You see, there is a sticking point: science takes not only rigor, but it also requires repeatable and irrefutable experimental results. I should know because I am trained both as a physicist and engineer. No matter how much people like Kay Brown (who oddly likes her not so flattering diagnosis in the Bailey book) insist, Autogynephilia is not a proveable condition therefore it is not a real thing. In other words, it is not science until it passes inspection as such. Hence it is a theory until proven otherwise.
At the risk of being a broken record, cross gender arousal is irrefutably a part of the gynephilic transgender person’s experience but proving that we transition because of this arousal is the unfortunate tricky part. This is what AGP theory wants to prove but cannot.
The other fly in the ointment for Ms. Brown is the penchant of Blanchard of breaking with scientific practice and accusing patients of lying when their narrative didn’t fit the predetermined conclusion (I must have missed that part in science class). If they told Blanchard they wanted to be a girl since age 3, the trap door opened, and they went through it: fail.
Kay Brown lost credibility in the transgender community a long time ago (some odd and erratic behavior didn't help) and so for that matter has Anne Lawrence. Apparently, she is willing to also lose it on the scientific front as well since the BBL school fails the most basic principles of science. Anyone who has read Michael Bailey’s awful book will understand what I mean. If after doing so you are still willing to call it science, you don’t know what that word means.
Please try again, as I love science well enough only I can't find any here.