BTFOing Blanchard Contest

i dont like blanchardianism

>>8403078
One vote for fpbp to get the screencap.

>>8403062
Just show people the science. Why are you asking rando Anons with no background in psychology when Milton Diamond (the guy who exposed the Reimer case) wrote about transsexuality being biological extensively? A good deal of the cited studies show feminization/masculization regardless of orientation.

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2005to2009/2006-atypical-gender-development.html
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2015to2019/2016-transsexualism.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Diamond

HSTS ain't real.
Stop believing in postmodernist lies.

File: 1406374541855.jpg (231KB, 766x1024px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 766x1024px

>>8403158
Blanchardian HSTS isn't real, but otherwise HSTS is a fact.

>>8403284
Blanchardian HSTS is the only sort.

I wanted to write a devil's advocate comment, but I couldn't think of any anti-Blanchardian argument that I'd find convincing by itself. :(

Cis women feel AGP.
Cis men don't.
=> MTF's who feel AGP are women.

>>8403284
Stop believing in postmodernist lies

>>8403158
>>8403310
Entering the same post multiple times doesn't make you more likely to win.

>>8403298
I vote this

>>8403292
Hey, how about either of the linked articles? :)
>>8403143

>>8403326
I must repeat the truth until everyone has heard it.

>>8403143
Everyone throws links back and forth at each other and nobody's mind changes.

>>8403338
They're long, it's late at night, and I'm tired. Maybe I'll read them tomorrow.

>>8403062
Gynephilic early transitioners.

>>8403349
How are you supposed to change someone's mind if they won't read a very clear, concise proof with a ton of citations? A screencap of a 4chan rando talking in the air? [citation needed] is the response to that. Well, those articles have dozens. If you want to bludgeon someone with facts you can do things like post some of the relevant studies that show differences regardless of orientation, such as
>>8400747

>>8403062
Don't be so insecure because Blanchard revealed the truth. I still like trannies.

>>8403402
Better call APA and tell them that they accidentally didn't include Blanchard's typology in the DSM despite actually hiring Blanchard to write about pedophilia for the DSM.

>>8403310
no

It's unfalsifiable by design. Any transwoman claiming not to experience AGP but sexually attracted to women can merely be held as lying. Any transwoman sexually attracted to men alone can never be AGP even when they say they are. There is no scenario where Blanchard can be proven wrong. Even when Blanchard is wrong, Blanchard is right.

Thus, it is not science.

File: 1496726627203.jpg (170KB, 618x806px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 618x806px

>>8403417
I see, you really love "science".

>>8403393
The contest is to make a post. It can have citations to stop people going [citation needed].

>>8403512
>It's unfalsifiable by design. Any transwoman claiming not to experience AGP but sexually attracted to women can merely be held as lying.

You can *tell* they're lying pretty easily, e.g. by measuring their response to AGP stimuli, or by correlating their self-reported AGP with social desirability bias.

>Any transwoman sexually attracted to men alone can never be AGP even when they say they are. There is no scenario where Blanchard can be proven wrong. Even when Blanchard is wrong, Blanchard is right.

They can totally be AGP. AGP causes meta-attraction and reduces gynephilia, so sufficiently intense AGP can cause exclusive androphilic attraction.

File: 1494976293633.png (143KB, 547x274px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 547x274px

>>8403524
"Bruh, I don't actually like science I just steal sciencey terms to troll trannies with lmao"

>>8403543
>You can *tell* they're lying pretty easily

No you can't. The polygraph is not a valid clinical tool: it's too subject to confirmation bias. You can measure pulse and heart beat and MRI curves but there is no perfect lie detector in this world and thus no reliable means of separating the AGP from the homosexual transsexual.

All you have is words. That's not how science is done. You can't make up terminology and shout them at people until it's forced down their throat because -you- clearly know what's best for all humanity like the rest of the cringe warriors.

>>8403062
Actually, here's an argument: autoandrophilia correlates slightly negatively with androphilia among cis women. At the very least, that casts strong doubt on applying the ETLI A*P model to FtMs.

>>8403545
I use agp terms to trigger them.

>>8403524
This is bait right?

I really want to say how incredibly stupid that jpg is.

>>8403585
Natal female sexuality is weird.

>>8403524
Those two species were actually thought to be the same, and discovered to be different only through DNA testing.

>>8403524
And I see you really don't!

>>8403543
>You can *tell* they're lying pretty easily, e.g. by measuring their response to AGP stimuli.
The phallometric study had a sample size of 9. Concluding that 9 people lied therefore everyone in this group misreported is not sound.

>or by correlating their self-reported AGP with social desirability bias
That's an hypothesis, not a proof.

>>8403417
>cargo-culting scientific consensus instead of forming your own opinion from the data

>>8403559
>The polygraph is not a valid clinical tool
'measuring response to stimuli' encompasses far more than just a polygraph test

>You can measure pulse and heart beat and MRI curves but there is no perfect lie detector in this world and thus no reliable means of separating the AGP from the homosexual transsexual.
You can measure sexual response to stimuli -- erections and brain activity being the two things that immediately come to mind.

>>8403143
feel free to quote specific parts of the reviews

>>8403620
In other words: "I don't gotta explain shit, SCIENCE!!!1one figures everything out for me lol just google it urself."

Too bad the burden of proof was always on you. Blanchard's typology is unfalsifiable: even you can't come up with a scenario where Blanchard isn't just proven right by default.

The cult leader is always right to those who drink the kool-aid.

>>8403614
>That's an hypothesis, not a proof.
Blanchard did a study with this. See "Social desirability response set and systematic distortion in the self-report of adult male gender patients".

>>8403642
No, YOU'RE the one categorically invoking the name of the APA as though you were citing Holy Scripture.

It's not my fault you were born this way, so I should try to not be angry that you're intellectually inferior because of higher mutational load.

>>8403620
>>cargo-culting scientific consensus instead of forming your own opinion from the data
The data, you say?
Why, here you go!
>>8403143

With that said ignoring scientific consensus when you're not even a first year student of the field is really foolish.

>feel free to quote specific parts of the reviews
You've presumably read Blanchard's papers before opting to believe them. It is only intellectually honest to read these in their entirely.

With that said, I've anticipated your laziness and posted a thread focused on one of the dozens of papers cited by those articles:
>>8400747

>>8403620
It's more papal infallibility than cargo cult.

>>8403646
It did not prove *every* such report is false, only that there is a tendency to misreport. Those are two very different things.

>>8403654
>No, YOU'RE the one categorically invoking the name of the APA as though you were citing Holy Scripture.
No, that's me, and generally speaking? scientific consensus is a thing you should pay attention to if you are not an expert yourself.

>>8403600
Is it stupid because of your feelings and your worldviews?
>>8403613
And your argument is?
>>8403614
>And I see you really don't!
Of course not, only a dumbass like me would question your dogmas. I'm glad we have people like you to guide us.

>>8403657
It's confirmation bias. Blanchard will always be right to the people who want to see Blanchard as right. By this point he's just spewing insults because he literally cannot come up with a scenario where Blanchard is proven wrong (btw I never cited the APA once ITT, you're arguing with two different people fuckwad).

There's no real need to give him more (You)s, I think this must be his fetish.

>>8403676
I'm sure you have very passionate views about nationalism and the white race.

>>8403657
>With that said, I've anticipated your laziness and posted a thread focused on one of the dozens of papers cited by those articles:
uh, you're citing an article whose sample of transgenders consists of people who "reported experiencing gender dysphoria at a relatively early age (before or at puberty)", i.e. one that doesn't study a single person with "late-onset gender dysphoria", as an argument against Blanchard?

what?

>>8403681
Not nationalism. I'm a tribalist. I want to preserve our unique race. What is so strange about that?

>>8403689
op was right to say spamming links isn't good enough

File: Orientations.png (18KB, 602x269px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 602x269px

>>8403689
Are you implying that the typology is false and that there are non-homosexual non-autogynephilic transsexuals?

>>8403722
are you suggesting that a study that bunches together AGPs and HSTSs somehow has the power to reject the Blanchardian hypotheses?

do you even understand how to interpret a scientific paper?

the paper presents a single result of interest, in a sample of limited size and diversity, which must be interpreted contextually

you are overgeneralizing

>>8403707
most published research is basically noninformative garbage. it takes some level of discernment, which most people sadly do not possess, to sort out the wheat from the chaff

File: 5103d95ab9892e95000507131d50a4db3883cd12c5717cbf695ae34a9321d3ce.jpg (26KB, 367x500px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 367x500px

>>8403757
>most published research is basically noninformative garbage. it takes some level of discernment, which most people sadly do not possess, to sort out the wheat from the chaff

Literally, too smart for Google Scholar, the fedora has progressed to new heights of his own euphoria!

>>8403757
>are you suggesting that a study that bunches together AGPs and HSTSs somehow has the power to reject the Blanchardian hypotheses?
At least read the fucking thread you dimwit. They have accounted for that.

>Associations between TBSS measures and sexual orientation
>Here, we investigated whether sexual orientation associates with diffusivity measures. No effects on our main findings were observed when sexual orientation was regressed out in the ANCOVA design. Moreover, there was no significant effect of sexual orientation on diffusivity parameters in the regression analysis including all subjects and using group as factor of no interest.

>do you even understand how to interpret a scientific paper?
I know that the first step is to read the paper.

>the paper presents a single result of interest, in a sample of limited size and diversity, which must be interpreted contextually
Given your objections it is obvious you haven't even read it, since they were addressed directly in the text! This is the second time you object to something that is addressed in the material you refuse to read.

>most published research is basically noninformative garbage. it takes some level of discernment, which most people sadly do not possess, to sort out the wheat from the chaff
It also requires you to read them.
Are you a psychologist, or have other training in the field? What's your qualification?

>>8403771
>the fedora has progressed to new heights of his own euphoria!
Exactly. You can find neckbeards arguing on every board. They always pretend to be smart and pump up their egos.

>>8403789
Cuntpasting Google Scholar + Sci Hub is soo passe now in 2017, like, everyone's doing that, the contrarian hipster with pet theories must rise BEYOND published evidence and plug gaps in human knowledge with speculative bullshit!

>>8403789
It's the Dunning-Kruger effect. Internet randos think they have valuable things to say about about subjects that have been studied by thousands of experts for decades despite not having any relevant qualifications in the field.

>>8403771
your uncritical devotion to the eternal truth of the literature is enough to impress any priest or bishop

>>8403780
it's not entirely clear why you think you can take groups of sample size ~20, add in ~5 covariates (3 hormones, plus the 3-category sexual orientation), and expect to get statistical significance for the covariates even when they actually do matter

like

it's just unclear why you think this has explanatory relevance to blanchardianism, period

>>8403797
>>8403799
And the worst thing is that they don't care what the other neckbeards have to say at all. They just stick to their dogmas and fight for the alpha neckbeard status.
How can they even enjoy this? All of their posts are so boring and painful to read.
If I wanted to read an article, I would just read a real one.

>>8403818
Your position = gospel

everyone else's position = barbarism, comparison to Christianity

it's the same story for stormfaggotry, communism, & that guy on /ck/ who argues vitamins are bad for you: every possible scenario proves you right and everyone else wrong.

Except this isn't how logic works. Continue languishing in obscurity.

>>8403524
A species is the largest group of an organism which can produce fertile offspring. Any combination of races of humans can produce fertile offspring.That image is retarded.

>>8403867
So, all of the wild dog species are one and the same, just equal?

The typology is bullshit because I'm actually bisexual, not pseudobi. Men arouse me visually and I want to fuck them and be fucked. Trent dismisses this as 'trubi'
I also find gay erotica extremely hot as a self insert and I love cuck porn. I also love curvy women. And any AGP desires have gone away with estrogen, whereas my sex drive remains strong.
I also never had a strong 'love of self as female" in any sense, just mild tranvestism, and got struck with dysphoria building up from 18-20
Blanchardism doesn't have explanatory power over this stuff

>>8403818
Blanchard's phallometric study had a sample size of 9. This study is quite a bit more rigorous than most of his work, which you seem to accept. If you're intent on upholding your double standard, though, you can pick one of the other papers cited in the articles I linked.

>>8403884
All dogs that can produce fertile offspring are the same species.

>Dick Swaab
>John Money
>Milton Diamond
Why do all sex researchers have meme names?

>>8403904
But they developed unique characteristics to survive and thrive in different environments. If they mix they are no longer good for any of those habitats.

>>8403757
>it takes some level of discernment, which most people sadly do not possess, to sort out the wheat from the chaff
No it doesn't. It simply requires the ability to understand flaws in the published research when other people point them out. Which is also a lacking ability.

But that's not what's happening here. This is deliberately ignoring the problems in badly flawed research, deliberately misusing research by attaching false conclusions to it, and deliberately demanding impossible standards of any research with a conclusion in the abstract that doesn't contradict the unfacts.

>>8403954
They are still the same species. What point are you trying to make here?

Species of wild dogs cross-breeding whose habitat is so different that one cannot survive in the others habitat is unusual. Normally cross breeds of wild dogs can get on perfectly fine.

>>8404079
Each race has developed certain characteristics to survive and thrive in their environment.

Whites evolved to live in dark forrests of europe.
Our fair skin enables us to make enough vitamin D, even in dark forrests with cloudt weather.
Our blue eyes are slightly better at night vision.

Blacks are far more resistant to the sun and they preserve water in their bodies better.

Asians developed their unique eyes because they originated from windy area that is today's mongolia. Yes, their eyes are for wind protection.

By mixing we are losing these characteristics and we make it harder to survive and thrive in these habitats.

Our civilisation will fall sooner or later. We are running out of resources like oil and rare earth metals, which we need for all industry. We are milking our planet and destroying everything. Our bubble of comfort will burst.

We'll be back in nature eventually.
My point is, why lose these unique characteristics that our children might need in nature?
Also, human is a wild animal. The more we mix, the more we become domesticated and unable to live in nature, just like cattle.

>>8404315
We have houses and clothes and suncream and goggles now.

>>8404325
When the civilisation falls you won't have it. Or at least the coming generations won't. We are literally running out of all the resources we need for industry. Reed a bit better.

>>8404338
Reed what, /pol/ paranoia and delision? The "end is neigh" sign you hold on the street corner every day?

>>8404366
Making fun of me is not an argument.
Do you honestly think we can keep on raping mother earth and survive like this?
We are destroying the whole planet at such a rapid rate that it's ridiculous.
Our modern civilisation is a bubble of comfort that has to burst sooner or later.
I mean well, trust me. This is not just some "racist" bs to hate on others.
Be a little more skeptical of the future that society predicts.
And that colonisation of mars is not looking promising either.

>>8404390
It's a serious question.

>>8404390
You sound like you need a community to be a part of irl. Try to find something that you care about doing with other people. Like a garden. Or climbing rocks.

>>8403298
HSTS's don't feel AGP
=> HSTS's aren't women

AGP's confirmed TruTrans.

>>8405457
Everyone is TruTrans
Noone is TruTrans

Just read his tweets /thread.

>>8404315
> i will need the lack of pigment in my skin to survive in the forests when civilization inevitably falls

Why do you feel that unsafe, Anon?

Focus on survival skills and sustainability. It's a productive mindset and a better strategy.

File: wew.jpg (34KB, 500x357px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x357px

>>8404315
>Our civilisation will fall sooner or later. We are running out of resources like oil and rare earth metals, which we need for all industry. We are milking our planet and destroying everything. Our bubble of comfort will burst.

>We'll be back in nature eventually.

>>8405725
>Focus on survival skills and sustainability
Yes, definitely.

The thing is, if we go back to harsh nature every little thing will matter.

Do we really need an excuse to preserve our unique natural race?
We get upset when a species (or subspecies) of an aninal is threatend, but when it comes to humans it's ok.
Why does no one care about this?

I gave you people some pretty good arguments, but no one will consider them. This is too much outside of your worldview.

I had it coming. What did I expect from posting on a board where people try to convince others to take "skittles" every single day.

>>8404315
>>8403524

That doesn't mean humans are different species you autist.

Species can have huge amounts of variation within them, just look at dogs for example.

The simple fact is humans are not genetically diverse enough to justify categorizing us into different species or even races. Humanity suffered a massive population bottleneck in our early history, just look up the Toba Catastrophe, and as a result we have relatively low genetic diversity compared to most other animals.

Just because humans are more physically diverse than two species of canines does not mean we are more genetically diverse, and in taxonomy, genetics trumps appearance.

>>8404315
>>8405929
Also humanity being a single species has nothing to do with your opinions on race mixing, it's a complete non-sequitur.

And people do in fact get upset when a human ethnicity is threatened, genocide is widely condemned. Where you got the idea that no one cares or even encourages it I have no idea.

Given you're an obvious /pol/ack though, you're probably sperging about muh white genocide and how the evil Jew-controlled media ignores it or some shit. Even if the existence of white genocide as stormfag fearmongers define it were true, there's very much a reason why many people wouldn't care, individual humans have agency.

People have a right to choose who they want to reproduce with, or to choose not to reproduce at all. They're under no obligation to only do so within their own arbitrarily and subjectively defined ethnicity. If white Europeans or any other group willingly chooses to breed themselves out of existence, that's their own decision. It isn't comparable to a state effort to annihilate an ethnicity through homicide, rape, or forced assimilation.

And lastly, while you are completely correct that different groups of humans have adapted to their native environments in different ways, you seem ignorant of just how minor the majority of such traits are. Humans are the top species on the planet because, by and large, we have the ability to change the environment to suit us and create tools to overcome our weaknesses. East Asians, for example, evolved their eyes because of the harsh steppe winds, as you said. But they didn't and don't have any problems living in different environments today, like Japan.

To finish it off,
>The more we mix, the more we become domesticated and unable to live in nature, just like cattle.
This is just completely wrong. The reason some of our domestic animals have issues in the wild is their extremely, extremely low genetic diversity. Humanity isolating from eachother will only cause this issue, not prevent it.

>>8405996
> The reason some of our domestic animals have issues in the wild is their extremely, extremely low genetic diversity
Wrong.
To preserve traits and to keep evolving them, a species must live in a single habitat (or multiple ones that are almost the same).
All of the native human populations were homogenous, with much less difference between them than we have now.

The cattle was bred to be tame and useless in nature, to enable humans to handle it better.

A wild native human is a purely wild animal.
Mixing is turning us into mutts and civilisation is domesticating us and making us weaker and unable to survive in nature.

We are going from wolf to labradoodle.

>>8406068
>The cattle was bred to be tame and useless in nature, to enable humans to handle it better.

This is true, but the lack of genetic diversity is also a problem, just look at how all but the most basal dog breeds are afflicted with a variety of horrible genetic diseases. In order to give dogs, or other animals, the traits we desired we essential inbred them for centuries and as a result unintentionally created breeds extremely prone to illness.

>Mixing is turning us into mutts
And there's nothing wrong with mutts.

>civilisation is domesticating us and making us weaker and unable to survive in nature
If you seriously think humanity is going to go extinct if we suddenly lost all technology tomorrow you're out of your mind. Yes, the average person today isn't as fit for wilderness survival as your average neolithic primitive, but that's far more the result of lifestyle, different educations, behaviour, etc than any meaningful genetic differences.

Humans are a generalist species, we don't need to be extremely adapted to our environment like a camel is. We can eat a wide variety of food, tolerate a wide variety of climates, and transport ourselves through a wide variety of obstacles.
As a result, humans are adept at surviving in just about any terrestrial biome but the most extreme, and for the most part regardless of ethnicity.

>>8406094
>And there's nothing wrong with mutts.
I would much rather be a wolf.
>In order to give dogs, or other animals, the traits we desired we essential inbred them for centuries
This is a very bad comparison. We inbred them on purpose to artificially create traits that we thought were desirable.
Humans in nature lived in small tribes and they did fine.
You're basically claiming that if we stick to white people we will get inbred.
That is a horrible argument to make.
>Humans are a generalist species, we don't need to be extremely adapted to our environment like a camel is
Absolutely true.
However, why wouldn't we want to preserve our differences and uniqueness?
If we all mix together there will be little to no genetic diversity.
Our genes will eventually just meet in between and we'll be a single mutt race.

Why would you want to lose our differences and all the beauty that comes with it?

>>8406107
>I would much rather be a wolf
Of course nazi browsing /lgbt/ would be a furry.

>>8406134
I'm not even one of these things.

>>8406107
I'm not advocating that we should. People should do want they want and love who they want, whether interracial or not. I just don't agree that it's a bad thing.

>>8406312
I don't know what is the right thing to do nor do I know what the future holds.
I made some interesting claims and that's it.
None of us really know anything. We just develop opinions and then spew them on the internet like it's the holy grail of truth.
Can't we all just agree that we suck and that our opinions don't mean shit?

>>8406365
>None of us really know anything. We just develop opinions and then spew them on the internet like it's the holy grail of truth.
Speak for yourself. Some of us base our opinions on evidence. If you're intellectually honest you don't get to pick and choose what you want to believe. You believe what the facts point to be the truth.

>>8406893
I used to base opinions on your "evidence".
Changing opinions and learning to defend each one is pretty much my hobby, a bit strange, I know.
If I learned anything from this is that nobody is ultimately right.
We are just human and imperfect.
You can find evidence for various claims.
Don't be so dogmatic.
At the end of the day, we are all wrong.

>>8406963
The war cry of the wrong.

>>8406968
The honesty of someone who knows we are all flawed.
Talk to me when you grow up.

>>8406975
>lmao it's just, like, your opinion my man

>>8405929

Don't worry, there will always be people who only date within their own race. Which is fine.

I even know a redhead who only dates other redheads.

But you can't make others do what you want to do. So if people want mixed race relationships, that's also fine. You don't get to police other people's love.

As for going back to nature, diverse groups are better at handling complex situations. Look it up, there's science behind that.

If we go back to nature, I'm gonna go and join an ethnically diverse group. An optimistic one, with progressive values and an interest in technology. And we will thrive.

>>8406094
>Humans are a generalist species, we don't need to be extremely adapted to our environment like a camel is. We can eat a wide variety of food, tolerate a wide variety of climates, and transport ourselves through a wide variety of obstacles.
>As a result, humans are adept at surviving in just about any terrestrial biome but the most extreme, and for the most part regardless of ethnicity.

Hear hear.

>>8406068
Human civilization if hitting an extinction event cannot avoid it: you won't be put back to the stone age if we damage the ecology further, you will be dead. Nothing will stop it.

>>8408363
>If we go back to nature, I'm gonna go and join an ethnically diverse group
If such collapse happens it will be somewhat sudden and a large percentage of humanity will die.
I'm not going to go through my full prediction now, but try to imagine yourself.
Imagine big city where nothing works, no order, nothing. Stores will be emptied within couple of hours. People will eventually get violent to get what they need.
Sewer system will eventually stop working and people will start throwing buckets of shit on the streets. This will start epidemics.
Try to imagine more yourself, you get the point.

If we want to have a decent chance of surviving, we must live in a rural area and be self-sustainable. Also, we need our neighbours to be like a part of our tribe. Only together can we defend ourselves from starving people who will come to kill us and take our food. Sounds horrible, but it might end up like this.

It's gonna be really fooked up, you can't just join a community and everything's fine.

>As for going back to nature, diverse groups are better at handling complex situations
I can't comment on that one, because I haven't read anything about it.
However, homogenous groups are more likely to stick together.
Also, early humans lived in honogenous tribes, just saying.

>You don't get to police other people's love.
True. I can say my opinions and maybe inspire someone to marry and procreate within their own race. I don't want to police anything, I want to open this sort of discussion.

>I'm gonna go and join an ethnically diverse group. An optimistic one, with progressive values
So, yeah. If this sort of collapse happens, it will all be very harsh. Fight for our lives will be the only priority. We will not have the luxury to pick anything.

At the end of the day, I don't want anything bad to happen.
I wish everyone the best, some people will automatically dislike me because I talk about race.
I'm worried for our future and for the next generations.

>>8408446
>However, homogenous groups are more likely to stick together.

True.

But diverse groups are more likely to attract newcomers and form alliances. And diversity means a wider range of survival skills. For example, my (progressive, LGBT-friendly) Muslim friend had a grandmother who was a medicine woman in Morocco. She learned a lot from her as a child. Knowledge of healing herbs and poisonous plants seems pretty important, no?

Humans survived in part because we are good at working together.

I don't think society will collapse. But not feeling safe will make a person plan for the worst. I've been there, Anon.

I wouldn't mind killing to protect my tribe. But I don't think murder is very efficient. I would rather talk, work together and trade.

>>8403062
He ignored and manipulated data and methodology to fit what he wanted to be true.
The research has never been able to be repeated with confirming results so it's not even a theory, just a hypothesis, and it's unfalsifiable so it isn't even actually science.

I'd also point out that he's part of a cabal of older psychologists that want homosexuality to be classified mental illness again and that after their failed direct efforts their work with trannies was likely a roundabout way to achieve the same thing. You can tell by how the research is all about the hsts, agp is literally the catch-all category for everyone who didn't fit the typology that they wanted to prove to support their ideas, and hsts is all about being SUPER gay to the point that they can't live as men and are more acceptable to society as women.

>>8408653
>But diverse groups are more likely to attract newcomers and form alliances
Homogenous groups used to live on each continent. They all formed alliances with each other.
People tend to automatically prefer their own race. This is not always strong and it depends on your views, but it's there.
Basically, these simple tribes looked almost the same and that probably helped them trust each other.

Yes, we do live in diverse societies, so I guess things will be different this time. We will probably benefit from all races (or we can hope at least).
>I wouldn't mind killing to protect my tribe. But I don't think murder is very efficient. I would rather talk, work together and trade.
I don't think you can trade with crazed starving people who are panicking and trying to kill you.
If this happens, the environment will be VERY HARSH.
Just look at harsh places like prisons or ghettos. You have to stay tough or they'll destroy you. There is also consistant danger.
Same thing, but much worse would happen after the collapse.
If we do end up trading and cooperating, it will be like between gangs of thugs. Everyone will be careful and someone might get killed if things don't go as planned.

>>8403355
>inb4 you never respond or even read those articles yet still claim you "can't think of any anti-Blanchardian argument that I'd find convincing by itself"

>>8403291
It's kind of funny-weird how all these people who have latched onto the ideas know the original research doesn't hold up to scrutiny and they don't have an argument to make so now they're trying to separate the terms/ideas to stand on their own but without any new research to replace the old.

No one will actually perform research because they know it'd only show the many flaws with the ideas but they just can't let go for some reason so they switch to opinion and what they feel is right as an argument while keeping everything vague and scientifically undefined enough that a wide swath could think "yeah most or some of that totally fits with my personal subjective experience or something I heard secondhand". Just look at the people in threads around here who "self-identify as agp" and how many of them clearly know nothing about the theory and are just going of secondhand meme bullshit.

>>8403512
>Any transwoman sexually attracted to men alone can never be AGP even when they say they are
Actually, that's not true. AGP really is the "catch-all" category for leftovers and if someone doesn't perfectly match the hsts typology to support what they wanted to show then they're agp even if they're exclusively attracted to guys.

>>8403524
>>8403613
>le ebin meme image XD these dessert doggos look the same to me and these people look different so you can't trust lying liberal science!
>yes appearances can be deceiving but luckily dna analysis allows a better understanding of biology
>lol who cares, I flunked out of highschool before we learned about dna so your words are meaningless, dna is just another liberal lie!

>>8404079
>They are still the same species. What point are you trying to make here?
Obviously that what "species" means should be whatever he feels it should be rather than any current standard based in dna or biological analysis.

>>8405929
>I gave you people some pretty good arguments, but no one will consider them
You suggested that science can't be trusted with a stupid meme image that shows a complete lack of understanding of science.
Then, after anons kindly educated you on what exactly "species" means you ignored it and started ranting about the end of society.

If you're not just shitposting and legitimately think that's "giving a pretty good argument" and others just unfairly refusing to consider it then you are delusional.

>>8408793
>I'd also point out that he's part of a cabal of older psychologists that want homosexuality to be classified mental illness again and that after their failed direct efforts their work with trannies was likely a roundabout way to achieve the same thing. You can tell by how the research is all about the hsts, agp is literally the catch-all category for everyone who didn't fit the typology that they wanted to prove to support their ideas, and hsts is all about being SUPER gay to the point that they can't live as men and are more acceptable to society as women.

Interesting!

>>8406068
Mutts are often healthier than many pureblood breeds.
You have no idea what you are talking about and seem to just be assuming how things are based on what feels right to you and fits your argument.

File: 1485098222558.png (91KB, 500x543px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 500x543px

>>8406963
>I used to base opinions on your "evidence"
WEW KID

Didn't Blanchard once admit in one of his books, that he basically defines HSTS as "tranny I'd fuck", and AGP as "tranny I wouldn't fuck"?

That's reeeeal scientific!

>>8404390
>We are destroying the whole planet at such a rapid rate that it's ridiculous.
No we're not. I was alive back in the 70s and trust me things were a lot worse back then. The environment at least in the US is pristine compared to then.

>>8408945
>>8409064
>>8409463
So much blind opposition. What did I expect from "skittle borad" on an anime forum?
>>8409104
>Mutts are often healthier than many pureblood breeds
There are studies suggesting the exact opposite.
But, why woult the mainstream ever lie to you, righ? Right? Riiiight?

>>8409463
Pollution is better but climate change has only gotten worse.

File: uEtFxDk.png (3MB, 1751x1313px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1751x1313px

>>8409549
>There are studies suggesting the exact opposite.
Studies sponsored by purebred breeders who have something to gain from you thinking their genetic abomination is perfectly happy and healthy despite suffering from twenty different different illnesses.

Contrary to what you may believe, there is no international conspiracy to make you think mutts are healthy, but there are many groups who have something to gain from you believing purebreds are healthy.

>>8410271
>being this stupid
>bait
>shill
It has to be one of these 3.

File: tgy.png (1018KB, 1027x605px) Image search: [Google]

1018KB, 1027x605px

>>8403298

seems like a stretch to say that women would get turned on by these types of captions

>>8410545
Have you learned what "species" is?

>>8410847
do people actually find these arousing? i'm agp, but i just find them cringey.

>>8410847
Obviously not, but women do get turned on by descriptions of themselves as feminine, sexy, etc, which is essentially what that image entails minus the MtF aspects.

>>8410847
I'm one of the people arguing that AGP is just a fetish and yeah normative cis women aren't turned on by this shit.

>>8410271
Thanks for this post.

>>8410885

If you ask women "does the thought of having breasts turn you on?" They would say no and find the question odd. But for AGPs the answer is yes

I just don't buy that ciswomen have agp

>>8410271
>>8411474
Samefag

>>8411746
That's a loaded question though. She already has breasts, so why would the thought of having them arouse her?

Instead the question should be more like "Does the thought of having more shapely/larger breasts arouse you?"

>>8411824
To which her answer will be no. She might want them, but the thought isn't "arousing".

>>8410847
What if it makes me happy instead of horny imagining that?

>>8403062

Pychologist bisexual NON-AGP trutrans here

I can beat Blanchard in 2 different ways.

>1:t by showing the evident flaws in his methodology
>2: by presenting myself as a case to study that contradicts each and every one of the tennets of his theories. A non-agp bi? didn't all Bisexuals fall in the AGP cathegory?
What the fuck? yes we do exist. And I'm not the only one.

That being said, AGP is a real thing, that's his only merit, pinpointing that.

>>8412638
A big problem with AGP is that it's a dumping ground for everyone not classified as HSTS. I don't really buy into Blanchard's conception of HSTS either, but AGP is a real mess with all kinds of subtypes.

>>8403298
Actually, non-transgender biological males do show AGP, there are surveys showing this.

>>8413051
and how to get over it if Im one?

>>8413051
Proof they aren't trans in repression?

>>8412453
Abnormal fetishism aside, this. Being trans is biological and developing AGP doesn't make you less trans but normal cis women definitely aren't AGP.

>>8413051
This.

>>8413161
Is EVERY happy crossdresser with a family a repressed transsexual? That seems rather unlikely given that there are enormous communities full of such people.

>>8414904
>it can't be so because I doubt it
Not an argument.

>>8416536
You're the one making the extraordinary claim..

>>8416585
No, you're the one making a claim at all. All I'm asking for is your evidence. Trying to shift the burden of proof makes it abundantly clear there is none besides your personal sense of disbelief.

>>8417968
Evidence that there are a lot of cis crossdressers? lol

>>8411746
Some do, some don't.

Not all cis women are the same.

>>8421725
I'd like to hear the account of a cis woman who claims to experience AGP!

>>8421756
Why would it be exclusive to males?

>>8421914
Any question like that hinges on the nature of AGP.

>>8421981
Maybe I don't know enough about AGP then.

Tell me about it.

File: 1475694197470.png (98KB, 375x307px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 375x307px

>>8409549
>explan the obvious issues with your argument and logic
>this is just blind opposition persecution because THE CONSPIRACY is trying to keep me down!

is this thread about agp or /pol/?

>>8427596
Is there a difference?

>>8413110
can't be done

>>8429912
Is there proof one can't lose a fetish?

>>8429915
why do you think conversion therapy is banned?

>>8403062
How can AGP be real if trannies aren't even real?

>>8429918
Conversion therapy is focused on sexual orientations, not fetishes.

>>8403298
pretty good.

>>8403585
this is good too, if its true, that is.

>>8403585
Cis women are less likely to spot that they are AAP if they are less androphilic.

>>8436439
That's the opposite correlation of the one I mentioned.

>>8436457
Right, because cis women misidentify their AAP and report it wrong.

>even after all the 150 points debunking it in this thread people will still believe blanchard

>>8436439
if they're AAP, is the gynephilia just pseudobisexuality?

>>8403158
>>8403310
Why does this spammer get allowed to stay?

>>8403062
1. It doesn't explain FTMs
2. It assumes that cis-women don't report AGP like tendencies.
3. The theory was based on self reports taken from MTF's interviews with their doctor, it's beyond plausibility that they might have said things that they thought the doctor wanted to hear (consider additionally that it was several decades ago)
4. It's unfalsifiable, those who where seen to fit the AGP criteria most but reported no AGP may have been considered to be lying. Blanchard's studies show signs like this of self selection and there was little done in his methodology to counteract potential biases, the theory may have been based on unrepresentative or misinterpreted data as a result.
5. There are more recent studies similar to Blanchard's that show contradictory results.
6. There is no explanation for how transsexuality arises.
7. There are simpler theories that can explain the phenomena physiologically that make more sense, abnormality in key areas of the brain associated with gender due to incorrect foetal development (this has been observed in numerous studies).

Consider these points, it's the same reason Freud's theories of the mind are not considered scientific, they are outmoded, unscientific and of little practical use.

>>8445126
>It assumes that cis-women don't report AGP like tendencies.
They don't.

>>8445126
>There are simpler theories that can explain the phenomena physiologically that make more sense
But brain abnormalities doesn't explain anything.

>>8450743
But it does.

>>8452571
???

>>8446505
t. 4chan neurologist who knows what sci hub is

there is none, he is largely correct, and you have to deal with that fact.

and fuck your "brain sex"
>tl:dr
>trannies have different brains than cis
>so do gays and lesbians
>in exactly the same way
>checkmate pseudosciencers

>>8454248
>fuck your "neurological evidence" muh feels are all the facts I need!
Wow, how can I argue, I guess I just need to accept your feelsfacts.

>>8454506
That's rich.

>>8454248
>this much anti-scientism

>>8454518
If I had a dollar for everytime someone on 4chan outright disregarded all science and evidence and substituted their feels as facts I WOULD be rich.

>>8450743
Look into what the abnormalities are and say that again.

>>8454248
>in exactly the same way
False.
>>8403143

>>8456803
Your claim, onus of proof is on you.

>>8403600
>I want to say it but I won't because I actually have nothing to say

It's just too retarded. It's simplistic to an over the top level. Two types? Seriously? You expect me to believe this shit?

>>8458101
good point

>>8458101
This. There's two types of trans, but one of them isn't actually trans?

>>8463022
I don't think it's strictly incorrect to consider HSTS to be trans too.

>>8403757
I'm legitimately disappointed people don't understand this and anyone argues against it. 99% of all published research in psychology is non replicatable. The sample sizes are tiny and the methodology suspect and biased. Society made a concious decision not to do real psych research so as not to hurt peoples fee fees because people felt like bad people when they participated in real social experiments where they acted predictably terrible.

>>8463082
What would real psych research be?

>>8457984
Yup, and the proof is right there.

>>8463082
Good thing that's not psychological research but neurological research, with direct empiric evidence backing it. That is, very much unlike Blanchard's, with his famous sample size of 9 crossdressers.

>>8463200
>m-muh liberal sjw jewish shill "science"

>>8463182
Where? There is none.

>>8463516
>There is a liberal jewish social justice warrior conspiracy that faked dozens of papers and made sure they got through peer-review
All you've done is help convince onlookers that you're a conspiracy theorist who doesn't give a lick about science.

>>8463526
Third response in the thread..

>>8464169
Has been repeatedly debunked.

wtf is blanchardianism
i'm assuming it has something to do with trannys
should i care if i'm cis?

>>8465631
Its content hasn't been addressed once. Try again.

>>8464161
>science
>traditional narrative

[many citations missing]

There's a small amount of evidence, but there's equally conflicting evidence. Blanchardism is just as much a theory as the traditional narrative is.

>>8468532
One side produced empiric evidence. The other did not. It's hardly a contest. Where are all of the brain scans showing that HSTSs are just gay men? Where are all of the scans showing AGPs are just straight men?

>>8468532
>Blanchardism is just as much a theory as the traditional narrative is.
"there's a female soul somehow" is not a theory. "mumble womb hormones mumble family selection mumble" is not a theory. "identity means identity means identity" is not a theory. "not Blanchardianism" is not a theory.

>>8468613
>>8468646

Faulty, false evidence like BSTc brain scans is less trustworthy than no evidence at all.
You think vaccines cause autism, now?

[citation needed] on "female soul". Not even gonna discuss the others until you can objectively prove trans people have "female souls". - And don't try citing something that has conflicting studies that are recent.

>>8468646
>Transsexuality as an intersex condition caused by a process similar to the one which is known to cause other intersex conditions, backed by empiric evidence of male-female intermediate brain regions found in transsexuals, does not constitute a theory and a body of evidence

>The abstract, baseless idea of Erotic Target Location Errors, having never been shown to exist, coupled with zero neuroscientific evidence, is a valid basis for a theory

Okay.

>>8468662
caused by a process similar to the one which is known to cause other intersex conditions

Other intersex conditions have physical differences. Opinion discarded.

>>8468658
Nice trollpost there.

>>8468646
By traditional narrative, I mean the belief that it is caused by some form of intersex condition.

>>8468658
>Faulty, false evidence like BSTc brain scans is less trustworthy than no evidence at all.
In what way is it faulty?

This evidence is still infinitely harder than anything produced by psych research - if you dismiss it there is zero reason to accept even one of Blanchard's paper's - but okay, how about any of the other studies on this page?
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2015to2019/2016-transsexualism.html
Or this previously linked study?
>>8400747

>You think vaccines cause autism, now?
How is that related?


The female soul dude is a strawmanning Blanchardian, showing the typical debate prowess of his kin.

>>8468668
There are many different kinds of intersex conditions with many different localized effects.
The brain, too, is physical.

From the third fucking response to the thread which fucking nobody read:
>Dating back to the first half of the twentieth century, research on laboratory animals has shown that the formation of external genitalia is not the end point of the sex differentiation process; virilisation of the male brain ensures that male and female brains develop along sex differentiated pathways, largely predicting/correlating with future sexual and non-sexual behaviours, although it has been shown, in androgen treated female rhesus macaque monkeys, that sexual behaviours can be masculinised without much evidence of genital masculinisation

>Citations:
>Goy, R.W., Bercovitch, F.B., and McBrair, M.C. (1988). Behavioral Masculinization is Independent of Genital Masculinization in Prenatally Androgenized Female Rhesus Macaques. Hormones and Behavior 22, 552-571.
>Phoenix, C.H., Goy, R.W., Gerall, A.A., and Young, W.C., (1959), Organizing Action of Prenatally Administered Testosterone Propionate on the Tissues Mediating Behavior in the Female Guinea Pig. Endocrinology 65, 369-382.
>Gooren, L.J.G. (1999). Cited in Bellinger v Bellinger, Court of Appeal para 32, Judgement, 2001, TLR 22-11-2000.
>Gooren, L.J.G., and Kruijver, F.P.M. (2002) Androgens and Male Behavior. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 198(1-2), 31-40.

>>8468678
>it is caused by some form of intersex condition
Except that doesn't explain a thing.

Unlike Blanchardianism.

>>8468737
This may explain HSTS but when has anything like AGP been observed in animals?

>>8468753
How is the description of an actual physical process that causes someone to be trans not an "explanation"?

>>8468771
It's not a "physical process". The brain is not proven to be 100% set. It's called neuroplasticity.

>>8468766
Both androphilic and gynephilic MTFs have "feminized" brains. That is, they exhibit male-female intermediate patterns in sexually dimorphic regions. The HSTS/AGP dichotomy is not backed by neurology.

>>8468789
So do homosexual people.

There is brain differences based on orientation, and since AGP/HSTS are related to orientation, your argument is shit.

>>8468678
Intersex "theory" is exactly as described >>8468646

>>8468803
transsexualism is caused by a birth defect "theory" - Blanchard has a better logical basis than some bullshit that isn't proven.

>>8468771
>the description of an actual physical process that causes someone to be trans
Because this description doesn't exist.

Prove me wrong, describe it. Describe the intersex condition as a physical process causing someone to be trans.

>>8468779
A man can't will himself to have a female, estrogen-induced brain pattern. This is not what neuroplasticity is. Neuroplasticity applies to some rather specific regions. Otherwise the implication would be that transsexuals have somehow managed to turn their brains half-female, and that both people with AGP and people without AGP somehow reached the same result.

>>8403062
AGP is just like alphas/betas, autists, chads, snowflakes, and SJWs. If 4chan is obsessed with it, you know it's a bullshit concept that has no bearing on actual IRL society.

>>8468819
Explain /r9k/ and people becoming traps because they're depressed at not having a gf and have nothing to lose then?

Also "brain pattern" - Brain patterns can change over time, there is no evidence whatsoever that they can't.

People with AGP would be not homosexual exclusively, and HSTS would be homosexual exclusively.

The theory still holds.

>>8468796
>So do homosexual people.
Transsexuals exhibit differences that gay people do not. Again, read the links in the *third post in the thread*, or the study linked here.
>>8468704

>There is brain differences based on orientation, and since AGP/HSTS are related to orientation, your argument is shit.
There are also brain differences based on gender identity, as shown in the studies linked above. The idea that there is no difference between gay people and trans people is very scientifically outdated now.

>>8468812
>Bullshit that isn't proven
i.e. Blanchard's Freudian psychobabble, as opposed to actual physical evidence

>>8468815
Read the links.

>>8468848
Well aware. Homosexual + trans = HSTS
non-homosexual + trans = AGP

There is other regions of the brain involved, of course. lacking research, just like the "studies"

Blanchard's theory is currently the most logically sound, as the current evidence is conflicting in other theories, while blanchard has not been disproven apart from "it can't be disproven". Because it's fucking right.

>>8468842
>Explain /r9k/ and people becoming traps because they're depressed at not having a gf and have nothing to lose then?
Delusional people being delusional about their situation.

>Also "brain pattern" - Brain patterns can change over time, there is no evidence whatsoever that they can't.
This is patently false. Some areas of the brain can change in some ways while others cannot. The brain's sexual development is partially set at birth and partially reinforced by hormonal exposure throughout life. Men don't randomly develop female brain patterns and vice versa.

>People with AGP would be not homosexual exclusively, and HSTS would be homosexual exclusively.
1) This has nothing to do with both gynephiles and androphiles having feminized brains
2) Only some 75% of gynephiles are AGP. Some 25% of exclusive androphiles are also AGP.

>The theory still holds.
If you're the sort that thinks posts on /r9k/ are evidence but disregards what actual scientists are saying.

>>8468900
>Delusional people being delusional
Just like most transitioners, right?
Shit argument.

This actually does happen due to porn exposure, anon. It can change the brain, and explains many things.

>>8468867
>Homosexual + trans = HSTS
>Non-homosexual + trans = AGP
Except that Blanchard's model states that AGP *leads to the development of a female gender identity*, which is hardly coherent with the idea that AGPs are actually innately neurologically feminine in some way. Blanchard specifically argued against any sort of feminine essence! Blanchard's model is more like
CisHet+AGP=Trans, with AGP not being innate and being curable.

Secondly you're ignoring all of the studies pointing out that some exclusively androphilic transsexuals are AGP and that some gynephilic transsexuals aren't AGP. Dismissing *every* such report as a misreport is quite a stretch when, after all, the data on most gynephiles being AGP was gathered *by* self reports.

>Well aware
If you're well-aware then you should also be well-aware that this goes counter to the idea that transsexuals have no "feminine essence" - that they aren't in some way "female inside".

>"Studies"
More rigorous studies than any Blanchard conducted..

>Blanchard's theory is currently the most logically sound
Except for the tiny problem of it having no proof.

>as the current evidence is conflicting in other theories
That's no longer the case. Some earlier MRI studies were countered by DTI studies which showed differences simple MRI could not.

>>8468942
>This actually does happen due to porn exposure, anon. It can change the brain, and explains many things.

>Porn turns people trans
OK

>>8468961
There's been accounts of porn actually turning people gay, anon.

Just as valid as the accounts of transgender people feeling better on HRT, when there's no hard evidence of so.

>>8468978
>There's been accounts of porn actually turning people gay, anon.
I
Sexual orientation is (largely, hormonal influences aside) hardwired Anon
this is literally not a thing

>Just as valid as the accounts of transgender people feeling better on HRT, when there's no hard evidence of so.
>>8469025

>>8469059
>Sexual orientation is (largely, hormonal influences aside) hardwired Anon
>this is literally not a thing
Sounds like something that could be disproven by even one example. Good thing then that nobody has ever done something like started out looking at porn with dickgirls in it because they hated looking at guys and becoming into guys after years of doing that. Of course, if something like that were to happen then it only proves that the person in question was actually not straight after all.

Give it a rest. You can rewrite the brain to do all sorts of shit; make you hate shit you've always loved or love shit you've always hated, sometimes with as little as one experience.

I get why people don't like accepting this fact, though. It'd mean admitting that you COULD actually cure dysphoria and homosexuality and all sorts of things with therapy, as long as you actually knew how to do it and didn't just do some crazy uninformed christian torture session or something. And that'd just be awful, wouldn't it? Having to take responsibility for your own behaviour; accept that you can change yourself all on your own if you can just figure out how to do it? Much easier to pretend you're powerless and blame someone or something else.

>>8469220
It is not about choosing to believe anything. The scientific community disagrees with you. Blanchard himself wrote extensively about how homosexuality correlates with having more older brothers. This is one of the things he is famous for. There are well-documented neural differences between men, women and people of different orientations and there is exactly zero evidence those can shift during life without chemical exposure. Neuroplasticity does not imply that every facet of the brain can change in every way.

The one who is choosing to ignore the position of experts and believe something contrary to it based on no evidence is you.

>>8468954
>and being curable.

WHERE IS THE CURE???

>>8469402
Blanchard believes psychotherapy, a la Zucker's, can help underaged dysphorics accept their gender. Adults are fucked though.

File: 3555.jpg (408KB, 1024x678px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1024x678px

>>8469408
so whats the use of all this science? all the arguing is for nothing if none of the theories can solve the problem and help people who can and dont want to transition (into hons)

>>8469424
For the scientists? The point is the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.

>>8469428
I thought medical science was about helping people instead of ideological debates. but ok

>>8469474
>Ideological
Not ideological. Scientific. Science is not about helping people. Science is about facts. Facts can be used to help people.. sometimes.

>>8469478
if ideologists wouldn't turn any gender-related science into a tool to fight patriarchy

>>8469408
>tfw never got the help i needed

File: Max Stirner.jpg (10KB, 200x237px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x237px

>>8469502
Ah, yes, the SJWs

>>8469424
The point is that transgenderism can be cured. And more research into this narrative could save thousands of lives, and save a shitload of us from pain their entire lives.

It's like telling someone with a disease where the onky known treatment doesn't work for you not to support a potential cure.

>>8468532
>traditional narrative
I'm seeing this in multiple of these troll threads as a way to outright reject evidence and research by suggesting there's some conspiracy in science hiding the "truth" in favour of a "narrative".

>Blanchardism is just as much a theory
Besides having serious selection bias and data omission issues, using unreliable measurements, being unfalsifiable and its results being irreproducible. Those last two especially mean that it literally doesn't meet the scientific standards of a theory which is why, along with all new research supporting other ideas, it was largely abandoned by the medical community.
At this point, it's just a few obsessed holdouts whose bullshit is only still tolerated by a few tiny "conservative alternative" groups that choose names designed to be easily confused for larger respected organisations like with the ACP and AAP. They don't actually do any research to support their ideas because they know it won't show what they want. They only release press statements and "studies" that just incorrectly cite other people's actual research to push their narrative(I can use that word too).

>>8468532
>>8468658
>there's equally conflicting evidence
>And don't try citing something that has conflicting studies that are recent
Which would be?
You all keep referring to the other side that's supposedly being suppressed and ignored but I'm not seeing it get posted like the brain research that supports the"traditional narrative".

>>8470732
>transgenderism can be cured
See above, could you post literally any research or evidence supporting this or contradicting what others have posted?
And I don't mean speculation and opinion and bullshit about what could surely maybe be shown if only the evil mainstream medical community would stop suppressing the truth.

>>8468867
>apart from "it can't be disproven". Because it's fucking right.
I really hope you're just pretending to be retarded for "le wacky shitposting".
Being falsifiable is literally one of the qualifications for a scientific theory.
If it cannot be falsified then it is definitively not science.

>>8468779
>>8468842
You appear to not fully understand what you're talking about with neuroplasticity.
Yes, the brain is not 100% set but it is not 100% changeable either. Certain structures and regions are set and non-plastic past certain points in development. This is why children are better able to learn in some ways because their brains are still more plastic. Some of the observed differences in trannies include regions that are set and non-plastic around leaving the womb indicating that something must be going on since birth.

>>8472408
>Some of the observed differences in trannies include regions that are set and non-plastic around leaving the womb
[citation needed]

>>8472408
>Being falsifiable is literally one of the qualifications for a scientific theory
[citation needed]

>>8472434
The stupidest thing is how he makes that demand of this theory and literally no other ever.

Well, that and the fact that it's easily falsifiable but none of the evidence for it is ever good enough.

>>8472439
Exactly. Still waiting for anything better than low quality evidence.

Blanchard got SWAG, butthurt hons BTFO.

>>8468978
>There's been accounts of porn actually turning people gay, anon.
Do these accounts have accompanying neurological evidence showing patterns associated with straight and gay people before and after the supposed change?
If so do you have any sources?
If not then how is it supposed to be equal or even comparable to the neurological evidence related to trannies?

Such findings would be hugely significant but you need actual physical biological evidence to support the claim and show it's not just something like a repressed/self-hating person blaming porn to absolve themselves of responsibility for being gay. I'm reminded of silly tabloid stories making all sorts of claims without actual evidence like the woman who claimed porn made her pregnant with a black baby while her husband was away in the army.

File: 1446860610169.jpg (18KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 224x225px

>>8472434
>disputing that theories must be falsifiable
Seriously?
You don't have any scientific argument so you want to play stupid with the definition of scientific theory?

You must realise that this hurts your argument in the eyes of anyone who isn't just pretending to be stupid to troll. This is so stupid it almost makes me think you're a tranny pulling some kind of false-flag meta troll to make the other side look bad.

>>8472439
>makes that demand of this theory and literally no other ever
The tranny brain research is falsifiable by new data contradicting it. Germ theory is falsifiable by new data somehow showing that there's actually no apparent connection between microbial organisms and illness.
There, demand made and met, you're literally lying.

>>8472426
Here:
>>8403143

>>8472434
lmao

>>8472449
How is direct physical evidence "low quality"?

>>8472536
>You must realise that this hurts your argument in the eyes of anyone who isn't just pretending to be stupid to troll. This is so stupid it almost makes me think you're a tranny pulling some kind of false-flag meta troll to make the other side look bad.
Almost. She's a repressed tranny desperate for an excuse to not transition.

>>8472635
I'm not a "repressed tranny". [evidence of any sort needed]

>>8472536
>You must realise that this hurts your argument in the eyes of anyone who isn't just pretending to be stupid
[citation needed].

>>8472650
You've spent the last forever shitposting on legbutt about finding a cure. Not something cis people do tbqh (to be quite honest) mein (my) fampai (senpai means family).

>>8472632
correlation does not = causation

>>8472653
I've literally only posted for 2 days. that's not forever, I'm new to this board. I'm not the tranny you're talking about.

>>8472657
>correlation does not = causation
Good thing we have a mechanism for directionality and an explanation for the connection between the findings.

>>8472653
Cureanon here. I'm not a supporter of Blanchard, anon. Bitter hons are now going as far as imitating me, because they think it's funny to make fun of my choice not to transition because I know for a fact it wouldn't help me.

>>8472664
Do we have an explanation as to what the direct cause of dysphoria is, or do we even understand what causes it? No. Do we have objective proof that these brain regions cannot be changed over time, or through, say taking HRT in the trans girls, and so on? No.

It is simply assumptions, nothing more.

>>8472672
>Do we have an explanation as to what the direct cause of dysphoria is, or do we even understand what causes it?
You have a group of people who feel like they're the other gender.
These people have brains that are, in a lot of significant ways, like those of the other sex.
Many of these features are set in the womb.
We have observed brain virilization being separate from genital virilization in animals.
In what way is this not an explanation?

>Do we have objective proof that these brain regions cannot be changed over time?
Without external chemical exposure or physical head trauma? Yes. This is not even controversial. Why do you think people generally stay the gender their brains are converted to in the womb?

>Or through, say taking HRT in the trans girls, and so on?
The differences were observed *before HRT*, or accounting for HRT.

>It is simply assumptions, nothing more.
It is a scientific theory based on direct, empiric physical evidence.

>>8472687


>without external chemical exposure or physical head trauma? Yes [citation needed].