Apr 3 17 9:49 AM

Tags : : , ,

Hi All,
So I have not yet been banned from Blanchard Twitter feed so I came across this little gem that he twatted out yesterday.  
"The she-male phenomenon and the concept of partial autogynephilia."  https://t.co/el2hLpQQfi

I read the whole thing and the thing that struck me the most as odd was when I got to the References section - 11 references.  This classifies as more of a white paper than a research paper but whatever.  The other thing that stood out was the references themselves: 1 by Ellis (1928), 2 by Zavitzianos (1972 and 77), 1 was by Money and Lamacz and fully 7 of these referenced papers had Blanchard's name as either author or co-author.  WTF! 64% of this paper is Blanchard agreeing with himself!
Quote    Reply   

#1 [url]

Apr 3 17 10:04 AM

My take on Blanchard is that he is an aging egomaniac, who won’t retreat at all from theories he proposed 30 to 40 years ago. I believe he has come out of his self imposed semi silence because he likes being a guru to a new generation of transphobs who have learned to cut and paste from his writings.

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Apr 3 17 11:52 PM

No, Blanchard does not understand ethics. He and his friends are hinding behind the idea that science is "objective" and "disinterested" and therefore outside the ethic realm. This is obviously nonsense. Since the Nuremberg trials the message to scientists has been: Do no harm!

But what you see here is also an effect of modern science. A scientific career is driven by publication and citations. You know the phrase: "Pulbish or perish".

The best way of getting a lot of peer reviewed publications is to stick to one or two areas, preferably within one discipline while targeting journals that share your world view. The peers of Archives of Sexual Behavior  are listed five times in this paper. That journal are run by friends of Blanchard. What we find here is a small group of likeminded scientists who support each other and find ways of affirming each others prejudices. This is not exactly unethical. It is all too human. Archives of Sexual Behavio

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Apr 3 17 11:54 PM

Here's what I wrote about Blanchard and ethics back in 2015.

There can be no doubt that the autogynephilia theory and Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey's research  on transgender people are in violation of fundamental ethical principles of both science and patient care. 

 By reducing the identity of trans women to being men suffering from a sexual perversion or effeminate gay men trying to seduce straight men, the researchers are basically camouflaging sexist stereotypes  and transphobic beliefs as science. By doing so they are not only invalidating the identities of transgender people. They are also contributing to the continuous marginalization of trans people by giving trans-phobic bullies arguments that can be used to harass them, Indeed, this is exactly what we see right now: The autogynephilia theory is nearly exclusively referred to by anti-LGBT activists from the extreme religious right and so-called "trans-exclusionary radical feminists". Below I have included some paragraphs from documents discussing the ethics of health care and research on humans. As I see it, the autogynephilia theory is in violation of all these basic principles.

 Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects 

"7. Medical research is subject to ethical standards that promote and ensure respect for all human subjects and protect their health and rights. 8. While the primary purpose of medical research is to generate new knowledge, this goal can never take precedence over the rights and interests of individual research subjects. 9. It is the duty of physicians who are involved in medical research to protect the life, health, dignity, integrity, right to self-determination, privacy, and confidentiality of personal information of research subjects. The responsibility for the protection of research subjects must always rest with the physician or other health care professionals and never with the research subjects, even though they have given consent."

 Guiding Ethical Principles of The Euorpean Federation of Sexology 

"Sexologists shall respect and uphold the dignity of those receiving their professional services." 

Nordic Association for Clinical Sexology, on dignity 

"A member respects the client’s personality, experience and dignity. This means sensitivity to individual differences that are based on client’s age, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnic and cultural origin, language, religion, functional level, education and socioeconomic status. A member is also aware of the limitations that her/his own background might cause in these matters. A member strives to be unbiased towards the client’s values, way of life and ideology. It is important to identify the impact of one’s own values, emotions and motivations on the client relationships, and one should always pay special attention to using neutral and respectful language when client is contacted via telephone, email or internet."

 American Psychiatric Association: The Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry 2013 Edition 

"A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights. 1. A psychiatrist shall not gratify his or her own needs by exploiting the patient. The psychiatrist shall be ever vigilant about the impact that his or her conduct has upon the boundaries of the doctor–patient relationship, and thus upon the well-being of the patient. These requirements become particularly important because of the essentially private, highly personal, and sometimes intensely emotional nature of the relationship established with the psychiatrist. 2. A psychiatrist should not be a party to any type of policy that excludes, segregates, or demeans the dignity of any patient because of ethnic origin, race, sex, creed, age, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation."

 American Psychological Association: Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 

"3.01 Unfair Discrimination In their work-related activities, psychologists do not engage in unfair discrimination based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status or any basis proscribed by law. 3.03 Other Harassment Psychologists do not knowingly engage in behavior that is harassing or demeaning to persons with whom they interact in their work based on factors such as those persons' age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language or socioeconomic status. 3.04 Avoiding Harm Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisers, research participants, organizational clients and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable."

 The American Psychological Association's Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People 

"Guideline 1. Psychologists understand that gender is a non‐binary construct that allows for a range of gender identities and that a person’s gender identity may not align with sex assigned at birth.  Guideline 2. Psychologists understand that gender identity and sexual orientation are distinct but interrelated constructs.  Guideline 4. Psychologists are aware of how their attitudes about and knowledge of gender identity and gender expression may affect the quality of care they provide to TGNC people and their families.  Guideline 5. Psychologists recognize how stigma, prejudice, discrimination, and violence affect the health and well‐being of TGNC people." 

Hippocrathic Oath (original version 5th century BC, modern version used by many physicians today) (Modern version, extract:) 

"I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow. I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery. I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play a God. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm."

 American Psychoanalytic Association Position Statement on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, or Gender Expression. 

“As with any societal prejudice, bias against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism through the internalization of such prejudice. Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’ “repair,” change or shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized attitudes.”

 More on autogynephilia.  

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Apr 4 17 6:50 AM

I was introduced to Blanchard by reading the writings of Anne Lawrence , and in turn they were introduced to me by the on TG friend I've even made on line and then met..... so they came to me on 'good' recommendation...

And in part the Lawrence writing made sense to me at the time, though they have been passed in my self-knowledge aids by the concept of Crossdreaming

I think the problems with his writing are not in the initial idea that some transwomen or MtF Crossdreaming are 'turned on' by considering themselves female, but the spin and know-it-all intransigence they come wrapped in... To an extent I've found this with ALL the theory about being transgendered.. there are a lot of people who seem to know it all based on a mixture of guesswork, a few case studies and some personal experience.

I tend to learn more by discussing with the members of this boards

The objections to Blanchard, as I see them are
1 - He takes it as read that his fairly simplistic theory must apply to everyone - Overreach
2. He is unprepared to update his theory on later data - Intransigence
3. He treats anyone who challenges him as a n enemy - Pig Headed stupidity

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Apr 4 17 9:32 AM

PipX wrote, "I tend to learn more by discussing with the members of this boards "

I have learned things about the transgender spectrum since participating on this forum, and the more I learn the more I realize there is a lot more to learn. Our experiences are tied up with our prejudices, our peers, our parenting and hormones. there is so much nuance that just logically you have to reject AGP on that basis alone - it is too simplistic.

I found this quote from Julian Cockbain, MA, DPhil from here https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_self-citation_ethical

"Self-citation is perfectly reasonable if used to make your article shorter (i.e. to avoid repeating what you have already published). Otherwise, it tends to make you look a bit pathetic and seriously damages the chances of your article receiving proper blind peer review. " - A perfect description.

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Apr 5 17 2:37 PM

For me, the watershed moment in understanding Blanchard came when I realized that his theory was intended to be universal. In other words, he was attempting to explain all transsexualism (not just AGP transsexualism mind you). Basically, his theory boils down to his belief that all transsexualism is really about a confusion about one's orientation. He wasn't trying to say that he had discovered some association between certain behaviors and the desire to transition. No, rather he was saying that if you have one sort of history, you fit into one box, and another sort of history, you fit into another, and that covered all of transsexualism, end of story. No amount of contradicting evidence has gotten him to move off of that simple formula at all.

Last Edited By: April Apr 5 17 2:41 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Apr 5 17 2:53 PM

I think that we are missing something here. Two-type typology is very real and distinct. There are transsexuals, who are sexually attractive, and those who are not. Blanchard puts a lot of emphasis on this. And yes, his definition of attractivenes includes exclusive androphilic orientation. Of course, this kind of typology can't be proven or refuted by scientific data, but he needs this data to make his papers look respectable.

This is the only one logical explanation for me.

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Apr 5 17 3:27 PM

Barbara, I believe Blanchard says something about the attractiveness of type one transsexuals as well. According to Blanchard, in adolescence there is this pool of gay males. The ones who are rather pretty see a path to transition and take it, because after all, it is way cooler to be a heterosexual girl than an effeminate gay man (some sarcasm intended). Those who are not so pretty and feminine looking realize the impassibility of transition and decide to live as gay men. Again, attractiveness becomes the defining issue here in Blanchard's world. I have my suspicions about his emphasis on attractiveness. I believe it might be rooted in a political calculation. Tramsition is a perfectly ok form of treatment with him as long as a transphobic pubic can't really see it among them. Anything else is not his kind of trans.  

Last Edited By: April Apr 5 17 3:48 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#11 [url]

Apr 7 17 12:47 PM

The are transsexuals who might have been more sexually attractive had we pushed against the system so hard that we had a chance to do what we really wanted when we were 16, but probably aren't so sexually attractive now we are in our 30s and 6ft tall and so forth, and there are transsexuals who are more slight of build and more effeminate and yes maybe more androphilic so their need to have a boyfriend overrode their need to respect their parents wishes at a younger age, but that's just a sliding scale of variation, probably not two distinct boxes. 

And some of the later transtioners really aren't that bad looking either..
Not bad for someone who didn't transition till their mid-to-late 30s..
She apparently had a few long term girlfriends as a man, so gynephilic not just autogynephilic.

Well she's 7 years older than me, so it gives me some hope..

Last Edited By: Xora Apr 11 17 3:55 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Apr 7 17 1:02 PM

Then she said:

"I read the whole thing and the thing that struck me the most as odd was when I got to the References section - 11 references. This classifies as more of a white paper than a research paper but whatever. The other thing that stood out was the references themselves: 1 by Ellis (1928), 2 by Zavitzianos (1972 and 77), 1 was by Money and Lamacz and fully 7 of these referenced papers had Blanchard's name as either author or co-author. WTF! 64% of this paper is Blanchard agreeing with himself!"

This topic, ala the title AND full body of the OP is about the lack of professional ethics, that as a researcher, Blanchard as exhibited. She just used the paper on partial AGP as an example. That said, if you find that topic interesting you might want to create a new topic to discuss that.

Last Edited By: Lost247365 Apr 7 17 1:19 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Apr 8 17 11:38 AM

rubbercripple wrote:
Lost: so it has nothing to do with partial agp?

No, it doesn't.

That was just an example paper. It's like talking about religion in great works of American Literature and mentioning "Letters from the Earth" by Mark Twain as an example.

The topic isn't LftE, but religion in American literature. It's fine to discuss LftE as it purtains to the discussion, but you would derail the topic if you wanted discuss why that is your favorite book or how awesome Mark Twain was.

If you wanted to discuss Mark Twain in general you would probably create a new thread all about him.

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Apr 8 17 12:44 PM

rubbercripple I did read the whole paper but as I said the discussion itself was not that striking for me - I had heard this sort of discussion from Blanchard before. I only read it because he presented it as something new in her Twitter feed. As I said - I was annoyed and shocked when I got to the references section and noted how much of the research for the paper was based on Blanchard's own work. To me - if you are trying to convince a wide audience of your theories then it only makes sense to include examples from those who both agree and disagree with you and demonstrate from your extensive research why your theory works better. "Otherwise, it tends to make you look a bit pathetic and seriously damages the chances of your article receiving proper blind peer review."

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Apr 11 17 12:16 AM

I showed the evidence from his own paper, even Blanchard did not prove his AGP hypothesis.

He did not prove:
(1) Only male attracted trans women did NOT have AGP, the result showed clearly they did have fantasies about having a female body and being admired (and desired) for that.
(2) That all non exclusively male attracted ... pre transition ...(that is female attracted, bisexual and asexual) trans women were AGP...nope many scored low or zero of the AGP tests.

Because the sample was so bad there was no pro and post transition separation...we know for a fact many trans women who, perhaps with a bisexual or heterosexual past, become exclusively male attracted ...and vice versa as well.... ditto trans men too.

I also love, because I have read many of their papers (Blanchard, Bailey, etc), their internal contradictions. Pre transition they classified me as a gay man because I had a few sexual experiences with a man ..as a man. One in a thousand sexual experiences that are gay means you are gay man . Post transition I have suddenly changed to becoming 'exclusively' heterosexual' when as a male....and thus AGP......

To even get to that point he had to invent 'pseudo homosexuality and 'pseudo bisexuality' to justify his clusterings....can anyone find any sex researcher or a paper that has those ideas in them? . He pulled them out of nowhere...like the idea that the poor old asexuals were also AGP...just 'because'....

Despite a dodgy sample (poor selection techniques that would not stand up even then to close examination, let alone now), and incorrect statistical test (not valid for varying sample sizes)...he still prove nothing... even with all the above errors...and even circular logic.

He is a Catholic extremist, with questionable sexuality himself, who believes that ANY non procreative PiV sex is a paraphillia and should be in the DSM ..and yes gay men and lesbians are mentally ill as well...

Ethics? Not a chance...he spends his retirement supporting TERF and anti-trans conservatives people, organisations and sites.. Think of him as 'Paul McHugh' light...but they barely disagree on anything these days.

Look they just lie because they hate trans women, can't understand trans men (and thus ignore them) ..and they will make up any old crap to attack us and deny our existence.

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help