I have read Nuttbrock study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894986/), on which this article relies. This stydy sounds reasonable to me, at least on the first glance.
Significant numbers of participants reported transvestic fetishism at odds with Blanchard’s predictions (23% of the homosexuals reported transvestic fetishism; 27% of the non-homosexuals did not report transvestic fetishism).
Yes, there are correlaions, but no evidence of existence of exactly two types. We can make conclusion about two distinct types if we see bimodal distributions. No such analysis was performed, there are only correlation coefficients.
I will illustrate the difference, for better understanding:
We see here four different types of samples.
Four sets of data with the same correlation of 0.816. Only two sets of data can be interpreted as having two types of samples. So, correlation alone doesn't say anything about different types.
These limitations notwithstanding, we nonetheless conclude that a classification of the MTF population, based solely on sexual orientation, is fundamentally limited. An adequate understanding of this population will only be achieved if social dimensions of the transgender experience, as framed by age and ethnicity in particular, are fully considered.
Does it look like empirical evidence of Blanchard's theories? Not at all. There is no social factors for Blanchard, androphilic MtFs can't have AGP, and all not exclusively androphilic MtFs have AGP. No external factors can change this.
Now, for the so-called evidence. "The Nuttbrock paper confirms, absolutely confirms, the Freund/Blanchard two type taxonomy for Male-To-Female (MTF) transsexuals, one that is exclusively androphilic and one that is autogynephilic". From what exactly place of Nuttbrock's paper did this came? How can "fundamentally limited" became "absolutely confirms"?