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

Essay Proving the Two Type Taxonomy

Silly Objections to the Two Type Taxonomy