Two Modes of Thought: The Narrative/Paradigmatic Disconnect in the Bailey Book Controversy

Abstract

Alice Dreger’s compelling history of the controversy surrounding J. Michael Bailey’s book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, presents two opposing camps, each entrenched in a seemingly intractable and incompatible position. On one side are proponents of Blanchard’s theory and the scientific research supporting it that served as the basis for Bailey’s book. The theory suggests that a certain segment of natal men who undergo sex reassignment surgery to become women do so out of an autogynephilic sexual orientation—an erotic attraction to the idea of themselves as women. On the other side are the transwomen who strongly object to the theory, dispute the scientific basis for it, and maintain that their desire to change genders was not motivated by erotic desires, but instead was founded in an identity-based position that their bodies do not match their true selves, what Dreger termed the ‘‘feminine essence narrative.’’ In this commentary, I hope to offer one interpretation that attempts to get at the core of this conflict. In doing so, I do not intend to take either position in the controversy or to suggest that one side’s argument rests on firmer ground. I have chosen to write this commentary because I believe that the controversy provides an elegant example for illustrating the nature of how we come to understand our lives. Before I begin, let me take a cue from Dreger and briefly explain my background. I am currently an advanced graduate student in the psychology department at Northwestern University, the same department as Bailey. I have taken two courses taught by Bailey that are required components of my academic program (one about statistics and the other about psychopathology, both in 2003). I also served as a teaching assistant for Bailey’s course on human sexuality in 2003, a position I was randomly assigned to, wherein I served in an entirely administrative role, photocopying and scoring the multiple-choice exams (other TA’s handled content-related issues). While I have had contact with Bailey in programwide meetings and on two administrative committees, at no point in my graduate career has Bailey directly supervised any of my research or clinical work, nor has he served on any of my research committees. I observed the controversy surrounding his book from the sidelines as it unfolded, but have never talked with Bailey about his experiences. As a courtesy, I asked Bailey if he would mind my writing this commentary, which he was supportive of, but we did not discuss the content of the commentary, nor did he see a pre-publication version of it. In sum, while I observed the controversy from within Bailey’s department, I have never been involved in the events in any way, and I would prefer to keep it that way. As I said, I chose to write a commentary not because I wish to weigh in on the merits of either side’s position, which I do not, but because I believe the controversy raised an important question that I felt I could illuminate. As I alluded to earlier, that important question is about the nature of how we understand our lives. I believe the core of the controversy surrounding Bailey’s book is that the opposing sides were operating from fundamentally different epistemological positions. Bruner (1986) wrote about two modes of thought humans use in interpreting and understanding the world and their experiences. He wrote: