The second best, for an academic, is to be noticed and incompetently mocked.
Here’s the issue Kay: labeling me as incompetent while refusing to refute or acknowledge any of my arguments makes it seem as if you cannot accept or refute criticism.
Oh… and it will attempt to “debunk Blanchardianism”… you know… just like biblical creationists / “intelligent design” science denialists attempt to “debunk Darwinism”.
The comparison of a questionable at best sexologist “theory” about the etiology of transgenderism (to use an unpopular word) to an extremely well-supported theory about evolution that has been replicated thousands of times by tens of thousands of scientists is disingenuous. Many of Blanchard’s claims have not been replicated by the studies that Brown professes that support the typology, and Nuttbrock et al’s reply to Lawrence’s comment on their studies is a great read on how Blanchard’s typology is limited in its usefulness and application.
Be sure to compare these science denialisms with my Silly Objections list and play “Silly Objections Bingo”:
I guess my next article will have to be about your list, but unfortunately you fail to refute any of the criticisms, but instead label them as “silly objections”. Data-supported, legitimate criticisms are not to be dismissed in order to reify a series of hypotheses.
You’ll note that the only ones that I “satisfy” are (and can support, have supported and will support with evidence):
“Not ALL transwomen fit the two types!”
“Women are autogynephilic too! It’s just normal female sexuality. They are just ‘female embodiment fantasies’ ”
“Autogynephilia is just an effect of gender dysphoria.”
Although my hypothesis on the last one is a bit more nuanced than that
“Straight (androphilic) transwomen are autogynephilic too!”
Replace “are” with “can be” and then I’ll agree
“There’s no proof. It’s only a theory. That data has never been replicated.” (ignoring the half-dozen referenced peer reviewed papers with data from over a thousand subjects)
Many of Blanchard’s claims have not been replicated, while some of his others claims have been.
“That hypothesis is unfalsifiable so it is pseudo-scientific bullshit!” (ignoring the fact that autogynephilia and sexual orientation are directly observable behaviors)
The unfalsifiable part that people are referring to is that bisexual, lesbian and asexual trans women are deemed liars if they do not fit Blanchard’s typology. If all exceptions are dismissed as fraudulent data, then there can be no rejection to the theory. And I would contest the claim that sexual orientation is directly observable, but that’s for another day.
Possibly this one:
“Early transitioners didn’t express autogynephilia because they started HRT (or puberty blockers) before they developed erections.”