What did he mean by this?

>>8124077
He means our movement got hijacked by virtue signalers who focus on manufacturing outrage instead of actually helping us.
Also he might want his dick sucked idk.

>>8124161
you no longer need help fuck off

>>8124077
he means he wants this board to be renamed to /tttt/ and also used as a trans education tool
[spoiler]i wonder if blanchard-bailey-lawrence really are aware of this place, they're aware of stuff like saotome-westlake's blog that has a much lower readership than /tttt/[/spoiler]

>>8124077
probably something hackish and dull as a bid to stay relevant due to his work being discredited and mocked by all but a bunch of self flagellating cultists and old men

>>8124188

people say his work is discredited but I've never seen evidence of that. just because it's a theory on transgendereds from the 70's doesn't mean it's automatically bad.

>>8124077
He means they push politically correct untruths that harm the people they're spoken in the names of.

He means "I was proven wrong and instead of being a big boy and admitting I wasn't right I will throw a 20 year-long temper tantrum consisting of attacking one of the most vulnerable minority groups in the world. I am human garbage and if there is a hell that is directly where I'm headed."

File: 1492081841052.jpg (18KB, 590x81px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 590x81px

>>8124375

Hmm...you say that's the case but then how do you explain this?

>>8124375
t. triggered

>>8124397
Just the same bullshit logic he's been using for years.
>Your bisexuality is real but it also isn't real because trans

>>8124397
more faux intellectual 'i'm actually right you're wrong' tantrum bullshit? i think Blanchard is a quasi- or pseudopsychiatrist at best

File: Blanchard.png (765KB, 602x595px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 602x595px

This must be the tranny's fault

>>8124467
There's nothing sadder than an old person with a Twitter account.

>>8124482
orly?

>tfw not cis

https://mobile.twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/850062653192056832

>>8124531

>Blanchard loves Blaire White vids

For someone so prepared to shit on transgender rights he sure loves to pick the right trannys to get the job done.

>>8124415
This, Blanchard the old fuck seriously needs to die soon, naturally or non.

>>8124640
Hmm, at what age do people become too old to continue working on their theories? Ray's 71 now.

>>8124531
>video blogger

>>8124077
He means people are individuals and each have different wants and needs therefore it makes little sense that the "lgbt community" get portrayed as some form of hivemind that all want the exact same thing. Which is hilarious because you see signs that say "LGBT for Islam". Anyone who identifies with the lgbt community is doing themselves a disservice because you'll be used as a political tool until you're no longer needed.

>>8124077
The idea that all "lgbt" are actively involved in and represented by a community is demonstrably false. So that may be what he meant.

>>8124684

this.

"LGBT" is a political entity now. it's a deliberate cordoning of a voting block that consists of people that may or may not have anything to do with one another in order to increase lobby potential and voting power.

to assume everyone in the LGBT community has homogeneous interests and ideals is a fallacy. the presence of numerous general threads on this board is one proof of that. however it was useful to divide and conquer in the typical pattern of "us vs them" strategies in bipartisan politics seen in the U.S.

said strategy worked short-term back when the GOP were solely right-wing conservative Christians, but now that the U.S. parties are collectively shitting themselves and leftist rhetoric has gotten completely riddled with absurdity, that structure is breaking down. for the better, i might add.

>>8124482
It's not sad, it's cute.
You call it sad to make yourself feel better about your pathetic life.

He meant that we must take our movement back from the cishets and the "queers" and the allies, and that we should expel everything that is not lgbt.

File: 7183700cd17ebc7bfeb51f791c924009cd20ab1c.jpg (69KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x400px

>>8126520
>we should expel everything that is not lgbt
Some kind of final solution.

>>8126520
14/69

>>8125581
why is this for the better?

File: IMG_20170417_181442.jpg (3MB, 3120x4160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3120x4160px

>>8124077

>>8124077
I'm still trying to figure out what he meant by AGP and HSTS

>tfw you can learn about blanchard's theories while listening to his music
>tfw you are developing meta attraction towards blanchard

can i get any more meta than this?

https://soundcloud.com/ray-m-blanchard

>>8124077

Hell, just look at this very board. So many generals for every different type. There's even a genres for Cis lesbians and a general for trans lesbians. This board has no real sense of community at all because all the different parts of LGBT have different interests and lifestyles.

File: 1491769939854.gif (899KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 600x600px

>>8126647

the idea that we have only two political parties has given rise to a form of political pandering that makes it beneficial for politicians to adopt polarizing stances in order to secure voter blocks that the other candidate alienated. what this means is that issues are no longer grab bags that people opine on and pick from a list of candidates who most closely align with theirs, but rather you MUST pick one of two people, and thereby all of the other shit that you may disagree with, solely on the merit that they're "not the other guy". this is a cancerous form of demagoguery.

the reason why trump was such a firestorm of a candidate was because he was (arguably) not just a stand-in for either party like most candidates are. trump is relatively moderate for a republican compared to traditionally "republican values". so much so that much of the party HATED him during the primaries. he stood in contrast to what people saw as the "establishment" and this made him desirable. hillary did the exact opposite: doubling down on identity politics and divisive forms of putting voters into specific minority groups to pander to to secure their votes, and this backfired.

what i'm saying is the idea that people are individuals and not just members of homogeneous groups is an important aspect of our society and the idea of individual liberty, yet it's something that our political system actively acts counter to. the rhetoric of identity politics on the left feeds directly into this mechanism of divisiveness among citizens and is directly playing into the hands of the manipulation of voters by politicians.

i think trump being elected is a good thing, not because i like trump (i don't), but because it's a sign that people are beginning to reject this form of pandering and that people aren't willing to vote along party lines according the established forms of conservatism or progressivism like we've seen in the past. it represents an evolution in the way we view politics.

>>8124531
>video blogger
god, he's so old

>>8125966
Projecting much?

>>8124397
The only thing Blanchard can say to people who don't fit into his HSTS/AGP theories, ie transbians who don't want to fuck themselves, straight trannies who aren't massive whores, asexual or bisexual trans people, cis women who are attracted to themselves, transmen in general, etc is that they're lying. His typology is a complete joke if he can't refute contrary evidence with anything but "you're lying".

>>8130271
>transbians who don't want to fuck themselves
anticharitable; 'wanting to fuck yourself' is only the most florid presentation of agp
>straight trannies who aren't massive whores
fits in perfectly well, believing otherwise is a misconception; the idea that hstses transition only to get laid is an intentional misinterpretation, sexual success is simply the most blatant aspect of how transition improves the lives of hstses obviously and without needing to appeal to innate gender identity
>asexual or bisexual trans people
ordinary agps, not unusual or unaccounted for in the least
>cis women who are attracted to themselves
unusual but possible outliers
>transmen in general
in his version always hsts, because aap types didn't start transitioning in great numbers until the 21st century; in more recent reworkings aaps are accounted for

>>8130271
I agree. Blanchard's theory is rather flawed.

>>8130277
What's the deal with ace agps? Like, how can they not be gynephilic?

>>8130277
>anticharitable; 'wanting to fuck yourself' is only the most florid presentation of agp

I exaggerated for humour's sake, but if you want to argue it just take it down a notch. Transbians who aren't turned on by the idea of having breasts or wearing women's clothes or whatnot.

>fits in perfectly well, believing otherwise is a misconception; the idea that hstses transition only to get laid is an intentional misinterpretation, sexual success is simply the most blatant aspect of how transition improves the lives of hstses obviously and without needing to appeal to innate gender identity

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the potential qualifiers for being classified as "HSTS" sexwork?

>ordinary agps, not unusual or unaccounted for in the least

I see that they are in fact included in his theory, my mistake.

>unusual but possible outliers
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918360903005212

Such frequency is hardly an outlier. And even if AGP was rare in cis women, transwomen are even rarer.

>in his version always hsts, because aap types didn't start transitioning in great numbers until the 21st century; in more recent reworkings aaps are accounted for

Are they? If so then fair enough but I haven't seen anything on that myself.

Also, how does Blanchard explain straight transwomen who weren't significantly GNC as children, or transbians who were?

>>8130300
>http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918360903005212
>Such frequency is hardly an outlier. And even if AGP was rare in cis women, transwomen are even rarer.

https://sillyolme.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/four-out-of-five/
>Oh, but wait, I hear a rising chorus (of autogynephilic males) saying that a Dr. Charles Moser created an autogynphilic inventory for females and tested a group of women. So we ask, as we must assume the null hypothesis, where did he find the known autogynephilic females to interview to create a valid test? How did he validate it? What are the psychometric properties of the instrument? What? No? He did none of that? Well, then what did he do? He carefully rewrote questions from an instrument intended for and validated only for males in a gender clinic setting? Well, looking carefully at the rewrite, they don’t seem to have even a passing bearing on what autogynephilia would theoretically look like in women, or even in androphilic transsexuals. The questions were very carefully written to get positive answers from heterosexual females, as that was the intended (political) goal, to “prove” that straight women were also autogynphilic… but they have no meaning. They don’t measure autogynephilia, they measure mostly anticipatory arousal before dates with men. Well that was dissappointing. One and only one demonstrably invalid study. We still have no evidence to disprove the null hypothesis. So, for now, we must accept that females do NOT experience autogynephilia.

>>8130286
traditional explanation: asexual a*ps are less aseuxal and more analloerotic (= no attraction to other people). they're purely a*p and have no other sexuality.
my hypothesis is that while exclusive a*p with analloeroticism makes up most of those cases, there are also examples of purely asexual people who experience autogyneromantic and autogyneplatonic attraction. this is the only thing in the world that could possibly explain cara, for instance.
>>8130300
>Transbians who aren't turned on by the idea of having breasts or wearing women's clothes or whatnot.
yeah, i'll endorse that under current knowledge it's most accurate to assume gynephilic trans women who deny *any* agp are giving biased answers
i am in fact open to the idea that there are gynephilic trans women who fit the hsts profile closer, but every single person i have encountered who seemed on the surface to be that turned out to be agp all along
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the potential qualifiers for being classified as "HSTS" sexwork?
nope
hstses will usually take occupations that are more common for their transitioned sex, and for mtfs one of these happens to be sex work, and for various reasons sex workers are massively overrepresented amongst hstses, but despite what bailey (not blanchard) once said and no longer endorses hstses are not naturally inclined to sex work in any way and that has never been an actual official part of the typology
>I see that they are in fact included in his theory, my mistake.
good on you for owning up to it
>http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918360903005212
the moser study is complete 100% bullshit with no redeeming characteristics that made mistakes so basic a freshman undergrad psych student could tear it apart and anyone who ever cites it loses their ability to call blanchardianism pseudoscience forever
>Also, how does Blanchard explain straight transwomen who weren't significantly GNC as children
not all het trans women are hsts

>>8130306
Yeah this lady doesn't sound biased or crazy at all.

Jesus why are all trannies such raving lunatics.

>>8130307
>yeah, i'll endorse that under current knowledge it's most accurate to assume gynephilic trans women who deny *any* agp are giving biased answers

What? Why would anyone be turned on by their own breasts or wearing normal girl clothes? Is this what AGP is supposed to be, because if so, I think I was tricked into thinking I have AGP just because I'm gynephilic.

File: 1492372512748.jpg (69KB, 960x783px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 960x783px

>>8130307
>the moser study
>mfw posted >>8130306 without even following the link.

>>8130312
>can't attack the substance

>>8130307
>asexual a*ps are less aseuxal and more analloerotic (= no attraction to other people). they're purely a*p
Wouldn't that display as meta-attraction to men?

>and have no other sexuality.
So there's a distinction between agps who are actually gynephilic towards others and agps whose only gynephilia is their agp? I thought it was normal for agps to only be attracted to other women out of projected agp?

>there are also examples of purely asexual people who experience autogyneromantic and autogyneplatonic attraction.
These would be the agp equivalents of cis men who are asexual but experience romantic and platonic attraction?

as an AGP living a a guy on hormones because dysphoria I really dread the day when the typology becomes common knowledge

>>8130328
>Wouldn't that display as meta-attraction to men?
it presumably depends on the individual; there are certainly people on this board who will tell you how agp is the only orientation they've ever had and they've never been attracted to anyone else
>So there's a distinction between agps who are actually gynephilic towards others and agps whose only gynephilia is their agp? I thought it was normal for agps to only be attracted to other women out of projected agp?
agps are genuinely truly gynephilic and attracted to the female somatotype, not in a meta-attraction sense
agp and gynephilia are somewhat in competition, which is why 'i met a cute girl and she didn't make me want to transition anymore' is pretty common in late transitioner backstories
>These would be the agp equivalents of cis men who are asexual but experience romantic and platonic attraction?
yes
>>8130314
according to agps not all of them are agp specifically in that way
it's complicated
>>8130317
i knew it was the moser study, i posted without checking desu

>>8130344
>there are certainly people on this board who will tell you how agp is the only orientation they've ever had and they've never been attracted to anyone else
But an agp should be attracted to others, not personally out of non-auto gynephilia but physically out of desiring to be them?

>agps are genuinely truly gynephilic and attracted to the female somatotype, not in a meta-attraction sense
I'm not sure what you mean?

>agp and gynephilia are somewhat in competition, which is why 'i met a cute girl and she didn't make me want to transition anymore' is pretty common in late transitioner backstories
But that backstory doesn't show autogynephilia and other-gynephilia (normal gynephilia) both exist alongside each other or that they compete with each other.

The apparent othergynephilia there could be projected agp (I won't use "meta-attraction" for this because it has another meaning) and the apparent competition with agp could be the use of projected agp in order to repress.

>>8130392
AGP is not always (or usually) the only type of attraction that the person experiences
AGPs will commonly find women attractive in the same way that straight men (or lesbians) do
The backstory doesn't show that because no AGP who is transitioning will publicly admit to it
t. an agp

>>8130341
Why do you dread the typology becoming known? How would it be detrimental for you?

>>8130341

Hmm well blanchard says there's HSTS and PsBi and AGP but AGP is further split into light, light-moderate, and severe suffering of gender dysphoria so he does actually advocate that AGP transition to fix their dysphoria if they fall in the "severe suffering" classification and aren't just PsBi.

>>8130419
>>8130428
Blanchard being pro-A*P transition won't make the idea of transitioning or becoming dysphoric and having to do something about it because of essentially sexual reasons any more palatable to most people or easier to publicly admit for A*Ps

>>8130414
>AGPs will commonly find women attractive in the same way that straight men (or lesbians) do
That's what I thought, but Blanchard anon is saying that is a separate gynephilia alongside agp. I thought it was just projected agp.

If it's separate then an agp could theoretically be unattracted to other women. If it's projected agp desire then every agp would be expected to have it.

How could an agp not be attracted to other women out of her desire to look like them?

>The backstory doesn't show that because no AGP who is transitioning will publicly admit to it
There are backstories that show detransitioning/not transitioning because of attraction to a woman happens, but that doesn't show whether that attraction is direct gynephilia as in straight men (which some agps might not have) or projected agp (which all agps would have).

>>8130341
It was already common knowledge, it was part of the reason (along with stuff like Raymond's "Transsexual Empire") that hormones and surgeries weren't covered by insurance for the longest time, and our golden age was postponed until now. And there was another big stink about it back in the early 2000s, with the release of "The Man Who Would Be Queen". It's come and gone in the public consciousness multiple times.

>>8130458
ok i'll spell it out for you:
Most AGPs experience the sort of gynephilia that makes you want to have sex with women, unlike the projected kind, which is also always present
For me at least the kinds of women I'd want to be like and the ones I'd have sex with are a bit different

>>8130493
>it was part of the reason (along with stuff like Raymond's "Transsexual Empire") that hormones and surgeries weren't covered by insurance for the longest time,
[citation needed]

>>8130498
But how do you know that sort of gynephilia isn't just projected agp that any agp could experience?

>For me at least the kinds of women I'd want to be like and the ones I'd have sex with are a bit different
Now that's intriguing. Why are they distinct? What are the differences?

Blanchardian anon, why don't you use trip? Your posts are already easily distinguishable as is.

>>8130508
because i'm intensely narcissistic and convinced that if i trip everyone will filter me

>>8130515
It'd probably be easy to filter you with some regex.

>>8130505
I'm sexually attracted to very feminine women but would like to be a more GNC one myself
Idk why, it's just how I feel

>>8130528
Interesting, that's usually the opposite of how gynephilic trans women feel (personally gender-conforming, but attracted to GNC women).

>>8130528
A T P
T
P

>>8124077
>a created community
he's gonna be so shocked when he finds out what communities are

File: EXACTLY.jpg (175KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1280x720px

>>8126621
>>8126645

>>8130277
>unusual but possible outliers
Actually when ciswomen where given (a slightly modified version of) Blanchard's test, something like 93% got pegged as as AGP. 93% false positive rate means your basic assumptions are shit and you need to go back to the drawing board.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918360903005212

>>8131813
https://sillyolme.wordpress.com/faq-on-the-science/
>Although there is a single paper, by C. Moser, which purported to have found autogynephilia in women, it in fact did not. The test instrument (questionnaire) he devised was cleverly written to obtain positive answers to ambiguous questions that only superficially resembled questions used in instruments that are only valid for gender dysphoric males. For example, one question asked if one fantasized about having a “sexier” body? (One would hardly expect that women would fantasize about having an uglier one!) Another question asked about becoming aroused while preparing for a sexual encounter with a lover. (Such arousal would arise due to anticipation, not the mere fact of getting dressed in women’s clothing!) The construction of the test instrument cannot measure autogynephilia in natal females.

>Thus, the paper is of no scientific value in exploring the nature of women’s sexuality; but that was likely not the goal of the author. The likely goal was casting doubt on the existence and role of autogynephilia in transwomen, which looking at the popularity of this paper among “late transitioning” transwomen, it achieved.

>>8131832
The sillyolme girl is so funny, everything she says demonstrates that she actually has a poor understanding of how AGP actually manifests (e.g., her expectation that AGPs are turned on by wearing women's clothing).

>>8131865
Please enlighten us ignoramuses who lean from such as her.

>>8124397
The fuck is pseudobisexual?
"I only kinda find both sexes attractive."

>>8131832
>blog as evidence
lmao

But she makes a good point in that establishing AGP in women was indeed not the aim of the article. It was to establish, again as she points out, that the "diganosis" depends entirely on how questions are formulated and interpreted, and what basic assumptions one makes about the people answering. Basically, in order to correctly peg someone as an AGP transsexual, one would first have to assume that they are one - en archei aiteisthai, really, since one is assuming what one is supposed to prove.

Or think of it this way: if one where to make the basic assumption that transwomen are women and nor pervered men, would a test make sense,or be able to distinguish them from ciswomen consistently and to a significant degree (without outright asking for their assigned at birth gender)? Blanchard's test would not as it assumes from the get go that they are men and get aroused by fantasies of womanhood, and just tried to determine to what degree this is true.

>>8131898
A well known concept among AGP scientists.

>>8124684
I mean, that's any community though. They're gonna toss you into it no matter what you do. I can't really be like, "guys, it's cool. I'm not part of the hispanic community, you don't have to worry about me not having papers and selling drugs".

>>8131873
Well I'm just saying, she's conflating full-blown transvestism and AGP, maybe she was just doing that because she despises AGPs and wanted to snidely deride them in that sentence, but still.

>>8131935
What transvestism isn't AGP?

>>8131813

As stated elsewhere these questions do not accurately measure AGP. More accurate questions would be "I get aroused at the thought of having breasts" or "I get aroused at the thought of being female"

How many cis women would answer yes to those questions? Probably hardly any, but most AGPs would say yes.

>>8131959
Cis women wouldn't get aroused by those things because they've never been deprived by those things though. Fetishes are psychological. Also, why would AGP get aroused at the thought of having breasts when that's pretty much a normal thing for girls to have?

>>8131959
I know cisgirls who get turned on by their own feminity and feeling particularily feminine in certain clothing or appreciating their own bodies. Like "know" in the Biblical sense.

>>8124183
Why do you know about Saotome-Westlake's blog?

>>8133365
Kay Brown links to it

>>8131920
Oh. So a theoretical thing then.

>>8132088
Yeah, wearing "sexy" or really feminine clothes makes some women feel sexy, and even turned on. That's normal.

>>8133376
Stop being intentionally stupid.

>>8133437
Don't tell me how to live my life.

On a serious note, though. I do get it, I just don't get why it matters. People have their tastes. Who gives a shit. I don't see the scientific merit besides arguing with people on the internet. I'm sure I could be wrong, and it turns out AGP is the answer to people not angrily obsessing over who people fuck and what's between their legs, but I don't see it.

>>8132088
>>8133412
Some bisexual or lesbian cis girls may theoretically be AGP.

>the feminine voice

is he a repressing tranny?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtHx-Llvvk8

>>8133506
Brah the point is that AGP is a retarded concept that can't be falsified and requires a priori assumptions in order to make sense at all. It's garbage.

>>8131898

Bi for attention but not really bi. Called pseudo-bi instead of straight / gay / questioning because people need to classify non-categories.

>>8133365
i discovered it through kay brown, as >>8133375 said, but i have also been peripherally aware of the rationalist blogosphere for a long time and that's the other half of the internet that mtsw is involved in
i fell back into rationalism through reading ozy through saotome-westlake, actually
i experimented with it before when i was 16/17 but left because i kept having too many object-level disagreements with scott to look at the meta-level stuff

>>8124199
If you haven't seen the discreditation you're not paying attention. First of all, the methodology of the original papers was trash and just assumed trans women were lying when they said they weren't autogynephilic. It's usually not good science to jump straight to the "obviously my typology fits because it does and people who don't fit it are lying." Second, descriptions of autogynephilia are so vague that a substantial number of cis women fit the crieterion. 93% in one of the studies that was conducted. Admittedly low sample size (n about 30 iirc I think it was 31).

Third, there's a 2004ish survey paper by Charles Moser that goes through and debunks a lot of Blanchardian theory using actual evidence. That's what happens when you build a psychological theory based on your intuition about how the world works rather than cold hard facts.

Luckily times are a-changing and both psychology and economics have been becoming far more experimental and empirically based (thanks in part to new techniques I believe - deep learning is awesome - but also due to massive failures such as the replication crisis and the 2008 market crash). A change to focus more on experiment and statistics can only be a good thing.

>>8136206
>Moser
Given that I’ve been seeing this so called study remaining to be popular among autogynephilic transwomen, I thought I should share some factoids about it. First, it was published in the Journal of Homosexuality a journal with such a low impact factor one would have trouble finding one lower. The impact factor is only 1.364. For comparison, the impact factor for Nature is 41.456 and for Science is 33.611. The impact factor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, where most of the serious papers on transsexuality are published is 2.589, about twice that of the Journal of Homosexuality. Oh… and second, Dr. Charles Moser is on the journal’s editorial board. Now, do you think that might have an effect on whether a really weak paper that he himself wrote could get published there? Can you imagine any scenario where the journal would NOT publish a paper by one of its own editors? Third, where in the study is the validation data? What is the alpha value (test-retest correlation)? Where is the control group? Where is the clinical observations of autogynephilic behavior in women that led to the trial construction of the instrument? In fact, where in all of the voluminous studies of female sexuality has there been ANY hint that women experience sexual arousal to the thought of or contemplation / examination of their own female bodies?)

>>8136125
>object-level disagreements
?

>>8136472
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/48d1vm/object_level_vs_meta_level/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-political-spectrum-quiz/
in this context it means 'i kept disagreeing with rationalists about things like atheism and psychiatry, and while i was usually good at looking past those things to the important fundamental views and goals we shared, eventually it reached a critical mass and i wasn't able to hang around those communities'
i am better at meta-level thinking than i was around that time, so i've gotten used to it

>>8136519
one question in and already a problem
>2. The anchor of a major news network donates lots of money to organizations fighting against gay marriage, and in his spare time he writes editorials arguing that homosexuals are weakening the moral fabric of the country. The news network decides they disagree with this kind of behavior and fire the anchor.
>a) This is acceptable; the news network is acting within their rights and according to their principles
>b) This is outrageous; people should be judged on the quality of their work and not their political beliefs
uh, both

File: IMG_20170418_141339.jpg (3MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x3120px

Hes got a point

>>8135594
>Bi for attention but not really bi.
no

>>8130499
Not that anon, but you could just read some Julia Serano. She's a pretty good writer, is well-educated, and cites obsessively, and I know she has written and spoken about Blanchard's typology, Raymond's "Transexual Empire", and Bailey's "The Man Who Would be Queen".

>>8144297
How did Blanchard and Bailey stop HRT and surgeries being covered by insurance? Does Serano explain that?

>>8144316
In order for HRT and surgery to be covered by insurance, a diagnosis of gender identity disorder (now gender dysphoria) is required. I can't speak for Bailey's work, except that it isn't worth the paper it was printed on. But Blanchard's work can be seen pretty clearly to complicate a gender dysphoria diagnosis, less so now for the most part because trans care is getting better and for the most part easier to access; proof can be seen even here where people are still plagued by the trutrans vs AGP dilemma, where people's gender identities can be invalidated by others for the dumbest fucking reasons. Diagnosis is dependent on many things. The language of the diagnostic criteria. The number of criteria that must be met to qualify for a diagnosis. And perhaps most importantly, the education and biases of the person making the diagnosis. I know trans health care professionals that will provide a diagnosis based primarily on the individuals own conviction, but I live in California. I know there are places in the world where a gender dysphoria diagnosis can still be complicated by pretty much anything depending upon the person doing the diagnosis and where transition related care is still a much more gatekeeper dependent process. The advent of WPATH, with it's explicit inclusion of informed consent has done much to improve the situation, but there is still more work to do.

Essentially, the basis upon which Blanchard's work has been used to deny care is the same upon which people here still sometimes argue about HSTS(Trutrans™) and AGP(fetishists).

>>8136125
what are your disagreements with scott

he's pretty reasonable albeit repetitive

>>8144386
So you're just assuming because trans care was worse in the past or it was harder to get a GID diagnosis, that this must somehow be Blanchard's fault?

>>8144442
Yes. I'm not in the mood right now to argue about this, and I don't have the time regardless. If it makes you happy to assume that I assume then assume what you assume and I'll assume what I assume. Besides, if my argument is entirely assumption then yours is entirely empty refutation. ~Farewell

>>8144463
What the fuck is you problem?

>>8144526
To be fair, I don't personally blame Blanchard, I can just see how his work can be used by bad gatekeepers to invalidate trans people. As for my problem, blame it on being on cypro without currently having estrogen, and me just in general being a turbulent person. Sorry, I uhm... yeah

>>8144582
So if bad gatekeepers are supposedly the problem, what's with blaming it on Blanchard?

>>8144608
Blanchard gave a convenient tool. As I said, I don't personally blame it on Blanchard and those who do blame it on him specifically are assuming negative intent which I don't entirely believe exists. I blame the entire gatekeeping process for invalidating and pathologizing trans identities and forcing trans people to force themselves into a box just to get access to what should be an entirely informed consent based process. As it is it's still easier for a menopausal woman to get HRT than it is for a trans woman if only because the health care professionals comfortable treating trans people and prescribing hormones to them are far fewer than those comfortable treating cis women and prescribing them hormones. I live in a relatively trans friendly area, but I was still turned away from the closest health clinic and was referred to a somewhat out of the way health clinic where the only doctor currently accepting trans patients works and there is a definite wait time. As far as travel goes, it's a difference between a clinic I can walk to in roughly 20 minutes, to one I have to take two buses to get to and I end up in another city's middle of nowhere just to have to take two more buses home, spending hours on buses for a comparatively short appointment. It could be worse though, I could have had to go to Sacramento, which given my lack of a car or driver's license would be essentially impossible.

Actually there is another doctor in the area who prescribes hormones (not specifically for trans people though they do accept trans patients) but they don't accept Medi-Cal so I'd have to pay out of pocket to see them.

>>8144608
And again, sorry for earlier. I kinda have to go now though.

>>8144682
>>8144691
All is forgiven, but please be more reasonable in future.

He didn't just lack negative intent. The gatekeepers misuse his work to fit their objective, gatekeeping. That's not his fault.

>>8124077
How did this guy get a psychology degree? Isn't the nature of words and their meanings kind of basic psychology stuff. Usually Chomsky is one of the first things you go over.

>>8146085
>Usually Chomsky is one of the first things you go over.
Psychology confirmed for trash.

>>8146140
>Conflating Chomsky's political opinions with his unrelated and very respected work in linguistics.
Oh common now...

>>8144386
>makes wild claim that can't be backed up with evidence
>after making claim, makes much milder claim that almost looks like something that actually happened but doesn't look like the original one
i know you apologised but come on
>>8144420
most of the things that aren't rationalist-exclusive stuff like x-risk that scott talks about are within the overton window, but many of the things i believe are *not* and it clashed a lot
for instance, when i was a lot more interested in day-to-day anti-psychiatry than i am now it felt very counterproductive to read what is half a psychiatry blog

>>8124077
Lel blanchard understands that with Donald Trump as president and Mike Pence as vice president that the whole lgbt thing is going away and he's making a come back after hiding away all these years.

Good for you Ray.

>>8147944
Such is my way. This is why I just try to stick to social stuff usually, and I'm a pretty quiet, socially anxious person, so even then I usually just listen. Probably for the best.

>>8147944
Anti-psychiatry?