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.