The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism is a 2003 book by the American psychologist J. Michael Bailey, published by Joseph Henry Press.

Bailey reviews evidence that male homosexuality is congenital (a result of genetics and prenatal environment), and he argues for the accuracy of some gay stereotypes.

The second section deals primarily with gay men, including a suggested link between childhood gender identity disorder and male homosexuality later in life.

According to Blanchard, there are two types of trans women: one described as an "extreme form of male homosexuality", the other being motivated by a sexual interest in having a female body.

The controversial aspects included the contents of the book, whether the research was conducted ethically, whether it should have been published by the National Academies Press, and whether it should have been promoted as a scientific work.

[19] Research psychologist James Cantor also wrote a positive review of the book in the newsletter of APA's Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues (Division 44).

[21] In December 2003, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported that many of the early supporters of Bailey's book, including Ray Blanchard, were members of the Human Biodiversity Institute.

[3] Among other things, they opposed the book's endorsement of Blanchard's taxonomy of male-to-female transsexualism,[23] and its publication by the National Academies Press, by whom it was "advertised as science"[24] and marketed as "scientifically accurate,"[25] which they argued was untrue.

[11] Among those criticizing the book were computer scientist Lynn Conway,[26] biologists Joan Roughgarden[25] and Ben Barres,[27] physician Rebecca Allison,[28] economist Deirdre McCloskey,[29] psychologist Madeline Wyndzen, writers Dallas Denny,[30] Pauline Park,[31] Jamison Green,[32] and Andrea James,[33] as well as Christine Burns of Press for Change, and Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America.

[35] Sexologist Eli Coleman referred to the book as "an unfortunate setback in feelings of trust between the transgender community and sex researchers,".

[37][38] Two of the trans women in Bailey's book have accused him of ethical breaches in his work by talking to them about their life stories without obtaining formal written consent.

[6] According to Dreger, whether federal regulations required professors to obtain formal approval from a university IRB before interviewing people was uncertain at the time;[3] she points out that shortly after publication of the book, the US Department of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the Oral History Association and American Historical Association, issued a formal statement that taking oral histories, conducting interviews, collecting anecdotes, and similar activities do not constitute IRB-qualified research, and were never intended to be covered by clinical research rules, when such work is "neither systematic nor generalizable in the scientific sense.

American bioethicist Alice Dreger notes that there was no legal basis for this claim, as Bailey received no compensation for his services, and was forthright in his letters about his qualifications, even attaching copies of his C.V.: "Presumably all this was why [Illinois] never bothered to pursue the charge, although you'd never know that from reading the press accounts, which mentioned only the complaints, not that they had petered out.