Why the Blanchard Typology of Trans People Isn’t Reality
Basically, flowers aren’t either red or tulips. They can be red tulips, or yellow roses too!
Today, I have to address a controversial topic: the Blanchard typology of trans people. There seems to have been several variants of this over the years: the original version, developed in the 1980s, applied to trans women, and divided them into only two types: the ‘homosexual transsexual’ (HSTS) and the ‘autogynephilic transsexual’ (AGP). (Note: These are the labels used in the Typology, which I don’t actually agree with, but they will be used throughout this article for the sake of accuracy.) More recent versions seem to have added two or three more categories, some of which are not commonly seen. I will be mostly focusing on the classical version of the Typology in this article.
As described above, the Blanchard typology is not exactly new. Indeed, it attracted a wave of controversy back in the 2000s, during which the majority of trans people opposed the theory, while a minority said they found it useful. The reason I am discussing it today is because certain factions interested in the debate around trans issues have taken the Blanchard typology to be a foundational truth, which means the number of people who subscribe to this theory has likely increased in recent years. In some cases, these factions are also linked to certain political circles in the wider (non-trans) political landscape, causing Blanchard’s theory to be spread almost unchallenged in those political circles. I mean, I have seen articles describing the Blanchard typology in mainstream magazines available at your local newsagency. That is a real concern, I believe.
One reason why Blanchard’s theory has spread so successfully is paradoxically because some trans activists have tried to bury it as ‘transphobic’. This has made dealing with the substance of the theory in any way taboo within the trans community and among trans allies. As I often say, refusal of debate allows bad ideas to flourish in the dark, and is therefore a terrible idea. Rather, we need to freely discuss everything that is brought to the table. In the free market of ideas, the sound ideas always win, after all. It is in this spirit that I write this article.
The main problem I see with the Blanchard typology is that it rigidly classifies trans women into two, and only two, categories, without exception. This is actually contradicted by the empirical results from multiple studies, including those done by proponents of the typology. Basically, what these studies have shown is that, while there are indeed trans people who have predominantly features of the HSTS or AGP category of the typology, there are also a substantial number of trans people who have features from both categories, as well as a substantial number of trans people who don’t have features from either category. In other words, just because one has encountered an example of a ‘red flower’ and a ‘tulip’ in the wild, it doesn’t mean all flowers can be force fitted into these two categories exclusively. Because red tulips are actually a thing, and because there are plenty of flowers that aren’t red or tulips!
Proponents of the typology have tried to explain the above away as trans patients consciously or subconsciously ‘lying’ to clinicians, using evidence from decades ago, when many unjustified medical gatekeeping practices were common. However, this kind of speculative theorizing is not good science. Perhaps more importantly, the reason why most trans people reject the Blanchard typology is that we know it just isn’t correct, based on our extensive experiences with other trans people, on a peer (as opposed to clinician-patient) level. As trans people, the stories we hear from other trans people paint a very diverse picture of the community, that simply can’t be reduced to two mutually exclusive categories. I have seen for myself the fact that there are many trans people who simply don’t fit into the two categories of HSTS and AGP, and I know for a fact that they weren’t lying. (They would also have no incentive to lie to me, given that I am not a 1980s clinician who could gatekeep and deny transition treatment to them!)
Based on my experience in the trans community, the empirical findings of the aforementioned studies, i.e. there are many trans people that don’t fit into the categories, either because they have the characteristics of both types, or because they don’t have the charactersitics of either type, are basically true. And the theory that the patients were lying is therefore wrong. Overall, then, the Blanchard typology is hence invalid.
One reason many trans activists consider the Blanchard typology to be transphobic is because of the existence of the AGP category. I actually don’t agree that, in and of itself, constitutes transphobia and should therefore render the topic taboo. After all, a small minority of trans people (e.g. Dr Anne Lawrence) have self-identified as AGP, and I think we should respect that, because they know themselves the best. However, it should be stressed that only a small minority of trans people identify with the AGP concept, to keep things in perspective. I can’t stress enough that the vast majority of trans people actually reject the AGP concept.
However, even if the typology isn’t ‘transphobic’, it is still biased and hence harmful in multiple ways. The very act of pre-defining two categories, and force-fitting everyone into them, is prone to generate bias. As the saying goes, when all you’ve got is a nail, everything looks like a hammer. If you a-priori decide that there are only two types of something, you are very likely to end up finding only two types, even if there is objectively more diversity. The harm from the popularization of a theory that is empiricially untrue is that it leads to further confusion about trans issues and trans lives, something which we certainly don’t need right now.
One of the most important problems with the Blanchard typology is that it not only classifies trans people into two (or four) types. It also essentially implies causation of how these people came to be trans. The problem is these claims of causation are not actually scientifically validated. Belief in the typology thus could lead to pseudo-scientific advice that could result in harm. For example, it is suggested by some proponents of the typology that, if you want your gender dysphoric child to ‘desist’, i.e. not transition later in life, you should essentially discourage gender non-conforming identification and behavior. The unspoken idea here seems to be that, gender non-conforming boys who are heavily policed in their gendered behavior grow up into well-adjusted gay men, but those who are free to be gender non-conforming end up being trans. This idea is actually baked into the implications of the typology itself: that early-onset trans identity is basically a form of male homosexuality, and persistence of trans identity is thus a ‘complication’ of development in a minority of gay men that could potentially be avoided. Which is pure speculation that is not scientifically validated in any way. I guess I’m lucky that my parents hadn’t heard of this theory in the 1980s and 1990s. As you can see, this is really some messed up parenting advice.
In conclusion, the Blanchard typology of trans people is invalid, because it simply does not describe what actually occurs in the real world. Its implications could also lead to some psychologically harmful practices. This, in part, is why we must discuss and expose the flaws of the typology.
On the other hand, the insistence of trans activists in burying it as ‘transphobic’ and making the issue taboo to discuss is really not helpful. Bad ideas flourish in the darkness, and the past few years have seen the Blanchard theory spread unchallenged in various social and political circles, even as the trans community and trans allies have been reluctant to address it. This really needs to change.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who recently published her autobiography The TaraElla Story, in which she described the events that inspired her writing.
