On the Science of Changing Sex

Did you hear the one about…

Posted in Transsexual Field Studies by Kay Brown on January 29, 2017

female_scientistOr, Silly Objections

I’ve read and heard so many beyond silly objections to the Two Type Taxonomy of transgender etiology that I thought I would start memorializing them.  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 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.”

“Autogynephilia is just an effect of gender dysphoria.”

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

“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.”

“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…)

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

“Straight (androphilic) transwomen are autogynephilic too!”

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

“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.”

“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.”

“Not ALL transwomen fit the two types!”

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

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

“That theory is sexist!”

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

“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.)

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

“Blanchard is over simplifying.”

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

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

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

“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)

“That theory is pseudo-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 guys are just a bunch of flat-earthers!”

“Blanchard is calling older transitioners that don’t report arousal to cross-dressing lairs.  That’s unscientific!”

“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.)

“That theory has been debunked by scientists.”  (without citation)

“But the Nuttbrock paper said…” (ignoring the actual Nuttbrock data)

“Oh that stuff, that was so ’90s, but there was never any empirical evidence.”

“That paper is fake, Dr. Meltzer is a friend of the community; he would never have given Lawrence access to his patients.”

“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 100 essays in this blog)

“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.”

“We shouldn’t do the science because it will hurt the community!”

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

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

“We shouldn’t talk about this openly until we have won all of our political goals.”

“You only support that because you want people to think you are one of the ‘good kind’ of transsexual.”

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

“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!!”

“The tone of your essays…”

“This theory completely ignores the existence of transmen!”

“This theory doesn’t explain all of the other non-binary gender identities.” (ahem… actually it does)

 

Advertisements
Tagged with:

Comments Off on Did you hear the one about…

%d bloggers like this: