One of the sections in the book is called: “Autogynephilic and Homosexual Transsexuals: How to Tell Them Apart” where he simply uses a score sheet of how to distinguish between the two alleged taxonomies of transsexuals without proving the theory is actually correct; mostly because he cannot but never mind.
The section is literally a punch list regarding the age of transition asking whether the person was considered feminine in childhood, whether they were ever attracted to or married to a woman and their choice of profession.
In one of the questions pertaining to confirming androphilic transsexualism he writes:
“Have you worked as a hairstylist, beautician, female impersonator, lingerie model, or prostitute?”
The first time I read this it made me literally laugh out loud and it is still jarring today.
Now any thinking person could easily dismiss the criteria used: back then a gynephilic (or asexual) would typically transition later to try and cure themselves to be able to find love with a woman whereas a homosexual would more likely transition sooner due to a sexual orientation alignment. So, this pattern became a direct reflection of how one deals with dysphoria depending on a particular criteria although that is changing today.
As the question to some androphilics working in prostitution, this would also be a circumstance of economic dire straits borne from the non-acceptance by families and society during that period; which again does not prove that the two-type taxonomy is correct.
It is really easy to see how this book would have caused an uproar among the transgender community back then and Alice Dreger unfortunately compromised her credibility by defending Bailey for this shoddy piece of work.
What we have seen since its publishing is a closing of the gap in age of transitions and even the choice of profession of androphilics has thankfully been extended beyond beautician or prostitute. Wonder of wonders, today some androphilics even work in scientific fields and not all gynephilics are scientists and engineers.
This is a complete and utter disgrace of a book and most certainly not worthy of being called a scientific endeavor.