Okay, here’s an argument for you. The passage you’re citing as a litmus test is inherently tautological and says nothing of value:
“A fair barometer of whether an individual understands even the first thing about autogynephilia is their denial, either of its existence, its veracity as a scientific framework within which to understand key aspects of transsexualism, or the role of autogynephilia in the process which creates the non-homosexual transsexual.”
Simplified: “Anyone who says my theory is wrong doesn’t understand it, because if they did, they would know I was right.” That’s not a “fair barometer.” It’s shallow, circular, and purely specious.
I don’t deny the existence of autogynephilia. I do deny its worth as a “scientific framework” to understand anything at all, because Blanchard did not understand his subjects. His axis is wrong. Most trans women are not driven to gender identity by sexuality nor erotic fixations. He never proved that we were; he just decided it must be true, and published. His methods are unsound and his theories not credited by anyone of note. As a scientist, he is a dinosaur of a bygone era, and building your own canon of trans invalidation on his work is building it on sand.
I hope that was helpful! (I always feel bad for anyone who asks for an argument on the Internet and can’t find one.) Any questions?
