Queer science.

• Position: Letters - Letter to the Editor

In her review and indictment of J. Michael Bailey's book ("Queer science" November), Deirdre McCloskey uses no evidence to refute his findings. Furthermore, she fails to explain just how any of Bailey's theories would be harmful to the transgender community.

McCloskey implies that Bailey has a "conservative" agenda because his sex research has led him to classify male-to-female transsexuals into two distinct categories. She provides no alternate theories or meaningful rebuttal, but instead lambastes Bailey for daring to study the issue.

Perhaps McCloskey wants every-one to believe that there are male and female souls floating about that, through some trick of nature, are assigned to mismatched bodies. That is fine and good, but it isn't science. Her reaction to Bailey's research is like a child covering his or her ears and screaming to avoid hearing the truth.

Bailey is not a Christian fundamentalist with a political agenda, nor is he homophobic. He is a psychologist looking to illuminate the mysteries of gender dysphoria. It is unfortunate that McCloskey, a supposed scholar, would respond in such an unscholarly fashion. It is also unfortunate that a woman who preaches acceptance takes arbitrary swings at institutions like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, implying they are all homophobic yokels. McCloskey's article was not a review; it was a rant.

Ron Holsey

Myrtle Beach, SC

Deirdre McCloskey replies: I do provide evidence--for instance, the evidence of my own life and, indeed, of the Chicago women and children Barley so brutally exploited to write his book, some of whom I know well. My view of gender crossing is the standard scientific one--not Professor...