Skip to main content

the model breaks down under examination

The old simplistic two-typology transsexual model proposed by Ray Blanchard falls apart under the close scrutiny and I will provide you with 4 very concrete and well-known examples to illustrate this: Kimberly Reed, Zagria, Gigi Gorgeous and Lynn Conway.

For those of you not familiar, the model works roughly like this:

Autogynephilic (woman and/or self-loving)/Androphilic (man-loving)
Not-feminine in childhood/Feminine in childhood
Late-transitioning / Early-transitioning

Now let's examine each case:

Lynn Conway was a patient of Harry Benjamin’s who fathered children before transitioning and eventually marrying her current husband. She is an outspoken critic of the Blanchard work and is a tireless defender of transgender rights. But which typology was she?

Kimberly Reed is a feminine and beautiful woman who transitioned in college, was an all-star high school quarterback and has a female life partner. Hence relatively early transition, gynephilic and not obviously feminine in childhood.

Gigi Gorgeous was a self-proclaimed and very effeminate gay male who then transitioned early as expected but then became a lesbian?

Zagria was a late transitioning gay male who was refused treatment at Blanchard's CAMH because she wasn't supposed to exist. Late transitioning androphilics are not allowed in the model.

Blanchard’s old fall back position would have been to accuse these people of lying when their narrative didn’t fit a model which, in retrospect, didn't turn out to be so accurate after all.

I suspect it's because real life doesn't lie.

Comments

  1. Late? A matter of perspective I suppose. I have written about others who were much older. I think of myself as a medium age transition.

    Let us be clear. I completed transition at a younger age than Charlotte Goiar did!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Zagria point taken. Of course you are right that late is a relative term lol. My point was that you didn't do it at 20 years of age and that Blanchard made a gross oversimplification by generalizing to two types....

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've read Blanchards work and I don't ever think I read anything about absolutes, he never said that the "homosexual transsexual" *never* transitions late.

    I don't understand how the other cases are "proof".

    Gigi Gorgeous girlfriend looks and dresses like a man, and is rich.

    Blanchard never said autogynephiles couldn't transition early, such as Kimberly Reed

    From what I know Lynn Conway is a self-admitted autogynephile which she later denies post Baileys book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bailey's book is not the least bit scientific and there is no proof for Autogynephilia actually existing as a made up cause for transitions in male to female gynephilics. The only thing we know for sure is that gender dysphoria exists and so does cross gender arousal and we cannot explain either. Blanchard couldn't do better homework because he was in a subject that we still don't comprehend...

      Delete
    2. I never said Baileys book was scientific, not even Bailey says it's scientific, but more a presentation of popular science according to him.

      You didn't really respond to why these cases are proof that Blanchard is wrong.

      Delete
    3. I just explained it clearly. He cannot be proven wrong or right because his half baked theory is not provable. There is no scientific basis that his made up condition drives people to transition. Look at it this way: cross gender arousal exists and so does dysphoria end of story. To go further than that is ludicrous because that would be wishful thinking. Even Blanchard admitted his work was just a theory because he was just smart enough to know that he had reached a dead end..

      Delete
    4. But you just tried to disprove him with these 4 cases, that you say don't fit into his narrative, and my question was how don't they? They do all seem to fit into his narrative.

      To my knowledge Blanchard still stands behinds his theory, and obviously he thinks it's a theory because it is.

      Delete
    5. I don't need to disprove him just to show those people who think this is solid science that it is not. The onus is on the person proposing a theory to come up with the goods and Blanchard hasn't. Giving something a technical sounding name doesn't make it any more valid.

      But in the end I am not bothered by Blanchard just by those who stand behind his work to use it to denigrate transgender people.

      I think that you should believe what you like because nothing I say is going to convince you anyway.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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…

looking past cross gender arousal

Jack’s latest Crossdreamers post got me thinking about cross gender arousal and how it could be avoided; also whether it even matters. This with particular focus on the inability to relate of someone on the outside looking in.

You see, sexuality is a very complicated thing to begin with and when you then add gender identity ambiguity it becomes a recipe to really confuse someone.

So imagine that you are a little boy who identifies as a girl but then along comes puberty and short circuits everything by having the sex you identify with also be the sex you are attracted to. For in essence this is what happens to all all male to female gender dysphoric trans persons who are attracted to women.

So I ask myself: can I imagine a scenario where this inherent contradiction would not produce sexual confusion? The answer is that I cannot.

I am in the unique position, like many of you, to have experienced an early identification with the feminine become sexualized later on. This brought confusion…

understanding the erotic component

I have written about crossed wires before in two separate posts. The idea is that one cannot pass through puberty and the development of sexual feelings for females and not have your pre-existing gender dysphoria be impacted through your psychosexual development. The hormone responsible for your libido is testosterone which is present in much stronger concentration in males and is why gynephilics are most likely to experience erotic overtones as the conflict between romantic external feelings and their pull towards the feminine become permanently intertwined.

Because I came from a deeply religious family where sex was not discussed much at all, I grew up with little access to information and was very much ignorant of matters relating to the subject. With no firsthand experience in intercourse until I married I was then faced with the reality that my ability to perform sexually had been deeply impacted by my dysphoric feelings. This began years of turmoil and self-deprecating thoughts …