I have always also wondered whether Ms. Brown does not see the irony that despite her own oft-trumpeted early transition, her own history does not seem to fit the assertion that androphilics aren’t supposed to be scientific types. In fact, my overlap with a well-known gender therapist in Montreal as well as with the endocrinologist Dr. Morris is that most of their patients with scientific backgrounds are gynephilic types (or at least start out that way). Read Michael Bailey’s dumbed down version of Blanchard and all androphilics are portrayed in misogynistic fashion as either prostitutes, secretaries or pole dancers.
The reality is that many of these patients may not really know their true sexuality (possibly through suppression) and I have been informed that many reverse course and end up marrying men which would not be so farfetched. So, putting male to female transgender people into two perfectly neat little boxes of androphilic and gynephilic is a simplistic and outdated cop out.
I am also fascinated by the insistence that Ms. Brown uses on her site leading me to think (and I will use some basic psychology here) that the more one protests, the more one is perturbed that they may not be who they are selling themselves to be. Sometimes the best way to try and convince yourself of something is to argue very emphatically in repeated succession; a strategy I once employed to convince myself I wasn’t really trans and could repair myself.
Anyone with a half logical mind knows that any theory that cannot be conclusively either proven or disproven is not really science but that didn’t stop Blanchard from making up a word to make it seem like he was on to something major.
Kudos to Silly Ol' You.