Skip to main content

going down with the ship

Regardless of whether you believe in the two type model of transsexualism or not (which for the record I don't) you must admit that there used to be some pretty heavy-handed stereotyping going on to substantiate it.

Homosexual transsexuals were supposed to have lower IQs, be exclusively attracted to men and tended to come from lower income backgrounds. Gynephilic transsexuals were supposedly more likely to come from scientific backgrounds (engineering, etc.), be exclusively attracted to women or be asexual as well as being prone to fetishism.

Now I have already given examples here of transitioners who completely break that model and in fact the whole thing reaks of the kind of bias that was rampant around the period that Blanchard was cooking up his pseudoscientific baloney. Since then we have seen gynephilics start to transition much sooner and note that transitioned people cover every possible profession that exists. In fact there is literally nothing left to substantiate this false hypothesis which was far easier to propagate when most transgender people were still deep in the closet and stealth transitions were the order of the day.

Let us also not forget that orientation can be impacted post-transition. Therefore someone who might have thought themselves heterosexual (ie. for male to female attracted to women) or asexual prior to transition would find that their orientation had realigned itself post-transition so that they became ostensibly a heterosexual woman.

Still, Blanchard acolytes Lawrence, Bailey, Cantor, Dreger et al. have attached their sails to a sinking ship and they’re riding it till the end mostly because reversing course would be embarrassing most especially in academic circles where this is not seen so favorably; all the more when so much ink and reputation has been dedicated to building your case.

Except that with each passing day their insistence only makes things worse for them and that ship continues to sink a little further.


Comments

  1. More evidence that the hypothesis is not scientific. Scientists understand they need to revise hypotheses when evidence begins to falsify them. That's one of the fundamental ideas of science.

    So silly. Stephen Hawking did not lose face or credibility by acknowledging he was wrong about one of his theories. He gained it. It's what you're supposed to do. If all you're searching for is truth.

    Big if, I guess.

    ReplyDelete

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 …