Did you hear the one about…

Or, Silly Objections

I’ve read and heard so many beyond silly objections to the Two Type Taxonomy of transsexual & transgender etiology that I thought I would start memorializing them. These are all actual objections I’ve heard from transwomen who are in denial of the science. This will be an ongoing post, with updates occurring as I feel like writing, so I won’t be dating the addenda as is my usual custom.  I will be adding more as I hear or remember more such silliness.  Of course, many of these objections have been thoroughly addressed and laid to rest here in my over one hundred essays to date.  Consider finding them on your own as an easter egg hunt by searching / reading all of my blog essays.

Or, better yet, randomly assign them to squares on a card then each time you see one of these objections voiced in the transgender community mark your card, and be sure to invite your friends to play Silly Objections Bingo!

If, as you read them you notice a pattern of contradictions, you are right.  This demonstrates that their objections are invalid.  The only thing that they agree on is their anger and denial about the easily observed two type taxonomy and of the role that autogynephilia plays in the development of one of them.

“My sarcastic decision tree graph lampooning the taxonomy proves it is bunk” (No it only proves you don’t understand it.)

“My forty minute youtube rant proves that autogynephilia is bunk!”

“Autogynephilia can’t be the reason late transitioners transition because HRT would reduce their libido and they would lose interest in transition.” (Interestingly, that does happen to a very small minority of them)

“Autogynephilia is just an effect of gender dysphoria.” (Reversing the arrow of causation)

“Autogynephilia is just an effect of being transgender and attracted to women while living in a male body.”

“Autogynephilia isn’t a thing.  Its just sexual expression on the wrong hormones.” (Yet, fully 50% of gynephilic transwomen report extensive autogynephilic arousal even years after HRT and SRS.)

“Autogynephilia isn’t a thing.  Its just a word with ‘-philia’ at the end coined to sound like a perversion.”

“That’s not autogynephilia, that’s GENDER EUPHORIA!  It’s natural to have erections when one is happy.”

“Yes, I get erections when I dress in women’s clothes, but they are just involuntary.” (Ahem… that’s the point.)

“Early transitioners don’t have autogynephilia because they got to transition before their gender dysphoria got so bad like mine did.”

“Early transitioners didn’t express autogynephilia because they started HRT (or puberty blockers) before they developed erections.” (–ahem… no!–)

“No one would turn their life upside down for a sexual fetish!”

“Autogynephilia only occurs in cross-dressers, not transsexuals.”

“There can’t be two kinds of transsexuals, because nobody uses the word ‘transsexual’ anymore.”

“Autogynephilia doesn’t exist; fetishistic cross-dressers are literally getting off on the clothes themselves.”

“Women are autogynephilic too! It’s just normal female sexuality.  They are just ‘female embodiment fantasies’ ” (ahem… women don’t get off just because they are female…)

“Of course late transitioners are more masculine than early transitioners, it’s because they are lesbian.” (The difference being that lesbians aren’t autogynephilic, see above)

“Gynephilic MTF transsexuals are just like lesbians except they suffered from ‘male socialization’ before transition” (The difference being that lesbians aren’t autogynephilic, see above)

“Autogynephilia is not a thing. Flat out. Period!”

“The Two Type Taxonomy is bunk… and you’re an AGP too because you’re smart!” (You can’t have it both ways.)

“Straight (androphilic) transwomen are autogynephilic too!”

“Pseudo-androphilia does not exist.”  (despite many AGP-TS describing it in themselves)

“There can’t be two types because sexual orientation and gender identity aren’t related.”

“One of the biggest problems with Blanchard’s hypotheses is that they only work if heterosexuals exist, which to the best of my knowledge has never been proven”

“Straight (androphilic) transwomen just transition earlier because they need to date men.”

“There’s a part of the brain that proves that (all) transsexuals have female brains.”

“Brain research shows that (all) transsexual brains are intersexed.” (No, the research only shows that ONE of the two taxons can be described as such.)

“The existence of intersex people proves that transsexuals are ‘real’.”

“I would have transitioned as a teenager too if I had known I could.”

“I would have transitioned early but society wouldn’t let me.”

“All transsexuals are the same.  Some just transition at different times.”

“I was feminine when I was young too but hid it from everyone.”

“I have known I was transgender since I was seven years old… so I can’t be autogynephilic.”

“This theory is wrong because my narrative doesn’t fit your description of either type.” (science isn’t interested in what you SAY, only in what you DO)

“Not ALL transwomen fit the two types!” (the data says otherwise)

“I’m 90% HSTS and only 10% AGP” (Its taxonic, one or the other, its like being pregnant, no one is 10% pregnant.)

“Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence, and everybody else that support this are just transphobic.”

“Only cultist believe in AGP and HSTS because it “sounds right”. It’s a trap not much different from what cult leaders use.”

“The concept of autogynephilia was invented by transphobes to make us appear to not be real.”

“That’s just TERF propaganda.”

“That theory is sexist!”

“They (supporters of the two type taxonomy) are just confusing correlation with causation.” (ignoring that causation REQUIRES correlation)

“You can’t use Bradford Hill’s criteria, that’s only for epidemiology, not psychology”. (ignoring the existence of psychiatric epidemiology, including a book by that title)

“That theory is so out of date.” (Theories can be disproven but they don’t simply get old and die.)

“… forty year old crank theory…”  (See above)

“That article was written in 2017, long enough for it to be accepted as widely accepted as science, and yet…”  (–ahem… actually it has been, by actual scientists..  See above.)

“You just won’t accept that the theory has changed.”  (w/o citation… and.. No, it hasn’t)

“The researchers conducting all those studies weren’t objective” (Ignoring that data doesn’t care what the researchers think.)

“Autogynephilia? Blanchard just made that up.” (No, but he did NAME it.)

“Blanchard is over simplifying.”

“Blanchard is a sexual predator and a chaser” (No, Blanchard is gay and gay men are never chasers, and wouldn’t effect the validity of the science in any case.)

“Blanchard and Bailey are full of shit.” (without explaining how)

“Blanchard is a joke in scientific circles” (really?  A scientist whose papers have been cited by over 14,000 other papers?)

“Blanchard recanted and withdrew all support for the theory.”  (No, he did not.)

“No one in the psychology / psychiatry field supports that.  It’s not in the DSM.”  (-ahem- yes it is)

“There’s no proof.  It’s only a theory.  That data has never been replicated.” (ignoring the over half-dozen referenced peer reviewed papers with data from over a thousand subjects)

“That essay is just anecdotal.”  (see above)

“It’s just a theory mired in misogyny”  (misusing the word “theory” and misrepresenting it as well)

“I have a list of androphilic transwomen who were first born so the Fraternal Birth Order Effect is wrong!”  (Ahem, the FBOE is a population level effect, not an individual universal one)

“That data is fraudulent! (pointing to a peer reviewed paper published by well established clinicians that have helped hundreds of transfolk to transition)

“Psychoanalysis is fake.”  (Yes, that was not science… but the two type taxonomy has NOTHING to do w/ psychoanalysis.  Thus this is literally a strawman / red herring.)

“That theory is pseudo-science.”

“AGP is junk science.”

“That hypothesis is unfalsifiable so it is pseudo-scientific bullshit!” (ignoring the fact that autogynephilia and sexual orientation are directly observable behaviors)

“Oh, I get it!  You’re just like an anti-vaxxer into fringe theories.”

“You are a conspiracy theorist!”

“You’re an idiot!”

“You guys are just a bunch of flat-earthers!”

“Wow, it’s like hacks can’t cite other hacks or something.  I bet flat earthers can cite each other as ‘credible sources’ “

“This is just bringing back phrenology!”

“Blanchard is calling older transitioners that don’t report arousal to cross-dressing lairs.  That’s unscientific!” (actually, lying to researchers about one’s intimate sexual life is well known)

“Blanchardianists claim that androphilic transwomen are just gay men who want sex with straight men… that’s transphobic!”  (No, that’s NOT what the theory says.  This is a strawman.)

“Blanchard says that androphilic transwomen are just confused homosexuals”  (No. See above.)

“That theory has been debunked by scientists.”  (without citation – and no it hasn’t)

“There’s no diagnostic clinical data” (ignoring multiple studies from gender clinics)

“But the Nuttbrock paper said…” (ignoring the actual Nuttbrock data which does not agree with their claim)

“Oh that stuff, that was so ’90s, but there was never any empirical evidence.” (ignoring copious studies w/ empirical evidence)

“That paper is fake, Dr. Meltzer is a friend of the community; he would never have given Lawrence access to his patients.” (unaware that Meltzer and Lawrence are friends)

“Well, I won’t accept it until there is research by someone other than… (fill in the blank, perhaps with Lawrence, Bailey, Cantor, Smith, Nuttbrock, or anybody else who has already done papers that show evidentiary support for the two type taxonomy)”

“Well, I won’t accept it until that paper is peer reviewed by someone other than… (fill in the blank, perhaps with Lawrence, Bailey, Cantor, or anybody else who has already done papers that show evidentiary support for the two type taxonomy)”

“She (me) didn’t cite any references in her FAQ. (ignoring the copious citations in the over 200 essays in this blog and the bibliography.)

“Well, I won’t accept it until I see… (impossibly difficult data to get).”

“It’s unethical for cisgender people to research us.  Only we should be allowed to do so.” (Science doesn’t work that way and also ignores that multiple transfolk have researched this and found evidence supporting the two type taxonomy.)

“We shouldn’t do the science because it will hurt the community!” (Classic logical fallacy of ‘argument to consequences’)

“We shouldn’t talk about this openly until we have won all of our political goals. (See above.)

“This sh!t is just made up to divide the community.”

“Nobody who is transsexual accepts this theory.” (…ahem…)

“You only support that because you want people to think you are one of the ‘good kind’ of transsexual.” (Projecting their own autogynephilic value system that having been naturally gender atypical since birth is “better”, combined with anger & jealously because of it.  No, HSTS do NOT share that belief.)

“Straight (androphilic) transsexuals all think they are better than us!” (See above)

“She (me) is truscum!” (If you mean that I differentiate those with gender dysphoria from those that don’t, guilty as charged)

“You just dress up your low self-esteem as science!” (Yep, I’ve personally controlled all the science papers published in the last 100 years to make myself feel better.)

“That means that you are just a weak gay man who pretends to be woman to have sex with straight men?!?” (snarky strawmen won’t move me)

“You are just spouting patriarchal bull shit!”

“This is just ‘True Transsexual’ bull shit!”

“You just hate older transitioners!”

“You have an agenda!!” (yes, a search for knowledge)

“The tone of your essays…”

“I’m not reading anything on WordPress.”

“So what if you wrote a book?”

“What makes YOU such an expert?”

“Your statistical analysis wouldn’t pass muster in a freshman science class” (First, this blog is for a lay audience, 2nd, I cite actual data from peer reviewed science papers that include said statistics, third, if you want to evaluate the data yourself, you are welcome to do so.)

“This theory completely ignores the existence of transmen!” (No, they also show signs of having two types.)

“This massively ignores bi/pan folk.  How do you explain away them?” (No, it doesn’t.  They are ‘non-homosexual’ and the data shows that they are autogynephilic.)

“This theory doesn’t explain all of the other non-binary gender identities.” (ahem… actually it does – an “identity” is not an etiological taxon)

“There are hundreds of different types.” (failing to provide evidence of such as actual etiological taxons – see above)

Advertisement