#21 [url]

Apr 11 17 1:51 AM

I don't think they hate transwomen or misunderstand transmen, nor have they made up any old crap to deny anyone's existence. It seems that some people refuse to believe their research and documenting.

Quote    Reply   

#22 [url]

Apr 11 17 4:08 AM

Looks like all PhDs are infallible, and all their published articles will change reality, so reality will exactly match their research :) No research can be verified, proven or refuted, so it's all about belief, do you believe ... or not?

Science is not like a religion, it works differently. If we see biased selection of samples in some reseach, we start to have suspictions: what it was? Honest mistake or intended skew? Or maybe author just want another publication, so he (or she) wites basically a scientific-looking nonsense and hopes that it will pass.

When your conclusions are not drawn from your own data, this is not a science. When you cherry-pick examples of fantasies, with intent of show how perverted are those AGPs, this is not science. Declaring something a paraphilia, when paraphilia haven't scientific definition, this is not science. It's a correct classification, but category "paraphilia" doesn't belong to science, it's a voted up thing.
Something like: " -- Collegues, should we include anal sex into paraphilias? -- No, I do enjoy it too much. -- Me too. -- Agreed, it's norma!"

Researchers before Blanchard has a good understanding that phenomenon of transsexuaism can't be reduced to sexuality. If Blanchard have different ideas, he should first refute Hirschfeld and Benjamin's ideas. But he never did it. As far as I remember, he never mentioned that previous researchers have a different, more complex ideas. Instead of citing Benjamin, he cites himself.

UPD: And for hate and misundersandement. If some researcher would refer to black people as "bald monkeys", with implication that all black people are really monkeys and nothing more. That they slould be treated like monkeys, who they really are. That human mind is not nothing more that monkeys mind, and that "sapient" thing is not important, because they are what they really are: big bipedal bald monkeys. They even look that way!

What would be say about such "researcher"? Technically he is correct, at least on some level. All humans are primates, after all. But his choice of words has only one goal: to insult. His equating humans to animals in that way shows his desire to degrade. And if some racist, after reading all that "black people are not humans but monkeys" stuff will offer a banana to a black spotsman, it will be not a scientific thing. Obviously, it will be a horrible insult.

Any good scientist, who is not driven by hate, at this point will have a soul-wrenching question: what have I done? I made a grave mistake, my research fuels hate! I need no do something, to amend my mistakes, to stop this mad racists. But Blanchard... he thinks that he is going right thing.

Last Edited By: Barbara Haskell Apr 11 17 6:24 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#23 [url]

Apr 11 17 11:12 AM

rubbercripple wrote, "Bobbi so why not just put it to him that you think it's 64% of him agreeing with himself and see what he says?"

I am having too much fun poking at his tweets! If I challenged him directly on his feed Blanchard is such a grown man-baby he'd probably block me just like he's blocked Jack. then I would have to do a bit more digging for it :)

Quote    Reply   

#24 [url]

Apr 11 17 11:21 AM

rubbercripple wrote, "I don't think they hate transwomen or misunderstand transmen, nor have they made up any old crap to deny anyone's existence"

LisaM was likely using the term euphemistically, because we obviously exist as people, it just feels that way due to Blanchard's cynical attempts to invalidate any transgender experience that does not fit his model. If it does not conform it must not exist. And BTW - Blanchard would not be getting the criticism he is getting from the trans-community if he at least tried to leave his social prejudices out of his research.

Quote    Reply   

#27 [url]

Apr 12 17 1:10 AM

And ..quote his acolyte Michael Bailey said:

"WPATH has become an egregious organization that makes the world worse in the name of making the world better for the transgendered."

Think about that for a moment...

The same man speculated that 'heterosexual trans women' (no we are not you fool we are lesbians) were more likely to be sexual sadists and attack women....or the so cal;led 'homosxual trans women" would be caught having sex with men in a women's toilet (they can't control themselves being so suited to prostitution)

These people hate us.....ok. And want us eliminated from society.

Quote    Reply   

#30 [url]

Apr 12 17 11:00 AM

Rubbercripple, Blanchard represents a tiny minority position among trans researchers and trans caregivers. He would be largely unknown, if transphobic people and organizations didn’t reference his ideas. Well known transphobic psychiatrist, Dr. Paul McHugh, has even claimed that he originated Blanchard’s theory before him, largely I suspect because he recognizes its value in putting trans people in their place. I believe you will find that most of us believe trying to reason with him is equivalent to a group of Jews trying to reason with Hitler. In any case, most of his peer community has been trying to reason with him for a couple of decades.

Quote    Reply   

#33 [url]

Apr 12 17 12:00 PM

Rubbercripple wrote, "Just want to put this out there: Is there anybody here from the UK who might consider doing a piece to camera with me for my film on why they disagree with Blanchard?"

You have a history of misconstruing what we tell you, then dismissing our rebuttal, then pretending not to understand why we get frustrated with you. What in the HELL makes you think anyone would want to put their thoughts on video when you have total editorial control of the end product? You have been rather vague about what this film is going to be about but I get the impression that you intend to set up some sort of false equivalency between the theory of AGP and crossdreaming. Is that it?

Quote    Reply   

#34 [url]

Apr 12 17 12:15 PM

The film is about Autogynephilia. I have no hidden agenda, I genuinely want to put it out there, I have a Blanchard interview via Skype with Miranda Yardley although I am just using audio and a selection of the video footage it wasn't that successful filming Skype. I have Jack Molay's and Felix Conrads contribution read by a female colleague. There is a couple who talk about the female's desire to know what sex is like with a penis, a cross dresser, Rod Fleming etc, etc. I would love to include an opposing opinion on Blanchard. I woul love to talk with a FtM crossdreamer, I will not edit in a devious manner, this is real. That's the basics of it Bobbi.

Quote    Reply   

#37 [url]

Apr 12 17 2:11 PM

rubbercripple wrote:
Actually Bobbi there are similarities in AGP and Crossdreaming we all know this.

No, we actually don't know how those two words equate. Rather than just dismissing our lengthy explanations without directly engaging us, maybe it would be more productive for all of us if you would say exactly how they are similar. Otherwise, you are appearing rather disingenuous 

Quote    Reply   

#38 [url]

Apr 12 17 2:57 PM


AGP is a dying theory. Why do you keep trying to revive it? Maybe you need to try to convince us on why you think it should be revived. But good luck with that.


"The thing is you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear, dig?" the Pointed Man

Quote    Reply   

#40 [url]

Apr 12 17 3:42 PM

I'm not reviving anything, it is a reality. It is also a related term to crossdreaming

Sorry, I went to hit quote, and I hit the edit by mistake. I have returned it to its original.

- April

Last Edited By: April Apr 12 17 4:03 PM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help