On the Science of Changing Sex

Exploring The Science of Transsexuality

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on July 16, 2018

Through Knowledge, Justice…

27867072_1811649452220144_4426664495691531655_nThis blog is on the science of transsexuality and transgender sexuality, including aspects of sexual orientation.  The blog also explores socio-political themes where appropriate.  There are many myths and misunderstandings about transsexuality and transgender people.  Our scientific understanding of the transsexual phenomena has increased and dramatically improved over the past sixty years, yet much of what is available in popular literature is misinformation and disinformation.  Much of what the public, including transsexuals and transgender people themselves, believe about the etiology and epidemiology of transsexuality is based on wishful thinking on one hand and deliberate distortions on the other.  Worse, many cherry-pick among the scientific papers, choosing those that, in isolation, appear to support a given thesis.  Many people have read misinformation and disinformation regarding the science, denying, decrying, and even weaponizing the science, often in emotionally inflammatory language (including vicious attacks on the characters of scientists and educators), that makes its rounds in the echo chamber of the web and social media.  Indeed, there are fora that will instantly ban any who discuss this science in any truthful way.  This blog is an attempt to correct this situation.

Learning an unpleasant truth is better than believing a comforting lie – Don’t let the “tribe” tell you what to think – Trust only evidence, not vehemence –Data, not denial

All information found in this blog is supported by peer reviewed science and referenced (cited) in essay posts covering a given topic found on this site.  Many topics are interwoven with other topics, as they are interlocking issues.  Please explore the entire site for a full explanation of each topic.

I recommend that one read the first several entries in the FAQ as an introduction and jumping off point via the links provided.  One can find a bibliography for this blog if you wish to quickly find papers of interest.  You may wish to review the Glossary if a word is unfamiliar.

Remember as you read this site;  Transsexuals and transgendered people are good people, worthy of our respect, and even of our admiration.  Nothing in this material is meant to imply otherwise.  If you are a transsexual or transgendered person:  You have value as a human being.  You have the right to be respected, valued, and even celebrated as the gender to which you identify and aspire regardless of etiology.

Comments Off on Exploring The Science of Transsexuality

Transsexual Teens In UK Gender Dysphora Treatment

Posted in Editorial, Transgender Youth by Kay Brown on August 20, 2022

In a spate of recent UK media there was a wild accusation that a “thousand” youths were suing the National Health Service for wrongly pushing them into transsexual medical treatments. But there is a serious problem with this statement. That number, a thousand, is roughly the TOTAL number of transsexual teens that have been treated in the UK from 2008 through 2021. Are ALL of them suing the NHS? No, the story is disinformation generated by a transphobic propagandists under the rubric of the “Big Lie” theory, that the bigger the lie, the more believable it is. In truth, very few teens would be unhappy with receiving treatment and most would be very grateful. (Though the may grumble about aspects of the hoops they had to clear to get it.)

I’m a US citizen living in California, so I have zero direct experience with the UK NHS and their gender dysphoria treatment system. But as I understand it, to get treatment, one must jump through multiple hoops, first convincing a (potentially transphobic) skeptical General Practitioner (GP) to provide a referral to the Gender Identity Service (GIDS). The GIDS does a psych and history evaluation and may or may not provide a referral to the Endocrine Service which may or may not then provide puberty blockers (PB) or cross-sex Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT).

If you were to believe the propaganda, you would be think that the NHS hands out HRT like candy on Halloween. They do not. Further, the real numbers from these clinics show that the number of teens treated is NOT indicative of an “epidemic” of gender dysphoria. Far from it.

We need to review some stats. The current population of the entire UK is a bit over 67 million people. The long time historical estimate of actual transsexuals, those who experience gender dysphoria, seek medical treatment, and live full time as the opposite sex is known to be less than one in ten thousand (<1:10,000). That includes those that seek treatment as adults. So, the maximum number of people we expect in the NHS system receiving HRT and later Sex Reassignment Surgery for gender dysphoria would be less than 7,000 people TOTAL. So, we expect, that the number of transsexual teens would be some lower number. And that is exactly what we see.

Consider the recent paper published in the British Medical Journals by Butler, et al. In it we learn that the NHS Gender Identity Services referred only 1,151 teens for evaluation between 2008 and 2021 inclusive. Of that only 1089 had known outcomes. Of those, 32 did NOT receive hormonal medical treatment, likely realizing that they weren’t actually gender dysphoric when confronted with the reality of what that really meant. (That is, they we likely falsely claiming to be “trans”, which has become a very popular fad among teens and young people such that there are likely over 500 people falsely claiming to be “trans” or “non-binary” for every actual transsexual.) Of the remaining 1,057 teens, 58 (5.5%) later elected to cease medical treatments leaving 999 that continued into adulthood.

Again, this is NOT indicative of a sudden epidemic of gender dysphoria among teens. In fact, it is perfectly in keeping with the number we expect from decades of clinical experience. Most especially, these numbers put the lie to the assertion that a thousand youths are planning to sue the NHS for medical malpractice. It also gives us an insight into the relative stability of gender dysphoria and of transsexual identities in teenagers, that so called “desistence” occurs before puberty onset.

Further Reading:

How Many Transfolk Are There, Really?

Lost In The Crowd – The recent phenomena of young people falsely claiming to be “trans” or “non-binary”

Age Of Innocence – Clinical evidence that “desistence” occurs before puberty onset.

Reference:

Butler G, Adu-Gyamfi K, Clarkson K, et al., “Discharge outcome analysis of 1089 transgender young people referred to paediatric endocrine clinics in England 2008–2021” Archives of Disease in Childhood (2022) doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2022-324302

Tagged with: , ,

Comments Off on Transsexual Teens In UK Gender Dysphora Treatment

Falsely Claiming To Be “Trans” Is “Cool” (NOT!)

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on August 4, 2022

Yet another paper making the mistake of interpreting teenagers ticking the box that says “I am trans” as actually being trans. When that happens, the rest of the data is nearly worthless, as in found in the just published paper by Turbin, et al. I’ve pointed out that this use of self-ID in online surveys, especially for teenagers is bogus. This shows only how popular it is, how “cool” it is, to say that one is “trans” or “non-binary”, NOT how many are actually gender atypical and gender dysphoric.

First, we know, from much more careful studies using better operational definitions such as getting a diagnoses as gender dysphoric, or from US Census and Social Security Administration records showing how many changed their name/sex so as to actually live as the opposite sex, that the incidence rate of gender dysphoria is on the order of ~6 per 100,000 people. That figure would also include “late onset” transsexuals who would not have shown up in studies of gender dysphoria in teenagers. Thus, if a study had been valid, we would expect that significantly fewer than six out of one hundred thousand surveyed would be clinically gender dysphoric.

But Turbin’s paper relies on surveys conducted in 2017 and 2019 with only ~92K and ~105K teens. Thus, we would only expect less than a single handful of clinically gender dysphoric teens. Such a broad community survey is not a good means to identify gender dysphoric teens in sufficient numbers to provide any useful insights.

But that didn’t deter Turbin. Since the survey has an inadequate (read: useless and silly) self-ID question, far more (false positives) were included as “trans”, etc. How badly off are numbers? They found 2.4% and 1.6% respectively. This is about one hundred times the number we expect to find. This is on the order of the incidence rate of exclusive homosexuality, NOT gender dysphoria. Could it be that these teens are conflating and confusing the two constructs? Superficially, this would make sense, given that homosexuality is highly correlated with mild gender atypicality. Or perhaps other issues are present?

One of the explanations for this large number of teenagers claiming to be trans or non-binary is a putative phenomena, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) in which large numbers of teens become gender dysphoric due to “social contagion”. However, there are a number of problems with this explanation. First, it has the poor evidentiary support. Second, for ROGD to exist as such, the teens would have to actually BE gender dysphoric. So far, that doesn’t hold up. While there has been an increase in the number of children and teens being referred to clinics, as those clinics have finally begun offering serviced that gender dysphoric teens actually need and want, those numbers are closer to the tiny handful that we would expect, not from a putative epidemic of ROGD. In other words, there is a disconnect between the number self-proclaiming to be “trans”/”non-binary” and the number seeking medical services for clinical gender dysphoria.

At this point, I would like to share personal experiences and observations that may shed light on this situation. I volunteered as a Court Appointed Special Advocate and had previously been a foster/adoptive mom. Since I am transsexual, I was paired with two “transgender” teens, one FTM, the other MTF. It was instantly obvious that the CASA program, his caseworkers, etc. had no clue and had mistaken a flamboyantly queenie gay boy who occasionally performed in drag as “trans”. He was not in the least bit gender dysphoric, and would actually become angry when misidentified as such. The other teenager was indeed a classic FTM transsexual, a typical transman. At 17, if you met him, you would instantly read him as a typical boy, into skateboarding and deeply in love with his straight girlfriend. In seeking resources for him, I recommended that he attend a drop-in group for LGBT kids. I had heard that it was very trans-friendly. He refused to return, but wouldn’t, or more accurately, couldn’t explain why wouldn’t go back. — Later, I had occasion to understand why from personal observation. Only one of the teens was actually an FTM transsexual. A large majority of the teens attending the meetings were not LGBT, but mostly feminine heterosexual girls who were very obviously falsely claiming to be “trans” or “non-binary”, demanding that everyone use “they/them” or even more odd made-up pronouns. There were a few gay boys also doing this, but they were clearly doing it to fit into the gang, to be cool. They made my CASA youth uncomfortable, uneasy, and feeling unwelcome. He was in truth what they were falsely claiming to be and the obvious contrast was disconcerting for all. Frankly, these teens made ME feel uneasy and unwelcome for the same reason. This was a novel experience after decades of working as an activist and community organizer in the transsexual community.

If the putative ROGD phenomena was actually comprised primarily of these girls, it would go a long ways explain it. This phenomena has existed in very small numbers for decades (I met one such in 1980) but exploded in numbers during the mid ’10s. Turbin in mistakenly according these large numbers of teens self-identifying as “trans” / “non-binary” as being so, tried to argue that these surveys proved that it was not a “social contagion”. I argue just the opposite, that it proves that such false self-identification IS a social contagion in the sense that it reinforced a latent desire by some teens, of both sexes, to do so to be “cool”. And if anything, if the numbers can be trusted, the drop over the two year period from 2017 to 2019 of 50% would indicate that the fad is fading.

Addendum 8/10/2022:

No sooner had I posted this essay up pops another news item talking about yet another study where the authors now claim that “trans” / “non-binary” / “gender diverse” teenagers are under counted. The number quoted? Seven percent! Worse, having found this new study, I learn that the primary author, Kidd, had an earlier study that said the number was ten percent! These numbers hark back to the earlier Wernick (2017) study had found nine percent. As I pointed out in previous essays, these numbers all come from the error of asking teens if they identify as “trans”, etc. without proper operational definitions and certainly never having validated these survey items to see if they mean anything more than the popularity of (falsely) claiming to be a perceived to be “cool” marginalized minority identity.

It’s long past time that researchers stop naively using unvalidated survey items and actually conduct in-depth interviews of these teens (and their friends and families) claiming these identities. I predict that these teens will not show ANY clinical gender dysphoria nor be very gender atypical when compared to control teens who are not claiming these identities, save for a few who will be homosexual. Far from being “gender diverse”, they will prove to be rather ‘gender ordinary’. Further, I predict that while sociologically and psychologically, these teens may be an interesting group, with some risk factors that correlate to their need to identify with a stigmatized and very RARE sexual minority, they are NOT the group that has any etiological or sociological connection to gender dysphoric youth. Also, if tested for implicit self-identification I predict that these teens will very clearly identify with their natal sex and not have a significant alienation from it.

A final thought. If so many youth are “Gender Diverse”, why aren’t there more such adults? Also, as adults looking back at our own high school days, we can recall knowing kids that would later come out as gay or lesbian, maybe a couple straight transvestites, but not 7-10% “gender diverse” kids. Could it be because most adults aren’t into following silly fads that make them feel “cool” or “special” and instead just be who and what they really are, gender typical?

As a transsexual, someone who was actually “gender different”, who began transition in high school in the early 1970s, I can assure you I was the only one at either of the two large suburban schools I attended, and suffered because of it.

Further Reading:

How Many Trans Folk Are There, Really?

Lost In The Crowd

ROGD Redux

Where Are All These “Detransitioners” Coming From?

References:

Turbin, et al., “Sex Assigned at Birth Ratio Among Transgender and Gender Diverse Adolescents In The United States”, Pediatrics (2022), https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-056567

Kidd, K. et al., “The Prevalence of Gender-Diverse Youth in a Rural Appalachian Region”, JAMA Pediatrics (2022), DOI:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.2768

Wernick, et al., “Gender Identity Disparities in Bathroom Safety and Wellbeing in High School Students”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2017), DOI: 10.1007/s10964-017-0652-1

Tagged with: , ,

Comments Off on Falsely Claiming To Be “Trans” Is “Cool” (NOT!)

No. Iran Does NOT “Force” Gay Men & Lesbians To Be Transsexuals

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on July 28, 2022

For several decades now, I’ve seen the same claim made, usually from transphobic elements in the Gay & Lesbian communities, but increasingly in right wing heterosexual circles, that gay men and women, especially gay men, are “forced” to have sex reassignment surgery in Iran. They rarely have any actual data to back up their claims, only nebulous references to anecdotes that they heard from somewhere else. Occasionally this story shows up on a newspaper or magazine, usually of the tabloid / yellow “journalism” type.

It’s long past time to carefully examine these stories, where they come from, why they persist, and what the real facts are.

First, one must know that the idea of gays and lesbians being “forced”, or in modern transphobic parlance, “transed” is many decades old. The story is usually told that a “gender non-conforming” (read: gender atypical) gay boy or tomboyish girl / lesbian, is pushed to be transsexual by their homophobic parents. This is itself a strange notion, that homophobic parents wouldn’t be just as transphobic. It also stretches credulity in that it pre-supposes that transsexuals will successfully avoid public scrutiny when they transition such that homophobic parents can, as though by magic, suddenly introduce their “straight” daughter or son that their other relatives, neighbors, and co-workers, had never heard of before… and my oh my… don’t they remind everyone about their obviously gay / lesbian child that they had met before?

This also goes against the actual experience of both homosexuals and transsexuals, in that such ‘phobic parents would MUCH rather have a CLOSETED homosexual child than an out transsexual child. Many transsexuals with such ‘phobic parents have experienced entreaties from parents that “couldn’t they just be closeted homosexual instead?”

So why does the idea that transsexuals are pushed into being transsexuals occur at all? Because it is the corollary of that other false narrative popular within the transphobic elements of the gay and lesbian community that transsexuals are homophobic themselves and having internalized this homophobia, seek to live as heterosexuals by changing their sex. Never mind that such Homosexual Transsexuals (HSTS) were nearly all extremely gender dysphoric as young children and had long desired, indeed, made up their minds, that they would grow up to be the opposite sex, long before coming to understand what their sexual orientation might be. Only as they matured, did they realize it would take medical interventions for this to occur. They (we) do not hold homophobic views, internalized or not.

Back to the Iran myth. What is true is that Iran, like many other nations, both Islamic and Christian, have a history of social and legal persecution of homosexual people. Slowly very slowly, some Christian nations changed their laws in fits and starts, sometimes becoming better for gays and lesbians, sometimes becoming better for transsexuals. Did you know that transsexuals are still being legally harassed by police in the United States? We call it “trans while walking”. Look it up. Today, half of the US States are working to pass bills that specifically target transsexuals, our families, and access to medical services. There are similar issues occurring in other Western, mostly Christian, nations. But in Iran, an odd thing occurred after the Islamic Revolution. While homosexuality, or rather it’s direct practice, remained criminalized as it had been earlier, in 1987, a transsexual, a pre-op transwoman who had been able to obtain HRT, reached their top cleric and reminded him that in the Hadith (stories of the Prophet Mohammed’s life and sayings that were not included in the Quran) included details of Mohammed’s friendships and acceptance of what would clearly be recognized today as “homosexual transsexuals”. She begged him to explore this history. The result was a fatwa that specifically sanctioned the existence and medical treatment of transsexuals in Islam.

So, jump back to the West and know that some transphobic elements in the gay and lesbian communities saw this as being unfair. Why should non-gender-dysphoric gays and lesbians continue to be legally and socially discriminated against (and indeed, why should they?) in Iran while transsexuals have a free pass, a “get out of jail free card”? This anger, combined with the earlier angry myths of parents forcing their homosexual children to be transsexuals and the myth that transsexuals are just self-hating homosexuals transitioning to escape homophobic (and in the case of transmen, sexist) discrimination, naturally lead to the false narrative that Iran is “forcing” gays and lesbians to have sex reassignment surgery. They don’t actually need evidence, certainly not of the kind that involves data, to prove it’s happening. Just the horror at the thought of being forced to “change sex” vs. being jailed for being gay is enough to let others who hear the myth believe it unskeptically.

But, we do require such evidence! Because the data, the numbers, just didn’t fit that narrative.

But let us say for the moment that it’s true, that Iran is rounding up homosexuals and forcing them to have sex changes. What would the data look like? What it should look like is that there would be far more people having sex reassignment surgeries in Iran, per capita, especially per homosexual population, than in the West. But is this true?

Consider that it is now well known that homosexuality is universal, occurring in all societies, throughout history, and at about the same rates. It’s public expression may vary, due to repressive legal and social circumstances, but the actual sexual orientation and desire remain constant at about three percent (give or take depending upon definitions, etc.).

Now compare that the number of actual transsexuals in the United States at around ~6/100,000 people. So, 3% G&L = 3,000/100,000 against 6. Thus, in the United State, one of the most transsexual and homosexual friendly nations in the world (not the best, but near the top) the ratio of homosexuals to transsexuals seeking social and medical transition is 500 to 1.

Back to Iran. How many transsexuals are seeking medical transition? It is only 1.46/100,000. So, in Iran that ratio of homosexuals to transsexuals is a whopping 2055 to 1.

Let’s turn our attention to the data on who is getting medical transition services. Here we see something interesting in that multiple separate papers both show that the average age for SRS for both natal sexes is around 25 years old. Further, the data for MTF transsexuals shows that 90% report being “early onset”. This is what we would expect given Iran’s culture and the correlation between a given culture’s level of individualism vs. the number of “late onset” transwomen transitioning. The numbers add up with what we would expect for those receiving transition services to be naturally occurring gender dysphoric people, freely choosing it.

The numbers do NOT support the allegation that gays and lesbians are being “forced” to undergo an unwanted “sex change”, the data would in fact, suggest the opposite, that transsexuals in Iran are exactly the people we expect to find. Neither the government, “society”, nor transsexuals’ families are “forcing” transsexuality upon unwilling gays and lesbians.

Instead of spreading the myth of unwanted, forced, “sex changes”, the LGBT community should be decrying the recent vicious propaganda against transsexual people in Iran (and elsewhere).

Further Reading:

Transphobic Propaganda Aimed at Parents of Transsexual Kids

Stolen History: False Narratives of Transsexuals Transitioning Because of Homophobia & Sexism

Data On Transsexual SubTypes In Iran

References:

Talaei, et al, “The Epidemiology of Gender Dysphoria In Iran: The First Nation Wide Study”, Archives of Sexual Behavior (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02250-y

Ahmadzad-asl, et al., “The Epidemiology of Transsexualism In Iran”, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health (2010), https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2011.530580

Sadr, M., Khorashad, B.S., Talaei, A. et al. “2D:4D Suggests a Role of Prenatal Testosterone in Gender Dysphoria” Archives of Sexual Behavior (2020)
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01630-0

Tagged with:

Comments Off on No. Iran Does NOT “Force” Gay Men & Lesbians To Be Transsexuals

Transsexuals Misrepresenting Their Sexual Orientation

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on July 22, 2022

I continue to see transwomen vehemently denying that pseudo-androphilia exist, demanding that since there are exclusively androphilic transwomen that report autogynephilic sexual arousal to wearing women’s clothing, etc. means that the Two Type Taxonomy is wrong. But those of us who care about evaluating the evidence carefully and completely see a different pattern. First, many of us have seen first hand, in personal relationships, examples of such pseudo-androphilia in older transitioners, transwomen who claim to be exclusively androphilic, but we know have a history of sexual conduct that focused primarily on women, NOT men. so we KNOW it exists and can’t ignore the evidence of our own eyes. But the plural of anecdote is not data.

Yesterday, I had a dialog, argument really, with a denialist. (She attempted to paint herself as a reasonable “skeptic” and me as the obsessive pseudo-science zealot, but gave herself away when she used the term “Blanchardian”, which is code in the autogynephilic community similar to that used by religious “Creation Science” / “Intelligent Design” advocates, evolution science denialists, of calling biological scientists, “Darwinists”.) She insisted that although recent evidence proved that natal female women are NOT autogynephilic, as so many transwomen were claiming, some of them were. She based this on a claim that what is in fact “noise” (false positives) in the data was REAL evidence that SOME natal female women were just as autogynephilic as non-exclusively androphilic transwomen. After a while, it became clear that she self-identified as “androphilic” and was insisting that since “some” natal female were autogynephilic, it was “normal” for women to be autogynephilic and that true androphilic transwomen could be and “some” were also autogynephilic. But I countered, these transwomen claiming to be exclusively androphilic were misrepresenting / misreporting their actual sexual orientation. She never came out and said that she was autogynephilic, but her demand that the two type taxonomy was wrong and that it was normal for “some” natal female women to be autogynephilic strongly supports that conclusion.

I then realized that I did have lots of proof of that many transwomen were misrepresenting their sexual orientation in my essays, but that they were scattered all about. Thus, my motivation for writing a new essay to pull together the data, the evidence. Evidence, not vehemence; data, not denial.

First, a bit of history. Multiple studies have shown that the vast majority of non-exclusively-androphilic transwomen admit to various autogynephilic experiences and behavior while exclusively-androphilic transwomen do not. I recommend a quick review of what constitutes and how autogynephilia presents in my essay (listed below). We have data that strongly supports the assertion that ALL such non-exclusively-androphilic transwomen are in fact autogynephilic and in the same taxon, while exclusively androphilic transwomen are not autogynephilic and are in a separate taxon. See my FAQ for an introduction and links to essays that lay out this evidence. However, because of transwomen misrepresenting their sexual orientation, their is a great deal of noise in the data, though we can still see the evidence that there are two (and only two) separate taxons, one autogynephilic and non-exclusively-androphilic and one that is exclusively androphilic and NOT autogynephilic.

This issue of misrepresentation was addressed by Lawrence when she considered the sexual history of subjects in a Netherlands study. She saw that many of the subjects who claimed to be exclusively androphilic had in fact been married to women! She then found that if she considered them to not be exclusively androphilic, the signal strength for sexual orientation vs. autogynephilia went up. Most notably the number of putatively exclusively androphilic transwomen reporting autogynephilic arousal when down:

Sort:       Old                New

AGP     18 (31%)        5 (15%)
Not      40 (69%)       29 (85%)

Sorting, filtering out those who claimed to be exclusively androphilic but had a clear history of marriage to women is useful, but not perfect, since not every transwomen who may be falsely reporting their sexual orientation would have such a solid legally traceable history of their true sexual history and orientation. Note that Lawrence demonstrated that at least 24 of the original 58 (41%) subjects had misrepresented their sexual orientation.

The folks at the Netherlands clinic, in a later study, compared self-identification with clinician evaluations of their patients’ sexual orientation (presumably using sexual history, marriage records, family interviews, and personal interviews). The also categorized on “early” vs. “late onset” of their gender dysphoria.

Type:                                                            EOT               LOT
N=                                                                35                    44
Women (self)                                            15 (43%)         8 (18%)
Women (clinician)                                   14 (41%)        17 (39%)
Men (self)                                                   13 (37%)        23 (52%)
Men (clinician)                                         14 (41%)          4 (9%)
Bisexual (self)                                             2 (6%)          10 (23%)
Bisexual (clinician)                                   5 (15%)         22 (50%)
Asexual (clinician)                                     1 (3%)             4 (9%)

Note that in the above study that one of the early onset transwomen failed to represent herself as exclusively androphilic who the clinicians believed should have. But that of the late onset (most often “older transitioners”) 19 of the 24 (79%) who claimed to be exclusively androphilic were misrepresenting their sexual orientation. If this study had looked at autogynephilia and used self-report, the non-exclusively androphilic group would have at least one who shouldn’t have been, likely pulling down the autogynephilic score, and the exclusively androphilic group would have had at least nineteen (out of 36 = 52%) that should not have been, likely pulling up the autogynephilia score.

These studies led to the realization that asking transwomen to report their “current” self-identification was insufficient. Later studies began asking not only their current orientation, but their prior orientation. This gives the subjects an opportunity to be a bit more honest about their sexual orientation via their sexual history, by allowing them to claim to have had a “change of sexual orientation”.

Lawrence used such a technique in one of her later studies.

Attraction before SRS/Attraction after SRS:F/MF/FM/M
Participant characteristic(n = 30)(n = 50)(n = 17)
Mean age at SRS (SD)45 (8.4)44 (9.1)34 (9.2)
Mean age at living full-time in female role (SD)42 (11.3)42 (9.6)28 (8.8)
Very or somewhat feminine as a child, in own opinion41%45%76%
Very or somewhat feminine as a child, in others’ probable opinion21%24%76%
Autogynephilic arousal hundred of times or more before SRS52%58%18%

Note that had she not done that, it is likely that 30 out of 97 subjects may have been falsely categorized as exclusively androphilic. Or put another way, 30 out of 47 putatively androphilic transwomen would not have been correctly binned in that category. But… and here is the sad, but telling part. Although Lawrence did NOT recategorize on known legal history of marriage, she did report,

“six participants classified as homosexual based on their pattern of sexual partnering before SRS reported experiencing autogynephilic arousal before SRS. Two of these participants, both of whom reported “hundreds of episodes or more” of autogynephilic arousal before SRS, had been married to women and had been biologic parents before SRS, suggesting that their reports of no female sexual partners before SRS were inaccurate. Two other homosexual participants, both of whom also reported “hundreds of episodes or more” of autogynephilic arousal, had not been married and had not been biologic parents; one, age 33 at time of SRS, reported only one male partner before SRS; the other, age 44 at time of SRS, reported multiple male partners before SRS. The remaining 2 homosexual participants, both ages 38, reported autogynephilic arousal only “once or twice” before SRS; both reported multiple male partners before SRS and one also reported MtF transgendered partners.  Seven other participants who were classified as homosexual based on their self-reported pattern of sexual attraction before SRS but not on the basis of their pattern of sexual partnering before SRS also reported autogynephilic sexual arousal before SRS. Four of these 7 participants had been married, and 2 of these 4 had been biologic parents; only 1 reported any male sexual partners before SRS. Of the remaining 3 participants, 2 reported no sexual partners before SRS, and 1 reported multiple male, female, and MtF transgendered partners before SRS.”

Some of these self-identified androphilic individuals who were clearly having sex with female partners before SRS, are just as clearly STILL having sex with female partners after SRS.  Someone is not being honest here.  So, even with the opportunity to admit that that were non-exclusively androphilic in their past, some of them still chose to misrepresent their sexual orientation, both in the past, and currently.

In a more recent study in Europe, they looked at this phenomena of “changing sexual orientation” during transition, comparing their self-reported sexual identity at their intake interviews/survey and later. The same shifts occurred with another interesting bit of data, that six of eighteen of those who had originally reported to be androphilic later confessed to have not been.

So what’s really going on? As Auer, et al explains it,

“Self-reported sexual orientation studies have further been reported to be interfered by the fact that some persons do not answer the question truthfully. Some transsexual people for example may want to present themselves as particular feminine (MtF) or masculine (FtM) and thus ‘‘classical’’ transsexual persons.  Participants in the present study might have biased their reports on purpose or unwittingly towards a more gender-typical presentation.

This misrepresentation is sufficient to explain the number of “androphilic” transwomen who report autogynephilic arousal.

Getting back to my interlocutor of yesterday. In arguing against the idea of pseudo-androphilia, she was ignoring the evidence of the reported shifts in sexual orientation with transition. Why would this occur? As Auer, et al explain,

“Autogynephilic MtF transsexual persons often report the fantasy of sexual intercourse as a woman with a man, that was repeatedly described as faceless and abstract. Yet this pseudoandrophilia has to be distinguished from genuine androphilia or homosexuality in MtF, or as Blanchard points it: ‘‘the effective erotic stimulus, however, is not the male physique per se, as it is in true homosexual attraction, but rather the thought of being a female, which is symbolized in the fantasy of being penetrated by a male. For these persons, the imagined – occasionally real – male sexual partner serves the same function as women’s apparel or makeup, namely, to aid and intensify the fantasy of being a woman’’. Similarly, one of our participants that formally reported a change of sexual orientation from gynephilia towards androphilia stressed that ‘‘I always wanted to experience sexual intercourse as a woman but I did not know what to do with my male body before the hormone treatment. I hated male bodies in general before’’. In this case a reported change in sexual orientation from gynephilic to androphilic can be attributed to autogynephilic fantasies.”

Before I cut off the dialog, which which was becoming vituperative, with false claims that I was being derisive (attempted tone policing), she doubled down on the “female embodiment fantasy” meme by mischaracterizing reports of sexual fantasies of “early transitioners” as evidence that such were autogynephilic. This is when I realized that she was misrepresenting her sexuality, because no actual exclusively androphilic transwoman would have made that mistake. Androphilic transwomen KNOW that their attraction is to masculine men, not to autogynephilic fantasy.

This latest science denialism is complete bunk.

Further Reading (w/ citations):

Autogynephilia

No. Women Are NOT Autogynephilic!

Lawrence Recategorized Data

Netherlands Study Comparing Self vs. Clinician Evaluation of Sexual Orientation

Lawrence Orientation Shift Study

European Study Of Change of Self Identity of Sexual Orientation

Essay on Invalidity of “Female Embodiment Fantasy” Meme

Tagged with:

Comments Off on Transsexuals Misrepresenting Their Sexual Orientation

Autistic Sunset

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on July 1, 2022

As noted before, gynephilic transmen are not only “butch” but somewhat “hypermasculine” in some respects. This shows up in being more likely to be somewhere on the autistic spectrum. We now have another study that confirms this observation and some other observations regarding transwomen as I will explore in this essay.

The new study is out of the UK, which will be an important point, so keep in mind given that we know that the UK, like the US, has a very “individualist” culture and that in such cultures, autogynephilic transwomen significantly out number homosexual transwomen. Thus, this data for transwomen is very, very likely ONLY from autogynephilic transwomen. I point this out because the data clearly shows that transwomen in the study are nearly identical to control men and very different than control women; that autogynephilic transwomen has been shown before by Jones, et al. as the data documents.

Group:               Men                  Women       FTM                 Non-Androphilic           Androphilic
.                                                                                                     MTF  N=129                   MTF N=69

Score (SD):       17.8 (6.8)        15.4 (5.7)     23.2 (9.1)         17.4 (7.4)                         15.0 (5.6)

In this new study, the trend that transmen have high Autistic Quotient scores compared to everyone else remains, and thus can be considered to have been replicated.

 nAQSDnEQSDnSQSD
Control women2119.439.931921.0510.821913.749.68
Transmen3225.8810.253016.8710.032922.669.28
Control men1818.117.611820.8310.001818.946.82
Transwomen (AGP)1820.179.061822.069.011721.249.54

The table shows the data for the mean Autism Quotient (AQ), the Emotional Quotient (EQ), and the Systematizing Quotient (SQ) scores and their standard deviations from the new Hendriks, et al. study.

As well the AQ scores being substantially different, the EQ and SQ scores for transmen are different than control women, but only slightly higher than for both the control men and notably, the transwomen. At this point, it might be well to ask, “how different” by calculating Cohen’s d for some of these population differences. The difference between control men and the transmen for AQ is d = 0.86, a fairly large, but not super large difference. It certainly does show that transmen are as a population, likely to be “on the spectrum”. But more importantly, it shows that the brains of exclusively gynephilic (as all these subjects were) are masculinized, even hypermasculinized, as one would expect them to be.

The other interesting point is how different the control women and transwomen are in their Systematizing Quotient with d = 0.77, reasonably large effect size indicating that women and (likely to be autogynephilic) transwomen are very different in this regard. How different are they from control men? First note that their score for transwomen is even more “masculine” than control men with d = 0.28, small but detectable. Again, as with the Jones study, this shows that autogynephilic transwomen are NOT very different than control men in these important, sexually dimorphic phenomena, and thus NOT feminized, nor even hypomasculine.

Further Reading:

Autistic Sky

References:

Jones, et al, “Female-To-Male Transsexual People and Autistic Traits”, J. Autism Dev. Discord. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-011-1227-8

Hendriks, et al, “Autist Traits, Empathizing-Systematizing, and Gender Diversity”, Archives of Sexual Behavior (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02251-x

Tagged with:

Comments Off on Autistic Sunset

No, Women Are NOT Autogynephilic!

Posted in Transsexual Theory by Kay Brown on June 27, 2022

For at least two decades, transwomen have been attempting to confuse the issue of the role of autogynephilia in the etiology of non-exclusively-androphilic transsexuality / gender dysphoria. Some have simply stated that it doesn’t exist. Other try to say that it only exists in transvestites, never in transsexuals. Yet other’s don’t deny it exists, but insist that it is not a unique paraphilia, but actually part and parcel with being women. That being autogynephilic proves that they are just like natal females because natal females are normally autogynephilic. A popular means of invoking this confusion is to deliberately misdescribe the phenomena as “female embodiment fantasy” insisting that women also experience such, as in their erotic imaginings they correctly relate that of course, being natally female, they see themselves as female.

This has been shown to be a clever semantic trick, invoking a classic cognitive error, in which one confuses the map for the territory. The words may be similar, but the concepts behind them are not. Autogynephiles deliberately imagine themselves as female because that is sexually arousing in and of itself. Natal women see themselves as female because they are only incidentally female. Natal women do not become sexually aroused to imagining, or contemplating their own femaleness.

Still, pointing this out has not been enough. The confusion sown by this silly insistence that natal women are also autogynephilic persists. Some have even tried to create “proof” that this is so by creating / editing instruments that bear only a passing resemblance to instruments developed to actually measure autogynephilia, questionnaires that have been carefully crafted to create positives that their crafters falsely declare is proof that natal women are also autogynephilic, and thus, non-androphilic transwomen are just like natal female women in their sexuality.

But now we have a study that is NOT gamed. Instead of creating such bogus instruments, Bailey and Hsu used Blanchard’s original. (The instrument is comprised of eight statements that one either agrees with or not and the score is found by simple counting those which received an agreement. That is to say, all items are equally weighted. Thus, the score may vary between zero and eight.) Further, in the study they validated that it can differentiate autogynephilic males from non-autogynephilic males, at the population level, an important step in showing that it can be used to determine if natal female woman look more like one group or the other, on a population level.

A comment here is needed. No instrument that asks people to be honest about such a sensitive topic as their innermost sexual longings has ever been devised that is 100% perfect at diagnosing individuals. People misinterpret the items. The items don’t perfectly match their experiences (even if they are similar and experience the underlying construct being measured). And because of Social Desirability Bias, some don’t answer fully honestly. And some just never answer honestly no matter what the question. But in research like this, we are able to use statistics looking at population responses to tease out the underlying truth. (Don’t try to quibble on this matter, we all know this is true.)

So, turning to Bailey and Hsu’s recent study, from the abstract,

“We compared four samples of autogynephilic natal males (N = 1549), four samples of non-autogynephilic natal males (N = 1339), and two samples of natal females (N = 500), using Blanchard’s original measure: the Core Autogynephilia Scale. The autogynephilic samples had much higher mean scores compared with non-autogynephilic natal males and natal females, who were similar. Our findings refute the contention that autogynephilia is common among natal females.”

Looking at a graph of the data, we can visually see just how different that the known autogynephilic sample groups scored than both the known non-autogynephilic males and natal female women. And how similar such women are to known non-autogynephilic men.

As well as looking at the graphs, we can also perform statistical analysis such as the Effect Size, a key measure of the difference between two populations: Cohen’s d. I chose Sample 4 to compare against Sample 9, a large known autogynephilic sample to a natal female sample and calculated that Cohen’s d = 2.8, a HUGE effect size (anything over 1.0 is considered large, and with such ample sample subjects, statistically very trustworthy). Conversely, comparing Sample 7, known non-autogynephilic males to Sample 9; d = 0.04, almost zero, essentially no statistical difference!

There can be absolutely no honest denial of the data and the natural conclusion. Natal female women are simply NOT autogynephilic.

Further Reading:

Autogynephilia Explained

Disingenuous Attempt To “Prove” Natal Female Women are Autogynephilic

Why “Female Embodiment Fantasy” Is Bogus

Reference:

Bailey, J.M., Hsu, K.J., “How Autogynephilic Are Natal Females”, Archives of Sexual Behavior (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02359-8

Comments Off on No, Women Are NOT Autogynephilic!

Lack of In Utero & Perinatal Testosterone Exposure Leads to Childhood Gender Atypicality in Males

Posted in Brain Sex by Kay Brown on June 5, 2022

In a sad “experiment of nature” in which phenotypically normal appearing males are unable to produce gonadotropin, essentially naturally duplicating the effect of puberty blockers, but experiencing this lack since the beginning of the second trimester in the womb. Most importantly, these males do not experience the so called, “mini-puberty” that occurs perinatally, the time just before birth and the first three months after birth.

Given that we have already seen data from a proxy measure of the level of testosterone production and exposure during this developmentally critical period correlates with later childhood gender typicality / atypicality, (Pasterski 2015) we would predict that these individual would also report having being more gender atypical than control men. That is exactly what we see in the recently published study by Shirazi, et al. The is was especially true of those who had cryptochordia (undescended testicle) at birth, indicating even lower T production in utero. Thus, indicating that T exposure before the birth is also important for brain masculinization.

Demographic Statistics Variable Control (n = 463) IGD-clinical (n = 30) IGD-Web (n = 35)
Mean childhood gender atypicality –0.04 (0.33) 0.24 (0.44) 0.34 (0.59)

Mean sexual orientation (Kinsey 0-6) 0.25 (0.94) 0.31 (0.71) 0.94 (1.48)

Interestingly, the effect sizes were not as large as one might expect. To me, this suggests that fetal gonadotropin levels alone may not truly indicate just how much T is being produced given that the fetal adrenal glands are unaffected. Alternatively, it may be that their are Y chromosome canalization effects that we haven’t discovered and accounted for.

It is odd that given that the earlier Pasterski study concerns the same exact subject, and comes to the same conclusion, it wasn’t referenced by Shirazi.

Further Reading:

Essay on Effect of Mini-Puberty on Childhood Gendered Behavior in Boys

References:

Shirazi, et al., “Low Perinatal Androgens Predict Recalled Childhood Gender Non-Conformity in Men”, Psychological Science (2022) https://doi.org/10.1177%2F09567976211036075

Pasterski, V., et al., “Postnatal penile growth concurrent with mini-puberty predicts later sex-typed play behavior: Evidence for neurobehavioral effects of the postnatal androgen surge in typically developing boys”, Hormones and Behavior (2015)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X15000033#f0005

Comments Off on Lack of In Utero & Perinatal Testosterone Exposure Leads to Childhood Gender Atypicality in Males

Biological Reality! Transsexual Women’s Breasts Are Female Breasts

Posted in Transsexual Field Studies by Kay Brown on May 19, 2022
Kay Brown with her adopted daughter Liz

Yesterday, a post about a transwoman breastfeeding a baby went viral. As one could imagine, transphobic commentators had many nasty, ugly comments to make. However, it also became clear that they were under the misapprehension that transwomen couldn’t breastfeed, “Your male body can’t produce milk!” “You don’t have female breasts.” “Where is the colostrum?” “Where are the lobules?” Why do they object to this knowledge and go into deep denial? Could it be because of their reliance on an ugly propaganda slogan of “biological reality” which they say transsexuals are in denial of… yet, here is something that they claim can’t be done, a true female biological function that can only be performed by women, by only natal female women, that is being done by transwomen. Learning that transwomen can and do perform this uniquely female, womanly function of sharing life giving milk with a baby upsets their world view and their propaganda.

So, sad as the need to explain such basics of mammalian biology to the world is, it must be done, as these ignorant and false assertions from these transphobes proves.

First, it important to understand that each and every gene that a woman has is also found in males. Females have two copies of the X chromosome while males have only one. But they still have that one. Further, many of the genes needed to express female phenotype aren’t even on the X chromosome, they are spread over the various autosomal chromosomes. To get a male, one need the genes on the Y chromosome, most particularly the SRY gene that first tells the proto-gonads to become a testes instead of the default ovary. But after that, nearly all the rest of sexual development is under the control of hormones produced by the testes.

If the body lacks the usual androgen (testosterone) receptor gene(s), even if that body has all the other typical genes and chromosomes for a male, that body develops in a rather typical female pattern. This condition is called 46XY CAIS, complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. They have typical testes in a seemingly typical female body phenotype, and most importantly for our discussion, women’s breasts at puberty.

Breast tissue does not care if there are XX vs. XY chromosomes. Breast tissue, like all secondary sexual characteristics that develop at puberty, are under the influence of sex hormones. Sex hormones can and should be viewed as specialized growth hormones. Various tissues express different sensitivities to the various sex hormones and will grow or not grow depending upon the presence and balance of these specialized growth hormones. In particular, breast tissue responds to estrogen and progesterone and are somewhat suppressed by androgens.

Circling back to transwomen, we note that Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) uses the very same hormones that induce breast tissue development in women. Transwomen have all the genes and breast tissue stem cells needed to develop fully functional FEMALE breast tissue. When a transwoman begins HRT, her breasts respond and begin to develop. After sufficient time, her breasts are histologically identical to adult natal female breasts. That includes the potential for lactation.

A woman does NOT have to have given birth or even have been pregnant to lactate. It certainly helps, given that certain hormones automatically are produced in amounts that prepare the breasts to produce first colostrum then milk, but isn’t an absolute requirement. The key requirement is that of tactile stimulation that a baby’s suckling produces and that once a flow of colostrum is present, that it be drawn out, either by a baby suckling or by manual expression / pump.

If a woman is adopting or working with a gestational surrogate, she may elect to breastfeed her baby by following a regimen of stimulation, expression, and pumping. In some cases, medication may aid in this process.

Many transwomen have produced colostrum due to HRT which in some cases, primes the breasts in the same manner as being pregnant. (I myself have produced colostrum.) If a transwoman is adopting, working with a gestational surrogate, or has a female partner who is expecting a baby, she too may elect to breastfeed her baby in the same manner as would any other non-birthing woman.

The milk produced by a transwoman is identical to milk produced by a natal female. Transwomen have been quietly, successfully, and safely breastfeeding babies for decades. They will continue to do so.

Biological Reality.

Further Reading:

Baby Hunger

References:

de Blok, et al, “Frequency and outcomes of benign breast biopsies in trans women: A nationwide cohort study” The Breast: Official Journal of the European Society of Mastology, (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2021.03.007

Wambolt, R. et al, “Lactation Induction In A Transgender Woman Wanting To Breastfeed: Case Report”, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, (2021), https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa976

Kulski, J., et al, “Composition of breast fluid of a man with galactorrhea and hyperprolactinaemia”, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, (1981), https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem-52-3-581

Breastfeeding Without Giving Birth

Tagged with: , ,

Comments Off on Biological Reality! Transsexual Women’s Breasts Are Female Breasts

Transsexual Kids DO Know

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on May 5, 2022

Having real data trumps ideological assertions. The “ideology” I speak of is that of transphobic individuals who falsely insist that transkids are too young too “know” – to know who they are, to know their hearts, to know what social gender they best fit in as, to know their minds regarding what constitutes their best chances for future happiness and social success. These ideologist don’t actually say this in true sympathy or empathy with transkids. They say it because they don’t want transkids to grow up to be transsexual adults. They don’t want transkids to grow up to be those people. Data trumps this false assertion, this false empathy.

Over the past decades, data about transkids has been growing. One thing that former transkids (those individuals who had been “early onset”, both gender atypical and gender dysphoric before puberty and are now adult transsexuals), have been saying is that they took to social transition, at whatever age they were able, most as teens or early ’20s in the past, given parental and societal opposition, with great relief and ease. Indeed clinicians have long documented this phenomena. They have also pointed out that they would have benefited from social transition at a far younger age to avoid social difficulties growing up. They actively point out that such social transitions would also differentiate those who would be ‘persisters’ from ‘desisters’, that attempting to socially transition, even before their teens, works as a “Real Life Test”, just as is expected of adults. Those that are likely to desist, are not likely to find social transition all that appealing nor will they remain socially transitioned, if they do. We now have the data to back that up.

Dr. Olson’s latest paper in Pediatrics, “Gender Identity 5 Years After Social Transition” followed a large cohort of transkids starting at age three to twelve as part of an ongoing longitudinal study. The paper is available online, NOT behind a paywall, so it is well worth reading for yourself if you wish to follow-up on my explication of it. But before we dive into the data, I need to deal with an unfortunate misuse of language that the authors have chosen to use.

In the transsexual community, the term “retransition” has a specific meaning that the authors of the paper have turned on its head to the opposite meaning in some cases and its proper meaning in others. Specifically, in the transsexual community, the term means one has once again began living as the opposite of their natal sex after having “detransitioned”, reverted back to living as their natal sex, for a period of time. But the authors of the study use the term “retransition” for BOTH situations. The authors made clear they know that they are making this confusing misuse of the established vernacular, but chose to do it anyway. I will not. So, when I am quoting them, I will substitute the proper term {detransition} for clarity by including it in curly brackets to show when they are misusing the term “retransition” in the original text.

Let’s take a look at the abstract by way of introduction of the study and the data,

Abstract
Background and Objectives. Concerns about early childhood social transitions amongst
transgender youth include that these youth may later change their gender identification (i.e.,
{detransition}, a process that could be distressing. The present study aimed to provide the
first estimate of {detransitioning} and to report the current gender identities of youth an
average of 5 years after their initial social transitions.
Methods. The present study examined the rate of {detransition} and current gender identities
of 317 initially-transgender youth (208 transgender girls, 109 transgender boys; M=8.1
years at start of study) participating in a longitudinal study, the Trans Youth Project. Data
were reported by youth and their parents through in-person or online visits or via email or
phone correspondence.
Results. We found that an average of 5 years after their initial social transition, 7.3% of
youth had {detransitioned} at least once. At the end of this period, most youth identified as
binary transgender youth (94%), including 1.3% who {detransitioned} to another identity
before returning to their binary transgender identity. 2.5% of youth identified as cisgender
and 3.5% as nonbinary. Later cisgender identities were more common amongst youth
whose initial social transition occurred before age 6 years; the {detransition} often occurred
before age 10.
Conclusions. These results suggest that {detransitions} are infrequent. More commonly,
transgender youth who socially transitioned at early ages continued to identify that way.
Nonetheless, understanding {detransitions} is crucial for clinicians and families to help make
them as smooth as possible for youth.”

Note that that there are about twice as many MTF transsexual children (“transgender girls”) as FtM transsexuals in the study. This is in keeping with decades of demographic data that show that there are more MTFs than FtM transsexuals. As adults, there are usually so many more “late onset” MTFs than “early onset” such that the ratio is much higher. (Note that I am excluding the recent fad of large numbers of girls and young women falsely claiming a “trans” or “non-binary” identity.)

Note also that of those who detransitioned / desisted, they did so before age 10.

“All but one of the 8 cisgender youth had {detransitioned} by age 9 (the last {detransitioned} at 11)”

This is in keeping with earlier data that showed that desisters always did so before puberty and the age of seven to ten was critical in this process. While persisters reported that the ages of ten to thirteen saw that their gender dysphoria increased and cemented their transsexual (cross-sex) gender identity. Note that of this cohort who had attempted social transition, only 2.5% of them had truly desisted. That is to say, pre-pubertal social transition was overwhelmingly comprised of persisters. The “Real Life Test” works as was predicted years ago, as the study authors also suggest, in a typical “science speak” way,

“It is possible that some youth initially try socially transitioning and then change their minds quickly. Such youth would be unlikely to be enrolled in this study because their eligibility period would have been quite short and therefore the odds of finding the study and completing it would have been low. This means the children in our study may have been especially unlikely, compared to all children who transition, to {detransition} because they had already lived – and presumably been fairly content – with that initial transition for more than a year.”

Further Reading:

Desisting vs Persisting in Gender Atypical Children

Transkids Transition Because They ARE Transkids

Reference:

Olson, K., et al, “”Gender Identity 5 Years After Social Transition”, Pediatrics (2022), 10.1542/peds.2021-056082

Tagged with: ,

Comments Off on Transsexual Kids DO Know

The Truth About Blanchard And The Two Type Transexual Taxonomy

Posted in Editorial by Kay Brown on April 14, 2022

Many transsexuals claim that Dr. Ray Blanchard is a “hack” and his “theories” are full of holes. So lets tell the truth about Blanchard and others who have studied the Two Type Transsexual Taxonomy.

First, the association of Dr. Blanchard with the taxonomy has given rise to a common, yet very misleading, myth that he made up the whole story about the two types, autogynephilic (AGP-TS) and homosexual transsexuals (HSTS). He did not. He was not the one that discovered that there were two (and only two) types of Male-To-Female transsexuals. That was well known for decades before he entered the field and openly discussed and debated in scientific and clinical circles for several decades.

So why is his name associated with the taxonomy when others, who actually did discover it, are not?

Because his nomenclature for the two types are now the most widely accepted in sexology papers. Before him, several competing naming conventions were used. Why did his nomenclature become the most accepted? It’s because it was the most explanatory. The other labels tended to rely on very narrow behaviors that were not exhibited by all of the given type.

Why do transsexuals and transgender people get so upset by the taxonomy? And why do they focus on Blanchard and not the earlier clinicians and scientists? And why do they attempt to blacken his name, his character?

One hint is the popular terms, often used as slurs, to describe the taxonomy, and those who study the taxonomy and attempt to educate the transsexual and transgender communities about it, “Blanchardianism” and “Blanchardianist”. It has a similar valence and usage as “Darwinism” and “Darwinist” as used by religious creationists who attempt to deny the science of evolution by using the labels and then attempting to refute the science by attempting to poke holes in Darwin’s original work or his character, ignoring the on-going research. Like the anti-“Darwinists”, the anti-“Blarchardianists” ignore the thousands of scientists that have labored in those fields and have shown that both are very well supported by the evidence. But dissing a single individual, as though doing so somehow refutes the science attached, is a logical fallacy that just won’t die.

As well as being fallacious to attack a single individual, Blanchard is not the “hack” or “joke” that these science denialists attempt to paint him. In fact, if we check his scientific production, it is one that many scientists would envy. A quick visit to Google Scholar shows he has published over two hundred peer reviewed science papers garnering over fourteen thousand (14,000) citations by other papers, with an h-index (a widely accepted metric of scientific or academic impact) of 71 (as of this writing – likely to go up in the future). This is not the profile of a “hack” or a “joke”, but that of a very well regarded scientist.

Why do AGP transsexuals get so upset with the science? Why are they so upset with the nomenclature that Blanchard coined? Its not that is wrong, but that it is too right. Dr. Alice Dreger explains it best,

There’s a critical difference between autogynephilia and most other sexual orientations; Most other orientations aren’t erotically disrupted simply by being labeled.  When you call a typical gay man homosexual, you’re not disturbing his sexual hopes and desires.  By contrast, autogynephilia is perhaps best understood as a love that would really rather we didn’t speak its name.  The ultimate eroticism of autogynephilia lies in the idea of really becoming or being a woman, not in being a natal male who desires to be a woman. … The erotic fantasy is to really be a woman.  Indeed, according to a vision of transsexualism common among those transitioning from lives as privileged straight men to trans women, sex reassignment procedures are restorative rather than transformative… 

Further Reading:

Google Scholar Profile of Ray Blanchard

Essay on Pre-Blanchard discussion on transsexual taxonomy

Essay Proving the Two Type Taxonomy

Silly Objections to the Two Type Taxonomy

Comments Off on The Truth About Blanchard And The Two Type Transexual Taxonomy