Michael Bailey Is A Danger to Trans Kids – Those Kids Know Who They Are

Recently, on another forum, some individuals were defending Michael Bailey’s utter BS that Bailey was using to defend reparative therapy being used on trans kids. There are a lot of problems with Michael Bailey’s nonsense, not the least of which is that he may be nearly as bad as Zucker up in Canada.

Bailey claims that 80% of all trans identified kids never transition and settle into their lives as their birth sex. But the 80% figure is, as Bailey admits, decades old. It is also highly flawed. The core flaw in that study? Children were being actively discouraged from their gender identity (reparative therapy) and Bailey and his henchmen failed to followup after age 18 to see if these people stayed in their birth gender their entire lives or if they subsequently transitioned as adults. I personally know two older transwomen who Bailey claimed to have “cured”. They said they simply felt oppressed, faked it, waited til they were older, and transitioned when they were out of their parent’s (and Bailey’s) control.

Subsequent advances in diagnostic techniques now allow much clearer distinction between what the profession refers to as “gender curious” children and children who are actually transgender.

Two separate recent studies followed two groups of children who were identified as trans using modern diagnostic criteria. One was in San Diego through Rady Children’s Hospital. The second was in The Netherlands. Both groups were followed for over 10 years, and in both groups, 100% of children identified as trans early on chose to transition and live in their identified gender.

Here is info about the Dutch study. There were 55 participants. All transitioned and are happy.



Here is the California study involving Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego. There were 42 participants. All transitioned and are happy.


In short, Bailey is a quack. He’s full of nonsense. He deliberately quotes outdated statistics. He ignores the last 20+ years of neurobiological research that says this is a medical condition that cannot be reversed or “cured”. And he remains an advocate for conversion therapy, which every major medical and psychological organization in the United States says is immoral and unethical because it consistently leads to increases in suicidality.

Bailey is simply pushing his reparative therapy agenda, just like Zucker.

Siding with Bailey is dangerous, because anyone who does is lending credence to his “reparative therapy for trans kids” argument. And if anyone believes that works, they can tell it to Leelah Alcorn.


3 thoughts on “Michael Bailey Is A Danger to Trans Kids – Those Kids Know Who They Are

  1. The attack here on Bailey is unfortunately, a side show the the actual discussion that should be aired. The studies you cite are those of TEENS… the studies that Bailey, and others, cite are discussing children who are younger than that, in fact, starting around two or three. In the same clinic, in the Netherlands, the number of pre-teens that “desisted” before reaching their teens was fairly high. The lesson, don’t mix apples and oranges. Pre-teens often do desist, teens don’t.

    Oh… and Bailey NEVER treated anyone. He is not a therapist. He is a scientist and educator. Therefor, the claim that he treated someone who later transitioned insptite of said treatment is totally eroneous and should be disregared… save as evidence of antipathy toward Bailey.

    You may read more at my blog:



    • You didn’t even read the articles. They began following each group years before, when they were much younger, ages 3-5. None of either group desisted or chose to not transition. READ THE ARTICLE!

      Further, other work, peer reviewed scientific work, was published earlier this year that demonstrates that specific gender cues that are entirely subconscious have been identified and that young children are being highly accurately diagnosed using these criteria.

      Also, I’ve read your “FAQ” and it’s highly misleading and very, very dated. When a child, from my generation, is subjected to beatings, electroshock therapy, and other violent measures for trying to express their femininity at a young age, it’s very likely to be suppressed. My psychiatrist and I worked through my own case and went into how I avoided so much of life itself just to avoid dealing with myself. To categorize all late transitioners one way is complete nonsense and is NOT science. You must understand each case and the circumstances of that person specifically and how and why they suppressed their femininity. I have never had AGP tendencies and had severe body dysphoria from a young age, but try growing up in coal mine and steel mill country in the late 1950s through early 1970s and see what happens to you.

      Further, reading through your blog you ignore study after study after study, all peer reviewed, that now show a strong correlation to neurobiological (NOT psychological) basis for why people are transgender. How do you ignore the entirety of the last 20+ years of neurobiological research in order to push the failed theories of Blanchard and Bailey and dare to call your blog scientific? That’s a laugh.

      In short, your claims of having a “scientific” backing for your writings have a malodorous stench about them, Ms. Brown. Please do not bother me with your nonsense yet again as future comments from you will simply be deleted.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s