The Truth About Blanchard And The Two Type Transexual Taxonomy
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
Male Androphilia Runs In Both Father’s and Mother’s Families
Male homosexuality has long been known to have a very high consanguinity, that is, gay men and homosexual transsexuals are both very likely to have male relatives who are also either gay or homosexual transsexual. There has been some question as whether it ‘runs in the family’ or not and if so, on the mother’s or the father’s side. Well, that question has been answered. It can be either or both.
Earlier, some studies have shown that there is an X chromosome linkage which would only be passed down from the mother. (A male child can only get an X chromosome from their mother, their Y chromosome partner, causing them to be male, always comes from their father.
But two studies of androphilic males in Somoa and Mexico, demonstrate conclusively, that not only does it run in families, it does so on both sides of the family. Further, the Mexican study, involving Muxe that are both trans and gay male, show that this family linkage is the same linkage for both. That is to say, it provides additional indication that homosexual transsexuals are a subset of more traditional homosexual males, not a different etiological taxon.
This last point will not be popular with the “all transsexuals” are the same and are NOT related to gay men. Sorry Virginia, that’s not what the science tells us.
From the Mexican study,
Overall, muxes were characterized by significantly more muxe relatives than gynephilic men. This familial patterning was equivalent in both the paternal and maternal lines of muxes. The population prevalence rate of male androphilia was estimated to fall between 3.37–6.02% in the Istmo Zapotec
And from the Samoan study,
Samoan fa’afafine had significantly more fa’afafine relatives in their maternal and paternal lines compared to Samoan gynephilic males. The prevalence of male androphilia was equivalent across both the paternal and maternal lines. The revised prevalence estimate of male androphilia in Samoa falls between 0.61% and 3.51%.
It should be noted that the fa’afafine are only the trans type, thus the smaller prevalence number, since they don’t include the non-trans type of androphilic male.
A key point to this is that HSTS transwomen are much more likely to have another HSTS transwoman or gay male relative than either a non-trans man or an autogynephilic transwoman would. Another bit of evidence that there are two (and only two) types of MTF transsexuals.
Further Reading:
References:
Gomez, et al, “Familial patterning and prevalence of male androphilia among Istmo Zapotec men and muxes“, PLOS ONE, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192683
Semanya, et al, “Familial Patterning and Prevalence of Male Androphilia in Samoa”, Journal of Sex Research, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1218416
Comments Off on Male Androphilia Runs In Both Father’s and Mother’s Families
On the Science of Changing Sex 
Comments Off on The Truth About Blanchard And The Two Type Transexual Taxonomy