because of, quite simply, deliberate concealment.  It is impossible to get someone to admit to something they  are unable to admit to themselves.

Maxine Peterson, a gender clinician, is also quoted and points out that “Most gender patients lie”. The tendency to skirt around the equivalent of  identity up-skirting has been noted by an early researcher in this field, Harry Benjamin. For transactivists extra effort will be taken to shroud the AGP motivation in secrecy, especially, when trying to get changes to legislation or public policy. 👇


Leading activists have been invited into the heart of government to speak on trans rights. This has exposed the sinister motivations of *some* who campaign for an end to sex segregated spaces.  Take the cases of Jess Bradley.   Here is a source from within the trans-community.  Naturally it makes liberal uses of the misogynist slur “terf” but covers the issue fairly comprehensively.   Jess Bradley. For the purposes of women’s rights we need only note that Jess Bradley is publicly thanked, by Baroness Barker, for helpful input to the Gender Identity Forum.

Jess Bradley House of Lords

Here is another activist invited to the House of Lords.  Sex Offender invited to the House of Lords . 

Karen/Mark Jones was invited to discuss how Transgender Prisoners could be better served within the criminal justice system, by Lord Patel. Reading the offences committed by this Transexual it would appear to be the prisoner in the court case I covered in an earlier blog.  Transgender prisoner moved to female estate

Note the way the attempted rape is dismissed.  Also, if this is the same person in penis news  they now appear to identify as a butch lesbian.

Trans offenders at the House of Lords

Any focus on the erotic motivation for transition would set off alarm bells at the demand women grant access to our, single sex, spaces.  The very condition of AGP makes the sufferers demand access. They simply cannot accept any demarcation between their, self-created,  female persona and biological women.  It is for this reason that I think the clash between the demands of Trans Rights Activists anwomen’s rights was inevitable.

The author is sympathetic to gay and trans rights,  but dismisses the idea of “Born in the Wrong Body”.  The most he will concede  is, for some men, they would “like to be in a female body”.   {The book doesn’t cover females who transition or theories of the origins of Lesbianism.  He does, briefly, touch on Androphilia (Women who identify as gay men)  in the interview which I included in part one}.

To understand the vitriolic attacks on the author , as detailed in part one, it is necessary to talk about the dark secret at the heart of Trans ideology.  Bailey exposes the erotic motivations for transition, via the taboo subject of Autogynephilia. AGP is a male paraphilia which is sexual attraction, to oneself, as a woman.  Bailey argues that any consideration of transexuals which ignores the erotic motivation is incomplete and dishonest. Transsexuality  simply cannot be seperated from sexuality.  For Homosexual transsexuals see  Part Two


Men who become the women they love are Autogynophiles (AGP). It is difficult to gauge the level of AGP within the trans-community but a brief look at #GirlsLikeUs and #SheMale (content warning. Lots of “Lady Penis”, even on twitter) exposes its prevalence.  Reddit threads show males, addicted to #SheMale porn and confessing to masturbating, into, or whilst wearing, female apparel. This is often followed up  with the plaintive cry of “Am I just Trans?” Most of the replies immediately affirm the trans-identity and rarely does anyone raise the issue of AGP.   The attempt to cleanse a fetish activity with the idea that you are actually a woman has taken root in this community.  It has also been supported by all our (UK) mainstream political parties.  What this actually means for women’s sex based rights has been totally overlooked, in a quest to appear “Woke” to sections of the electorate. When a private fetish is given primacy, over sex based rights,  and allowed to dicktate (sic) access to women’s rights, and single sex spaces, women have a right to know the truth.


Bailey illustrates his point embodied in two transsexuals of two different types, one homosexual and one autogynephile. The HSTS transsexual Terese is attracted to males and, more specifically, to straight males, who they can only attract as a “woman”.  Post sexual re-assignment surgery, Bailey notes, as an aside,  Terese’s mother, is pleased to have a feminine daughter rather than a feminine son. There is a streak of homophobia running through this movement which is ignored by, so called, LGBT organisations. More  on HSTS transsexuals is in part two.

“Terese” has sexual relationships with straight males to whom their transsexual status was not disclosed. (Note: Sex by deception is a criminal offence in the UK and Stonewall is campaigning to have this removed by the statute books. This is a discussion on the topic, although it does not reference the pressure on lesbians to engage in sexual relationship with the opposite sex, known as the #CottonCeiling.Disclosure}

“Cher” is an autogynophilic transsexual who was born “Chuck”.  He did not exhibit “feminine” tendencies as a boy. What he did do was dress in his mother’s lingerie and masturbate to climax.   His secret life, as a cross-dresser, persisted, though he was riddled with shame and frequently “purged” female apparel to try to rid himself of the habit.  Eventually, reconciling to his “secret life” Chuck became Cher and devoted himself to his fetish.  He collected pornography, featuring women, but his fantasy was that he was the women who was vaginally penetrated, by a man.  He constructed elaborate fantasies and began to wear prosthetics and make his own pornography.  Eventually “Cher” was referred to a gender clinic and diagnosed as transsexual.


Chuck is not a woman. He is a male, with a very male paraphilia, (paraphilia’s are not a feature of female sexuality)  which covers him in shame.  Being diagnosed as transsexual drapes his fetish in a cloak of respectability.  With new legislation this locates “Cher” as a legal woman and, as in the UK, any crimes committed or sentence to be served would be, legally, as a woman.

Next we meet a Heterosexual Transvestite. His name is Don but he dresses up, part-time, as Stephanie. His cross-dressing has an erotic component (masturbating whilst dressed in female apparel or into female apparel).  He has a successful career, as a man, and is married.  Like the transsexual we met earlier, Don has periods of shame and purges his female outfits. Each time he “regresses”.   A feature of the interaction with Don is that the shame about his compulsion also leads to denial about the sexual motivation. He claims it is not sexual anymore and Bailey does not believe him. Nor do I.

Under Leeds City Council’s policy Don would be allowed to register a female name and “female gender”  even as a part-time cross dresser. This is their criteria:


Let that sink in.  Masculine, males with a paraphilia, which fetishizes being a woman, are now legally allowed  to be recognised as “women” . Furthermore women are being compelled to accept them in our most intimate spaces.  What autogynophiles have in common is a desire to be seen as “women” and , for them, the ultimate expression of being a woman is being penetrated by a man.  This enactment of what it means to be a woman is deeply offensive to women.  This is a man-made fantasy projected onto women.


The fantasy is not restricted to our, perceived, place in sexual intimacy but also fetishizes more everyday activities which , in the autogynophile’s world are “womens” past-times.


This places the women, who are kindly including the harmless transsexual, in the position of props in a male fantasy.  AGP transsexuals will go to great lengths to conceal their interests from the women who include them. However it is nearly impossible for the conversation not to enter territory that betrays their misunderstanding of women’s boundaries and expose their fetishizing of the women in the group.  There are many ways to breach women’s boundaries and this is one of the most subtle, and insidiously offensive,  ways.

Autogynophiles typically come from hyper-masculine occupations. There are, as many have noted, a lot of ex-military “late transitioners”. There is also an over-representation from those in information technology as many have noted:0B795152-3BF1-4974-BA9F-54B559DAD3B9Many explain their “hyper-masculine” past as evidence they were in flight from their femininity.  This is doubtful. As Bailey argues it speaks to the fact that AGP males are not stereotypically feminine but study and work hard to fulfil a very male fantasy of what a woman is.  Dr Ann Lawrence’s description, as an AGP transsexual, rings true:


Bailey goes on to discuss nature/nuture and its role in AGP. There is clearly a discussion to be had on this issue but it is not, in my view, relevant for women working to protect same sex spaces.  More pertinent is his statement of the co-existence of other paraphilias , in particular sexual sadism, with cross-dressing of all types.


For those lobbying to change laws to accommodate their paraphilia they must, at all costs, disguise the true nature of their condition. 👇 Below is a quote from a prominent figure in this field.


Modern day Trans Activists, especially, it seems, the most prominent ones strive to make sure our politicians avert their gaze to the sexual motivations which underly transition. Yes, there will be shame, some will find it humiliating to admit to the dressing in women’s clothing as a sexual activity.  However the most dangerous aspect is the demonstrable fact that this is  not a private fetish. It requires female participation to validate the identity; whether we know we are an extra in a Trans Drama or not.  This is no longer a private activity but encroaching on women’s boundaries. Here an autogynephile explains: 👇


This is why they cannot bear women to have same sex spaces. Women are erecting a barrier between themselves and “the woman he loves”.  This is the reason why removal of the, already scandalously cavalier, safeguarding of women and girls cannot be allowed to succeed. Nor should the provision of Gender Recognition certificates be widened in favour of a self-declaration. This is reckless endangerment of women.  As we have seen a male, imprisoned for attempted rape, managed to get a GRC whilst serving a sentence for that crime! This was in 2006, only two years after the passage of the Gender Recognition Act.

There is no such thing as a man trapped in a woman’s body.  Hence why I reject the notion that transsexuals become “women” or that they belong in single sex spaces. Women are not an idea in a mans head, we are not fodder for a male fetish, and we have good reason to exclude males from sex specific spaces.

We don’t want males,with or without paraphilias, frock or no frock, parachuted in. They begin to look like an advanced guard for a male colonisation of women. 

The Man Who Would Be Queen: Michael Bailey: {Part Two}

Part 2:  The Man Who Would Be Queen: A reading.

Having seen many references to this book I have finally got around to tackling it.  The full text is available free on line here:  The Man Who Would Be Queen


The author is sympathetic to gay and trans rights,  a lot of his research has a focus on evolutionary theory and adaptive, or maladaptive, responses to the environment.  So expect some evolutionary biology & some interrogation of nature v nurture. There is plenty to challenge long cherished beliefs, both for TransActivists & radical feminists. Since it needs saying in 2019, I don’t agree with every single word!


My reading is motivated by a concern for women’s, sex based, rights and the premature medicalisation of Gay males. The book doesn’t cover females who transition or theories of the origins of Lesbianism.  He does, briefly, touch on Androphilia (Women who identify as gay men)  in the  interview linked in Part One of this series.Part One

In short there is plenty to provoke discussion. To kick off, I think the cover was needlessly tabloid and likely ensured many people rejected its thesis without opening the covers.  As we all know there is no more vociferous opponent of a book’s content than someone who hasn’t read it.  However it’s  an absolute must read and, bonus, I finally understand the acronym MWWBQ!  


What Bailey does is talk about erotic motivations for transition, why feminine gay males are in danger of being, wrongly, diagnosed as “trans”, and why gay males reject their feminine brothers.   All of these topics are deeply unpopular in some sections of the Trans community and with some gay males. Nearly 20 years one journalists, in the U.K., dare not broach the topics he covers.

Parents of gay males often are aware of their child’s, likely, future sexual orientation from a relatively early age.  Bailey looks at early manifestations of what he calls feminine behavioural traits and in particular a young subject called Danny; to whom he devotes an early chapter.  Danny is one of those “gender nonconforming boys” from an early age.  He also, it turns out, has a closeted gay uncle. Bailey presents a lot of research which explores various hypotheses on the origins of homosexuality.  He looks at heredity and explores the idea of a “gay gene”. He also explores the controversy generated by  these theories.  On the one hand it reinforces the notion that this is a naturally occurring phenomenon (Born This Way) whilst also presenting a danger of pre-natal diagnosis and selective abortion.  For the purposes of my reading I am concerned about these self-same gay males being de-stabilised by Gender Identity Ideology. 👇EBAEAFF6-5E21-4B22-AD0B-8B90D5131A19

These, frequently bullied,  proto-gay children are now subject to,school taught. programmes which present a scale of “Gender Conformity” and children, are told it is possible to be born in the wrong body.  A “trans diagnosis” is based on the notion of an innate gender identity, which can be at odds with your biological sex.  In his book Bailey raises the risk to gay males from this ideology:


Whilst some developments may lead to complacency about homophobia this utopia is not yet with us.  Young children are subjected to slurs about their prospective sexuality from a very early age.  When they become aware of their sexuality they are now presented with an alternative hypothesis and a retreat into a faux-straight, medicalised closet can look, superficially, like an attractive prospect.  Recent whistle blowers from Britains foremost Gender Clinic  (The Tavistock) raised this concern directly. Here is one of those clinicians, quoted  in an article published by The Times Newspaper:

gay children and GIDS times article

Given that the leading activists for Gay Rights have aligned themselves with the T, now added to the LGB, this represents a real tension between the rights of the Trans community, who agitate for earlier medicalisation, and Gay Rights.  Most gender-non-conforming children would, if left un-medicalised, go on to to be Gay Males or Lesbians.

puberty blockers

Yet there is total silence on this issue from the main advocacy group, for gay rights,  Stonewall. Why would this be?  The answer to why Stonewall is complicit with Trans Ideology has been explored in many articles.  One such analysis is here, by Michael Biggs, so I don’t propose to expand on this topic here: Stonewall Funding & Focus of Activism. Crudely. Money.

The other puzzling feature of this “debate”, for me, has been the silence of adult gay males or downright advocacy of the notion that feminine males, who are same sex attracted are really “trans”.  I have been twitter blocked by a number of prominent gay males for asking questions about this.  Bailey presents a lengthy analysis of sexual attraction in gay males to masculine men.  His hypothesis is that despite a predilection for “femme” behaviour in gay males these self-same gay males are not attracted, maybe even repelled, by their own femininity and that of other gay males.733A665F-47DE-480E-85AE-3F4CA46B2C31



The above was shared by a gay male who is tired of people asking him why he is not transitioning because he’s “so feminine”.

Some of this may be rooted in child-hood shaming, as Bailey suggests. The other strand is, he argues, that it is not unremarkable to find that gay men are attracted to the masculine qualities in a sexual partner.  This may then lead to a rejection of “femme” gay males and also an internalised shame and loathing for the “femme” parts of themselves.


Bailey argues that homosexual transsexuals (HSTS) are drawn from the feminine gay males and they transition to access masculine males who otherwise are less available to them within the gay community.


Parents of gay males, like the aforementioned Danny, are perfectly reasonable in resisting a lifelong dependence on cross-sex hormones & significant surgery.  This is a pro-gay stance.


Boys like Danny are lucky if they have  a mum like him.👇


The other part of the transsexual community, using Blanchards two part typology, are opposite sex attracted, or auto-gynephilic trans.  These are males who are attracted to the idea of themselves as a woman.  It was the depiction of AGP that aroused the ire of the transactivists.  Even now the mention of AGP triggers fury as we can see in twitter interactions.  It is also a deeply shaming orientation which is often lied about.  Many researchers have highlighted that it is extremely difficult to research this population because they are driven to conceal and disguise their real motivations. These motivations matter when women are subject to demands that we include them, in single sex spaces, as literal women.  Their motivation matters.

I will cover this in part 3.


The Man Who Would Be Queen: Michael Bailey {Part One}

Part 1: The Controversy.

Having seen many references to this book I have, finally,  tackled it.  It doesn’t take a strictly biologically determinist or a social constructionist stance. It is sympathetic to gay and trans rights.  {Though not in ways likely to satisfy Trans Activists, in 2019}. There is plenty to disagree with, for one,  I think the cover was needlessly tabloid.  However it’s  well worth a read and, finally, I understand the acronym MWWTBQ. Bailey talks about erotic motivations for transition, why feminine gay males are in danger of being, wrongly, diagnosed as “trans”, and why gay males reject their feminine brothers.   All topics deeply unpopular in some sections of the Trans community and with *some* gay males. Hence  why it feels necessary to discuss the controversy, prior to discussing the book itself.

The book had sold only 4000 copies,  when it became the centre of a Trans Rights Tornado. This, predictably, drew it to the attention of a much wider audience; a phenomenon known as the Barbara Streisand Effect.  [Named for the singer’s legal attempt to block a publication which revealed the location of one of her properties. Ironically ensuring much wider dissemination of the information she wished to protect].

Alice Dreger covered the controversy in forensic detail.  She spoke to all the key players, or at least those who were willing to go on record.  Some wished to remain anonymous and others refused to co-operate at all.  Dreger was also subject to a campaign of vilification following her piece.   The key to the controversy is Bailey’s lack of acceptance of the main thesis of gender identity ideology, namely that transsexuals have a gender identity at odds with their biological sex.  Bailey, instead, locates its origins in “erotic interests” and, in particular,  covered the issue of Autogynephilia (AGP). Worse, even though this book was aimed at a more popular audience, it was based on rigorous science. Dreger:👇734650A7-99AE-4C11-9FB9-98390E6BD77C

Full article here: Dreger on The Man Who Would be Queen

Even today any mention of AGP is furiously denied in sections of the Trans community. Most often the AGP deniers are late-transitioners who, coincidentally,  appear to fit the typology like a velvet glove. AGP is, put simply, described as an erotic target location error, a male, normally heterosexual, becomes erotically charged by the fantasy of himself, as a woman.  (See Ray Blanchard Abstract: Blanchard)

Dreger is an intersex advocate who is also concerned about gay and transgender rights. Despite this, her coverage of this controversy over MWWBQ garnered attacks on her own work, and provoked attempts to discredit her,  particularly, in the intersex community.  Once  her account was published the backlash escalated  to personal attacks on Dreger herself .

Support for Dreger and Bailey came in the unlikely persona of Dr. Ann Lawrence a, self-proclaimed, autogynephile, transwoman.  Lawrence analysed the controversy with an insiders knowledge of AGP, as a condition.  The fury, Lawrence argues, originates in the shame of the AGP community which makes sufferers vulnerable to “Narcissistic Injury”.  One response, to Narcissistic Injury,  is internalised shame but a more common response is to externalise the response and display “Narcissistic Rage”.   The full paper is available below:

Lawrence: MWWBQ & Narcissistic Rage

Lawrence reflected on the savagery of the campaign and located it in a co-existing vulnerability to “narcissistic rage” in the AGP community.


Another, related,  backlash is the  attempt to shut down another, emerging, research area: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. Childhood identity confusion,  and late onset Gender Dysphoria (of the AGP type), are relatively well researched and documented.  A more recent phenomenon is a spike in late childhood (often at puberty) Gender Dysphoria.  The spike in female children declaring a trans-identity has inverted the sex of those expressing themselves as transgender.  In the UK a spike in girls,  referred to Gender Identity Clinics , well over a 4000% increase over the last decade,  has generated theories of social contagion.  There are also increases in males, identifying as transgender, but the increase has been nowhere near as dramatic.  Early speculation about the causes has resulted in the label of “Rapid Onset Gender  Dysphoria” and calls for further investigation of the phenomenon. The first attempt to capture data on the phenomenon was published by Lisa Littman.  Like Bailey and Dreger, the author of this study Lisa Littman has faced similar opprobrium which resulted in the withdrawal of her paper, at the behest of a Trans activist.  Not an academic, or peer in her field but this “transsexual”. I wish I was joking. AFFF47B8-F5F4-43B9-929A-7E16C96304E7CD30CAAA-C74D-47A3-B3C9-8CA1F4CF83D3

This is also the person who applied to become a counsellor at  Vancouver women’s refuge and was involved in a 10 year campaign, still ongoing, to defund /close the refuge for offering single sex services.

You can read more about this here: 👇

Lisa Littman Controversy

The paper was then subject to a second peer review and republished, virtually unaltered.  You can read further about this controversy here: Interview with Lisa Littman

What all these controversies have in common is a reluctance to accept any opposition to the idea of an innate gender identity at odds with biological sex.   The mantra of “born in the wrong body” attempts to cement the idea that gender non-conformity (often a hallmark of future Gay males and Lesbians) is an early sign of being “transgender”.  The existence of “trans-children” de-sexualises transition for the adults, with AGP, and cleanses some of their shame. It also presents the public with a population (children),  far more likely to garner sympathy than adults with a paraphilia.  This seems to be the motivation for the backlash to both Bailey’s book and any professionals who adhere to Ray Blanchards typology of Transexuality.

Transactivists are keen to convey the idea that transsexuals have always been with us and are a naturally occurring phenomenon. There is scant evidence for this. Cross-dressing is indeed a historic phenomenon. Women disguising themselves as males, to escape the restrictions imposed on the female sex are similarly not a recent phenomenon. Yet our children are being taught Transgender Ideology in schools. Our Judicial system has accepted this, our legal system is involved in wholesale sex-denialism. I have done other blogs about what is happening in our prison estate but this quote is from Family Court. Where is the evidence for this assertion?



Before I publish part 2 , which looks at the book in some detail, here is a recent interview given by Michael Bailey to Benjamin Boyce. As it is from 2019 he also speaks on the topic of ROGD. (Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria).  As he is careful to say, at the moment, we are operating on a “hunch” at the reasons for the spike in referrals.  We need empirical evidence and, at the moment, any forays into this area are met with the same backlash as his own book.

Benjamin Boyce Interviews Michael Bailey