Lost in the Male

Sexual eccentricity raises difficult philosophical issues for conservatives. On the one hand, we have a core belief in the individual and his privacy. Since no form of activity is more private than sex, our instinct is to let people follow their inclinations, within obvious legal constraints against, for example, the corruption of minors. Further, we all have friends whom we know to be, or suspect of being, sexually odd in one way or another, and we do not want to say or write things that would hurt their feelings. On the other hand, conservatives remember what much of the rest of society has forgotten: that even the most private of acts can have dire public consequences, as witness the epidemic of bastardy that has ravaged the United States over the past 40 years, and also of course the AIDS plague, spread in this country mainly by promiscuous homosexual buggery. Religion, to which most non-Randian conservatives are at least well disposed, adds another complicating factor, since the sacred texts of all three major Western monotheistic faiths proscribe homosexuality in unambiguous terms.

These matters are therefore at the very crux of conservative thinking as it has developed in this country across the past half-century. In order to tackle them, it is helpful to have as much actual understanding of them as we can acquire. Michael Bailey’s new book is a very useful addition to that understanding. The Man Who Would Be Queen has a narrow and well-defined scope: It is about feminine men. The author has also done research on masculine women, but decided, he tells us in his preface, that “masculine females deserve their own book.” He has further restricted his scope by presenting only the psychological point of view, mostly ignoring the sociological. This is entirely understandable, as Bailey is a psychologist—to be exact, he is associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University. Within these chosen and declared boundaries, his book offers a wealth of fascinating information, carefully gathered by (it seems to me) a conscientious and trustworthy scientific observer.

About the Author

John Derbyshire

Mr. Derbyshire is a former contributing editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

Sexual eccentricity raises difficult philosophical issues for conservatives. On the one hand, we have a core belief in the individual and his privacy. Since no form of activity is more private than sex, our instinct is to let people follow their inclinations, within obvious legal constraints against, for example, the corruption of minors. Further, we all have friends whom we know to be, or suspect of being, sexually odd in one way or another, and we do not want to say or write things that would hurt their feelings. On the other hand, conservatives remember what much of the rest of society has forgotten: that even the most private of acts can have dire public consequences, as witness the epidemic of bastardy that has ravaged the United States over the past 40 years, and also of course the AIDS plague, spread in this country mainly by promiscuous homosexual buggery. Religion, to which most non-Randian conservatives are at least well disposed, adds another complicating factor, since the sacred texts of all three major Western monotheistic faiths proscribe homosexuality in unambiguous terms.

These matters are therefore at the very crux of conservative thinking as it has developed in this country across the past half-century. In order to tackle them, it is helpful to have as much actual understanding of them as we can acquire. Michael Bailey’s new book is a very useful addition to that understanding. The Man Who Would Be Queen has a narrow and well-defined scope: It is about feminine men. The author has also done research on masculine women, but decided, he tells us in his preface, that “masculine females deserve their own book.” He has further restricted his scope by presenting only the psychological point of view, mostly ignoring the sociological. This is entirely understandable, as Bailey is a psychologist—to be exact, he is associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University. Within these chosen and declared boundaries, his book offers a wealth of fascinating information, carefully gathered by (it seems to me) a conscientious and trustworthy scientific observer.