Xazy

You would think, you would hope that the New York Times would do a
little research of its own before splashing the work of Dr. J.
Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern and the
study's lead author. But no. It took threader Kathleen to alert me
to what the NYT should have known before presenting this study
uncritically.

1. Dr. J. Michael Bailey had to step down from the chairmanship of
the psychology dept. at Northwestern just last year because of
ethics charges related to earlier research.

2. Bailey has been linked to a racist, neo-eugenics movement called
the Human Biodiversity Institute by the Southern Poverty Law Center

3. Bailey's previous attention-getter was a book on transgenders
that extrapolated from about nine transgenders he claimed to
befriend into a study. Many of the people profiled claimed
convincingly they had no idea they were part of a research study. (A
violation of ethics.) One claimed Bailey slept with them. (Also a
violation.) Though ostensibly science, it contained no footnotes.
This book led to the investigation of Bailey that resulted in his
stepping down as chair, though he remains a professor at
Northwestern. The Chronicle of Higher Education profiled Bailey and
the controversy, all but labeling him as a closet case.

4. Bailey claims to be gay-friendly but is so at odds with the GLBT
community at Northwestern that campus groups urge people NOT to
cooperate with his studies. Gee, think that might make any research
he does there harder to accept as valid? (Bailey has reportedly
found it difficult to recruit people for his research.) The Chicago
Free Press paints a rather sad picture of Bailey trying to convince
people he isn't anti-gay or biased by calling for a public meeting
virtually no one attended, just weeks before the New York Times
would treat his latest research as front-page of the Science section
newsworthy.

5. Some of Bailey's more silly and offensive comments that should
raise red flags for anyone wondering about his bias: most
transexuals are "especially motivated" to shoplift and "especially
suited to prostitution." Bailey says that if it became possible to
genetically identify a fetus as "gay" and a parent chose to abort
because they wanted a straight child, this would be "morally
neutral." Yep, gay eugenics. Aborting gay fetuses wouldn't do anyone
harm, he says. He's not anti-gay, just "pro-parental liberty."

I am furious that I had to find out all this stuff on my own by
having a threader point me in the right direction. I'm not saying no
one should ever report on anything Bailey ever does in the future,
but is it too much to ask for context and a little background?


Please note this is just some quick information I had found online on Bailey.