>Argue against Blanchardianism dozens of times >a 400-post

>>8601740
Blanchard ftw. Trannies confirmed fetishists and straight seducers.

>>8601740
Have you considered starting an /antiblanchardgen/?

>>8601759
Maybe this is thread #2 of /antiblanchardgen/? Let's see how it goes and if we reach thread #3 it can get the title officially.

>>8601740
I don't like the discussions of neurology, because people fail to properly link it to actual practical matters. I've learned to be very suspicious of these kinds of arguments. However, I can respond to some of the things from the previous thread:

>>8598058
Probably the most detailed anecdote I've heard about AAP was from an asexual (because the competition thing is not just an excuse but an actual phenomenon) cis-identifying woman who participated in one of my surveys:

She really likes yaoi, and tended to self-insert as one of the characters. She also bought a packer which she uses for masturbating, and she had an explanation that wearing male underwear (which she initially bought for sexual reasons). In addition, she'd observed that he desire to crossdress depended on her sex drive, which depended on birth control & periods.

>>8598081
> Okay, but your ability or inability to understand something does not impact the truth value of something. If you want to know something you need to learn about it. At least go through some of the more plain English articles.
No, but I can't just accept things blindly if I don't understand them.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/10/getting-eulered/

> 1) I've yet to see proof that it is useful in a way that this model isn't if you account for the difference between androphiles and gynephiles in general..
This is hard to prove and I'm terrible at examples!

> 2) If a theory seems to function but is contradicted by undeniable evidence then it follows that the practical parts of the theory still work for some reason while the theoretical parts are simply untrue. That is, you found a cargo cult ruleset that produces results but you don't know the reason why it works.
It's not contradicted by undeniable evidence. There are entirely plausible explanations for why you got what you got in the brainsex study which don't require dysphoria to be caused by feminine essence.

>>8602119

>>8598081
> 3) You might be simply mistaken about it making useful predictions. Blanchard's big on people being mistaken about their own experience :^)
A lot of trans people are obviously mistaken about their own experience. I know from personal experience how tempting it can be to cherry-pick your past for "signs", and I can easily observe it in others.

>>8598083
This is why Trentism > Blanchardianism.

>>8598122
I tried doing that for a while, but it starts feeling silly eventually.

>>8602119
>I don't like the discussions of neurology, because people fail to properly link it to actual practical matters. I've learned to be very suspicious of these kinds of arguments.
What do you mean they fail to link it to practical matters?

I don't like neurology arguments either but maybe it's just because they're beyond me...

>asexual (because the competition thing is not just an excuse but an actual phenomenon)
Describe it more please?

>>8602125
>Trentism > Blanchardianism
What's the difference besides AAP existing?

I think the term should be Trentist-Blanchardism.

>>8601740
neuro-intersex.

>>8601740
Isn't this kind of bullshit? It's pretty easy to tell the difference between a male and female brain just by examining them.

>>8602170
In trentism all homosexuals have the essence of opposite sex, while a*ps don't.

>>8602186
Whoever made the "research" had an agenda going into it. That's the direction "research" and "studies" has taken now, for a while.

>>8602192
That's in Orthodox Blanchardism too though?

>>8602196
It's not, hence "homosexual transsexual" and not straight

>>8602196
No, regular blanchardianism considers both to have the essence of their natal sex

>>8602198
Survey, confirm?

>>8602119
>I don't like the discussions of neurology, because people fail to properly link it to actual practical matters
Everything boils down to neurology when the brain is involved. Neurology is still pretty primitive, but psychological theories should map to neurology eventually. If Blanchardianism is valid, there should be neurological evidence for it.

>>8602293
Where in the brain is submission/dominance?

>>8602304
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/a-brain-implant-turns-loser-mice-into-aggressive-fighters/

>>8602326
Would you accept a study of mice as confirming Blanchardianism?

>>8602304
It has to be there somewhere.

The overall point is that our knowledge of the brain is still fairly primitive. However, when there is neurological evidence, I would give that greater weight than theories without neurological evidence.

>>8602368
>It has to be there somewhere.
And so do the Blanchardian parts. /thread

>>8602336
Well, good luck with that.

>>8602393
Double standard.

>>8602399
What?

>>8602387
The point stands that Blanchardian theories need to be consistent with neurological evidence.

>>8602479
They are.

>>8602336
No, because Blanchard's theories could only ever be true for a species that has culture, self-awareness, etc. Even if his ideas were true, a rat couldn't be HSTS or AGP because it doesn't even have the understanding of what a fetish is, nor can it be an extremely gay rodent who acts feminine to fit in. Both of those require at the very least a culture and a theory of mind. You'd have to first prove that mice even have those before you can submit evidence that mice can display HSTS or AGP.

Neurological intersexuality doesn't have this problem, because we know that mice, just like every other animal, have different behaviors depending on their brain's structure, and that altering that structure can thus change their behaviour.

>>8602119
>because people fail to properly link it to actual practical matters
You wouldn't even know because you refuse to actually read shit.

>>8602326
Haven't they actually done similar stuff with sexual expression?

>>8602515
>a rat couldn't be HSTS or AGP because it doesn't even have the understanding of what a fetish is,
AGP isn't a fetish and even if it was humans wouldn't need to understand that to be AGP.

>nor can it be an extremely gay rodent who acts feminine to fit in.
HSTS don't act feminine to fit in.

>mice, just like every other animal, have different behaviors depending on their brain's structure, and that altering that structure can thus change their behaviour.
Except what is true for mice doesn't necessarily apply to humans as a species that has culture, self-awareness, etc.

File: 1459323166489.jpg (22KB, 422x309px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 422x309px

>>8602119
>>8602125

>literally rejecting clinical and scientific evidence in favour of anecdotes, faulty original research, and vague philosophical ideas of "usefulness"

>>8602544
At least they're better than that "agp proponent" who admits that their ideas aren't based in science at all and they don't even really mean blanchardian agp but simply steal the name as a label for their own "experiences"(they refuse to call it a new theory or idea so they can try to dodge the burden of evidence) that they can't quite define or explain at all.
Also they samefag a lot and when backed into a corner of actually having to answer and explain shit they make excuses like people are mean and wouldn't listen even if they did post anything and they don't have any more time to waste so they can run away, but then they just very obviously start posting in another bait thread and while they deny samefagging at first they often forget to keep up the ruse and pretend to be a different person.

>>8602509
You obviously have no understanding of how gender dysphoria makes us different.

>>8602576
Curehon?

>>8602539
>AGP isn't a fetish and even if it was humans wouldn't need to understand that to be AGP.
>HSTS don't act feminine to fit in.

Fair enough, maybe I misinterpreted the concepts. But can you tell me what traits of AGP or HSTS we could potentially see in an animal that doesn't have culture or a theory of mind?

>Except what is true for mice doesn't necessarily apply to humans as a species that has culture, self-awareness, etc.

That's just an argument over complexity. A human's behaviour, personality, ability to community, ability to reason, etc are just as much a product of our brains as they are in any other animal. Unless you believe that humans have some sort of innate soul that animals don't, or other such psuedoscience, that's the objective truth. As such, humans are just as susceptible to neurological effects on behaviour as any other animal would be. That's just basic logic, that's literally how the brain works.

What you're arguing here is like saying that because a cow's stomach is so much more complex than a human's, clearly they must not be subject to the same basic function of what a stomach is and does. Stomachs digest food, that's true no matter how simple or complex your stomach is. Brains influence behaviour, and that's also true no matter how simple or complex your brain is.

>>8602589
Yeah, always calls everyone a bitter hon.

>>8601759
OP is a butthurt Blanchardian

>>8602479
Blanchard wrote that transsexuals aren't the other sex mentally. That they're just normal men.
Neurology says they are halfway the other sex mentally.
How is that compatible?

>>8601740
>>8602186
Yup. That study is often quoted by radical blank slatists who don't actually understand what it's saying. The first link discusses it in particular.

http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2016/01/sex-on-brain-tale-of-two-studies.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

You shouldn't be surprised. That poster is a certified TERF, having linked to Gender Trender upthread.

>>8601740
But wait!

If there are inherent differences in the brain

then is gender still a social construct?

>>8603171
Yes.
For example red and blue are different but everything you take from red and blue and arbitrarily add onto them is culturally relative, like red being an angry evil color.
As well as that, you need to be careful not to imply nature is an authority, or you edge into primitivist/anti-tech territory.

>>8603171
gender roles are a social construct. gender as in brain sex is not a social construct.

also, terfs deserve death

>>8603171
Echoing the death to TERFs bit tbqh sex denialism is fucked up

>>8602605
I'm a blanchardian and she annoys me too.

>>8602966
They're not. I'm anti-Blanchardian and was saying that Blanchardians are in trouble if their theory conflicts with neurology.

>>8602970
Blank slatism is retardation.