Skip to main content

vision problems?

If ever there was a complete misnomer in the Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence lexicon it’s the term “target location error”. It makes me think of a coke bottle glasses wearing duck hunter bagging a moose and thinking he got his prey.

Gynephilic gender dysphorics have absolutely no confusion about their target.

For example I find N beautiful and very appealing sexually and yet I cannot orgasm with her without putting myself mentally in the role of the female. This is my gender dysphoria at work.

I had to do the same thing when I was trying to help conceive my children with my ex-wife.

As I have stated here before, the brain’s desire for taking the identity of a female competes directly with the desire to make love with a woman. The best way I can describe this phenomenon is crossed wiring.

Target location error gives the impression you are too stupid to know what role you should take.

The funny thing is that that read the entire published catalogue from this group but you will not find a single explanation for what causes this term of theirs. I have been looking for an actual credible explanation all my life.

Now you see why I keep calling it pseudoscience.

As a sidenote I saw an excerpt from an Oprah Winfrey show where the topic was intersex people and of course there was Alice Dreger. What I found interesting was that towards the end of the show Oprah adressess Dreger and asks for a distinction between that and being transgender. Dreger correctly states that the main distinction is biological versus mental to which Oprah responds that we should respect all people no matter what their actual or perceived gender identity and Dreger responds "absolutely".

This is all good for touchy feely afternoon television of course but Dreger wouldn't dare address her support of Blanchard's ideas in such a venue where I bet you'd get more than a few furled brows.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

prejudice disguised as objective rectitude

So here is Professor Jordan Peterson perhaps justly calling out the excesses of political correctness gone mad. But then he extends it to not indulging transgender people the basic dignity of being addressed in their preferred pronoun. To do so for him would cost nothing and to stand on literal principle seems to serve little use other than to send a message of disdain.

If you have transitioned or even live as the opposite gender is costs me nothing to address you in your preferred pronouns. What difference does it make to me and what am I trying to tell you when I don't?

Peterson wants to stand on his rights to call reality what it is except that in this case the exact objective escapes me. But of course the right wing Federalist is in love with him because he calls a spade a spade.

If I see a rock I can call it that but then the rock doesn’t have any feelings. To address a transgender woman "her" and "she" is not undermining my rights as a person in any way b…

"Oh please its 2016!"

I have mentioned before that I have a lovely young couple living above the unit next to mine. Well the other day as I was getting in the door, she and I overlapped for the first time with me dressed as a woman.

We had a nice conversation and at some point I mentioned the obvious which was that I had told her future husband that they might see me in a different guise from time to time so they wouldn't wonder about who the strange woman was. She just looked at me almost rolling her eyes while smiling from ear to ear and said:

"Oh Please it's 2016!"

For the record she was also very complementary regarding my choice of attire.

I could care less at this point in my life what people think but it is still lovely to see the millennial generation's freedom of spirit and acceptance so lacking in previous generations. Yes they have their own foibles, as does every generation, but this area certainly isn't one of them.

the pseudoscience behind gender dysphoria

The real science as to what causes gender dysphoria still awaits.

Harry Benjamin was on to something except he didn’t have the scientific evidence to back up his suspicions hence, like a true scientist, he negated to draw conclusions. His hunch, based on treating so many patients over his lifetime, was that one is born with a predisposition to be gender dysphoric.

However, with inconclusive brain scans and no DNA marker (as of yet) we are left with believing the word of people who need help and only want to lead happy and productive lives.

The best we have been able to muster since Benjamin's death in 1986 was to amass statistics on who gets a boner imagining themselves as a woman which is in equal parts pathetic and disappointing. For this is not really science at all but is instead playing with interview data that doesn't point to anything definitive or conclusive. I have dealt with this problem at great length in my blog.

The whole thing started with Kurt Freund's obses…