The roots of Blachard's rubbish go way back further. At the core gender = sexuality. If your are feminine you want to have sex with a man and be penetrated. If you are a man you want to have sex with a women and penetrate. Which does raise the question of who does the penetrating in a gay male relationship......
So naturally (and this was created long before Blanchard) trans women were just seen as extremely feminine gay men, part of the gay male syndrome.
Funnily enough some of this stuff came from Virginia Prince, the creator of 'crossdressing clubs' and the crossdressing model. Transphobic and homophobic at the same time, Prince was virulently against transitioning (and especially GRS) and only 'heterosexuals' were allowed. I contend that this model greatly damaged the trans community and created divisions and wounds only starting to heal now.
Along the way you have actors such as Stoller, Money, Green and the rest all endlessly pushing this 'gender behaviour = sexuality' nonsense. Plus that it was all changeable hence the atrocities to intersex people, trans people especially kids, GNC kids through their gay/trans conversion therapy.
To them internal gender identity doesn't exist, only sexual orientations and targets ..which is logical nonsense since how can you have a sexual orientation (or target) unless you know (a) your own gender and (b) someone else's....otherwise dating would get very interesting indeed...
Blanchard has long being suspected of being a self hating gay man in the closet, plus he is Catholic. He follows the Catholic line that any sex that is not PiV for procreation is a paraphilia, an 'erotic target error' and he stated that if he got his way being homosexual would be right back in the DSM.. Given his background it should be no surprise that he is obsessed with sexuality and projects that onto others, like the angry man who thinks everyone else is angry.
They all have some questionable elements about their own sexuality, Bailey was formally accused of having sex with one of his pre-op 'subjects' he used for his horrible book.. Zucker with his endless taking of pictures (without permission) of his child subjects (victims) and his rather creepy paper on the attractiveness of GNC boys.
Blanchard simply pulled together different lines of thought, (1) the standard ‘trans women are just extremely feminine gay men’ and (2) added that those who were female attracted had a sexual paraphilia.
To make it all work he had to add in the bisexuals, breaking his own (and many others) consensus that all bisexual men were really gay and the poor old asexuals…who, by definition don’t really have sex drives, sexual targets and fantasies.
When he did his useless paper in 1989, full of errors from beginning to end (sample errors, statistical errors, circular logic, multiple hypothesis and all the sorry rest, about as scientific as flat earth theory) AGP trans women were a tiny minority…but they soon realised it was such a useful tool to vilifying trans women so the definition got ever expanded. In the original paper there was nothing about ‘late’ or ‘early’ transtioners that soon...without single shred of scientific proof …got added in and get this, to them a ‘late onset’ trans women is someone who comes out in adolescence…
To them ’onset’ is the age of coming out, love to see them applying that to lesbians and gays, so no one is gay until they come out?. Then the ‘femininity’ and ‘physical appearance’ (etc) got added in, and so endless on.
That nut Kay Brown now argues that 99% (sometimes she argues 99.9%) of trans women are AGP.. even as teenagers and advises that parents tell their trans children that they are really sexual perverts if they don’t meet her exacting standards (a trans girl has to be boy obsessed and wants to become a hairdresser.. and yes she actually says that)
So from a minority AGP grew into this monster covering nearly all trans women. And of course it gets expanded ever more. Bailey being the classic example arguing that since paraphilias are often linked so AGP trans women are more likely to be sexually violent to women (yes he has said that on record).. Kay Brown arguing that AGP trans women are sexually obsessed about trans kids and want to abuse them. It just goes on and on and on.
It gets ridiculous such as Bailey arguing that one form or another of trans women is actually physically different…. I mean this is beyond nonsense and makes the flat earther’s look sensible.
And despite their endless claims of science; they have never, once, proven anything they have claimed. Even Blanchard’s original paper did not prove his own hypothesis despite its total shonkyness.
Blanchard made a whole career out of hating trans women, when he was in charge at CAMH (prior to Zucker) he was infamous for rejecting people for HRT (etc), Zucker carried that on with mass gay/trans conversion therapy and no one, but no one hates trans women more than Michael Bailey does (which given the accusation made against him raises the issue of ‘he protesteth too much’).
So AGP is really just a tool of transphobia, to vilify trans women (especially) as dangerous sexual perverts in the public mind and justify prejudice and legal sanctions against them.. It is no accident that the most anti-trans organisations (like the FRC) extensively quote and reference Blanchard, Bailey, Zucker, etc.
Bailey has stated many times he thinks greater public acceptance of trans women is a bad thing, that non-acceptance (even hostility) is a good thing because it keeps the numbers down.
He stated in the WPATH SOC 7 FB forum:
” WPATH has become an egregious organization that makes the world worse in the name of making the world better for the transgendered."
So he genuinely believes that society has to make things worse for trans people to make the world a better place. Not very far from calling for our incarceration or even extermination isn’t it?
So if you buy into this disproven and debunked (by many) BS you are really just pushing transphobia and supporting those bigots that attack us..