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
    6. This is not a rebuttal to Blanchard in Any manner and while a sociological study can never "prove" a theory , years of dedicated study certainly give the theory a level of legitimacy that cannot be rebutted by taking issue with the fact that he used what you deem fancy scientific words, nor can you renounce his work because of how some may choose to use it to the detriment of others. What convinces me that autogynephiles do exist is the fact that many transgendered folks accept his findings as accurately describing their own experience/psychology - it seems that u just don't like the theory, accurate or not because of the implications -well that's the way science goes

      Delete
    7. I don't think you understand the problem anonymous. We accept the fact that there is cross gender arousal and this is where many transgender people get confused. The problem is that AGP proposes that we transition due to the arousal and not in spite of it. Many trans folk do not read his work properly and this is their misstep. Blanchard wants to prove that it is a sexual deviancy and nothing more. Please read his work carefully...then get back to me

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Language matters

One transgender woman's take on AGP

Arousal and what it means