I back up all my claims.
Miranda Yardley
1

Lazy hypocrisy in action

I back up all my claims. They’re linked to and/or researched within my work.

You did not back up all your claims. I read your essay, and it was so rambling and adrift with tangents that I could hardly tell what point you were making. It was also very sparse on links, and had no citations to actual research anywhere. I asked you to prove harm, and you aren’t even trying.

Tell you what — I’ll make it easier. I’ll give you a specific passage to “back up” and substantiate beyond your own opinion:

On the whole, Bunce’s efforts may appear superficially positive, yet instead it could be suggested that what underpins this is in fact a very deep and very regressive sexism. Furthermore, like with Drummond, the institutional power of LGBT organisations which, as part of their remit are supposed to be championing the interests of homosexual females, is being leveraged to accolade heterosexual males who are in stable heterosexual relationships, males (like any other trans identified males) whose rights claimed ‘as women’ explicitly conflict with the rights and objectives of organisations who advocate for the rights of lesbians and gay men.

Where are your links and research for this, Ms. (or do you prefer Mr.?) Yardley? You say “it could be suggested” that Bunce’s efforts are sexist — a passive voice speculation that means nothing. Can you cite anyone who’s suggested it besides you? On what basis? Where is this claim linked and/or researched?

You say that the power of LGBT organizations is “being leveraged to accolade heterosexual males.” I asked you before and you dodged the question: what heterosexual males? If you’re using that term to refer to transgender women, your usage is at odds with the vast majority of LGBT people’s acceptance and understanding of us as women, as well as modern journalistic and academic standards. You already know that, but you’re expecting us all to blithely accept your iconoclastic invalidation without giving any reason to. On what basis do you reject the gender identities of transgender women? Saying “autogynephilia!” over and over doesn’t make a statement — even if you’re right about it in reference to Drummond and Bunce, how does it make them not women? Where are your links and/or research?

And finally, you say that their “rights claimed ‘as women’ explicitly conflict with the rights and objectives of organizations who advocate for the rights of lesbians and gay men.” How so? It doesn’t seem very explicit to me. What is the “explicit conflict,” what specific organizations are you referring to, and what are their pertinent rights and objectives? Where in your essay did you back up that ideological conclusion? Where are your links and research?

You’re demanding “facts” and rigor from those who disagree with you, but when challenged to show rigor yourself, you’ve so far offered nothing except empty self-praise. STEP UP. Hold yourself to your own standards and show your proof, or admit that everything you’re saying is pure personal opinion and stop invalidating trans women.

Speaking of:

You made a claim about ‘cis women’ being stimulated by femininity just like ‘trans women’ like yourself. I asked for proof of the former because the latter reads to me like autogynephilia. Over to you.

It’s strange that the point you’re pressing me so fiercely on is the one thing I agreed with you about. Yes, I concur. It’s autogynephilia. Blanchard himself defined autogynephilia as simply “erotic interest in the thought or image of oneself as a woman,” and in the pure literal sense, both cis and trans women do experience that.

You want proof about it in cis women? I could easily say “I talk to cis women and they told me so,” but you’d dismiss that as anecdotal. So here’s a peer-reviewed paper, in which a researcher applied Blanchard’s own diagnostic questions to a number of cis women (something Blanchard himself never got around to doing before declaring that they never experienced it) and got pretty substantial results:

There’s your proof, so you can simmer down and stop blocking on it. As I already said, no one here is denying that autogynephilia exists. What’s problematic are A.) its clinical degradation as a paraphilic disorder, and B.) its social use by you and others as some sort of shibboleth. Blanchard wasn’t wrong to note the phenomenon; he was wrong to think it’s a problem, and wrong to think it encompasses many women’s gender stories (and equally wrong to think “being a gay man” encompasses the rest.) He noted a correlation, although his dismissal of so much trans testimony as “lying” suggests it may not have been as strong as he suggested; but he did not prove causation, and he did not prove harm.

You’re going to ask me to substantiate my views on that, I’m sure. So let’s get ahead of that with some more citations in peer-reviewed journals:

For a broader view, you might also be interested in Conway’s survey of the June 2008 Archives of Sexual Behavior, which was principally about peer responses to Blanchard’s theories, Bailey’s evangelization of them, and Dreger’s defense of Bailey.

If you want to attack or hand-wavingly invalidate my sources, I’ll hear you and respond on that if you step up and supply your own sources and substantiation for the excerpt from your own essay, as I asked above. Fair is fair, and you don’t get to press others for “facts” without supplying your own.

(Based on your responses so far, I fully expect you to be unable to do so, and to cop out again with another sentence or two of vague excuses or diversions. I’m calling you out for that in advance so that you can’t try it and claim ‘victory’ in the same breath, but honestly, I would love to be wrong. I’d love to see you step up and show some real credibility.)

“Over to you.” *snort*