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

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.

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…