"Erm.. AGP isn't real!"
"I hate Blanchard and his retarded theories"
"He's such a pseud"
Akshually sweaty you are suffering from Blanchard Derangement Syndrome.
How about you either start accepting your AGP or get to work on Daddy Blanchis cock?
Dr. Ray Blanchard invents a new disorder
i hate myself but also have delusions of grandeur
ontologically evil is an accurate descriptor for someone who enforces oppressive language and double standards against a minority demographic
Oh, is he MAGA?
I like Ray Blanchard even though his theories don't make sense. i just appreciate his vibe.
He's not intentionally hateful. The more I looked into him I thought he's just pigeonholed himself into defending a weird wrong theory and can't admit it was wrong or he'd have wasted a lot of time on it. Social media probably made him worse just like most people
I heard he was on the board of the human biodiversity institute though?
why is he so based
Here's the rest of that tweet if anyone wanted to read it like I did
Lmao, he's (yet again) not wrong, that troonpost is objectively deranged. A land beyond mere seething.
t. Rataly
wrong theory
Okay then, Wishful McThinksalot.
I'm pretty sure he's not closeted in any way shape or form, IIRC there's a Twitter (pre-X) exchange where someone goes "Dr. Blanchard, are you gay?" and he just replies "Yes."
this is supposed to be "ontologically evil"
he's literally just giving a neutral account of the history of his clinic
as someone who was really bothered by the hats/agp dichotomy in 2019, when I was starting my transition, I don't understand people like you who are STILL invested in the whole shebang. invested enough to follow some elderly gay man who bullied trannies back in the late 80s on twitter
don't you have a life? like, a job, friends, stuff you enjoy doing?
Scrolling his Twitter is really sad cause like he shows occasional periods of serious intelligence but then says stuff that is clearly very emotionally charged at other times. If only he wasn't so invested in his hypotheses being correct, he probably could've been a good scientist. Instead he weirdly got a small cult following from transphobic people, trans and anti-trans alike.
that's closeted to me
That's retarded to me.
If you always readily admit you're gay when asked you're not in the closet, what the fuck.
all that shit you wrote
so that's a definite "no" on the "do you have a life" question?
dude, really, who gives a fuck? just pass and live your life, normies don't care about any of this shit and normies rule the world, you have to pretend to be a normie to be a socially functional human being, haven't you heard?
Are you a repressor or a tranny in denial or something? How long have you been invested in this made up bullshit? years?
I can't imagine a tranny who has a social life bothering with this shit, and I'm not even a burger who's hugboxed by lefties. I can't imagine gay or bi people bothering with this either
The end result for most people with a huge online presence
Getting high on your own supply
Once again social media ruined something
most sane troon award
Not as bad as doing it against a majority demographic
i thought he was british
i actually emailed him and asked him about it once and he basically said he was on a listserv with steve sailer like 30 years ago and that was the extent of his involvement.
NNNOOOOOO A LISTSEEEERRRRRVVVVV
A NOTHINGBURGERRRRRRR
ONTOLOGICAL EVIL
Blanch is so based, as always.
she really is the best golden girl.
The issue is that studying trans people used to be something of a closed shop, so these guys, even if somewhat intelligent, haven't been used to the kind of pushback researchers in other fields have traditionally gotten when trying to push new theories. This has made them oversensitive to criticism since they're used to people fawning over them.
he lives in toronto canada I'm pretty sure. fun fact. he made up this tranny typology and rejected anyone who didn't fit his labels, so most of the people he's used as proof of AGP and HSTS were probably lying and that's only 10% of people who tried to go to the gender clinic he worked at
he lives in toronto canada
i should fuck him
this is conjecture but some people claim he fucked some of the people he labeled as HSTS so you might have a shot if you tell him you're a gay man who transitioned to get straight dick
I agree, continue calling everyone who mildly disagrees with you ontologically evil. Not only is it quite funny, it is an extremely effective political strategy for you.
lmao if only. i would try and get a picture to post here
He's openly a homosexual and sees straight transsexuals as homosexual men and he's no stranger to unethical and emotional behavior in his practice so it logically tracks that he'd bone husstusses.
ontologically evil
his labels have done insane harm to the trans community. when they were made were used as a way to deny trannies HRT, and after that they were used to say trannies aren't valid
deny trannies HRT
nothingburger, get it yourself
trannies aren't valid
a lot of us aren't lol
when they were made were used as a way to deny trannies HRT
No, they weren't
Muslims used the same typology centuries before just with different words.
like sorry dude but I also think the "scientist" who said black people are basically apes and don't need pain treatment in the 1800s are ontologically evil especially since that has effected medical attitudes toward them to this day. if you use faulty science based on your prejudices to hurt minority groups you are just objectively an evil and bad person.
yes they were? his typology literally shifted the way the gender clinic he worked at handled trannies and wouldn't give HRT to those who didn't fit his typology.
wow you're so cool
wouldn't give HRT to those who didn't fit his typology
and how does this hurt people? I wouldn't give hrt to people who don't meet the diagnostic criteria. you can't judge former medical practices with a modern perspective based off of current day research which did not exist at the time
wouldn't give HRT to those who didn't fit his typology.
Everyone fits
90% of people were turned away from the gender clinic most explicitly because they didn't.
the "diagnostic criteria" which frames us all as men with either a fetish or huge perverts who want more dick
men with either a fetish or huge perverts who want more dick
well that's a rather pessimistic interpretation. akin to the rapist/dishwasher interpretation of the male/female typology. says more about you than the typology itself
90% of people were turned away from the gender clinic
As they should be today.
You are making shit up. His theory says every MtF is HSTS or AGP, but he never was against transition of any type.
you can't judge former medical practices with a modern perspective based off of current day research which did not exist at the time
Blanchard's hypotheses were not well researched at the time and some were even outright unfalsifiable. Even at the time there were major issues with reproducibility, in part because, as another anon stated, he turned away anybody that didn't confirm his hypotheses. Even what was available back then pointed to Blanchard's theories lacking the merit they needed to be clinically applied, and yet they were anyways. Similar issues were present with lobotomies, similar issues are currently present with certain psychiatric medications, similar issues are present in many other places of medicine, and yet here we are and people continue to hide malpractice behind low-quality evidence just like you.
you don't need evidence for a treatment to do it, you need evidence against a treatment to ban it
no human is ontologically evil. i think you need to google what ontologically means.
Their point was that Blanchard treated any MtF who didn't fit into the typology as not being actually MtF and was turned away from the clinic, or stating they were otherwise lying about certain things. So yes, he still provided HRT to all he perceived as MtFs, but he held a seriously narrow view of who could hold that title.
You do not seriously believe this, and no sane human does.
That's just made up. Also the typology is not narrow at all.
You didn't address any of my points. Even if this were true, which it isn't, it would not change the fact that competent care providers of the time should have and could have seen Blanchard's hypotheses for the largely ungrounded bullshit they are.
ungrounded
I think what you meant to say was self-evident.
this is very easily checkable to be true you spaz
Show me one person who couldn't transition because Blanchard's typology
I addressed all of your points. None of the parts about the strength of his theories matter if there is no evidence against them. It doesn't matter if they're made up bullshit if they don't cause harm. Lots of pseuds in the alternative medicine field today but they don't cause problems. Except the loss of steve jobs. Modern day treatments you brought up don't have the evidence against them needed to ban them, so they're okay. Not that I would take any of them lol idk how people actually take psych meds.
The typology is all-encompassing of mtfs. Mtfs are within it, cisoids are not. There are subtypes of mtf. He cares for both of them.
90% of people who went to see him were turned away, most for not fitting his typology. this is super easy to find info about
That's just made up.
"The CAMH clinic turned away about 90% of adult transgender patients and had some of the
most rigid requirements for treatment. Their children’s division engaged in aversion “therapy”
that many considered child abuse. The children’s clinic practices were later outlawed."
transgendermap.com
Also the typology is not narrow at all.
This is verging on a semantic argument which I will not gratify. I believe it is narrow. If you don't, then we just have to agree to disagree.
As before, competent and well-meaning care providers would not mandate unproven approaches to care as the norm even if the standard for providing a treatment was "no evidence for or against," which it isn't as i stated before.
Modern day treatments you brought up don't have the evidence against them needed to ban them, so they're okay.
Not being banned =/= lack of evidence that should lead to legislation against their use. You are assuming we live in a just world where pharmaceuticals companies don't lobby the shit out of the AMA, APA, and congress, when we in fact do live in an unjust world where these things do presently occur.
Informed consent is bullshit, so come up with a better criteria for diagnosis than Blanch. Do it right now.
do you have gender dysphoria
okay here is your pills
mandate
who was being mandated?? this was his clinic we're talking about not the national requirements
pharmaceuticals companies
if they're not doing harm, why shouldn't they be able to profit off gullible patients?
being turned away is not inherently bad why is this a sticking point? cis men should be turned away from treatment for trans women yes. I should not be prescribed insulin as a healthy person.
you really think 90% of people in the 80s going for tranny treatment that didn't fit his typology were just not trans? are you retarded?
more than 90% of the general population is not trans. considering what kind of drugs and sexual degeneracies were popular at the time I would not be surprised that a substantial amount of people were psyoped into thinking they were trans
we're talking about not the national requirements
No, we're not. You are making a subtle diversion from what was actually being discussed, which is the competence of providers who engaged in Blanchardite care. I will remind you that your original point was, and I quote:
you can't judge former medical practices with a modern perspective
This has little to do with national healthcare requirements in light of discussing Blanchard's own approach. Either prove that it is in fact ethical for care providers to place arbitrary and unproven restrictions on care that turn away 90% of people in need or cede the point.
if they're not doing harm, why shouldn't they be able to profit off gullible patients?
This is also a distraction and an argument I won't indulge.
Unless you can source any evidence that most of the people seeking gender affirming care at the time were, in fact, drug addled sex freaks who would regret their transition, this is pure conjecture and a moot point. Considering the very low rate of transition regret in the modern day through informed consent, it seems unlikely that this is the case.
most of the people seeking gender affirming care at the time were, in fact, drug addled sex freaks who would regret their transition
no because this is the people who are allowed to transition under the typology lmao. AGPs are allowed who are just fetishists and HSTS are just gay men who want more dick. if those aren't sex freaks idk what is
pure conjecture and a moot point
I could say the same about your alternative.
very low rate of transition regret in the modern day
You cannot compare pre and post 9/11 worlds so easily.
I could say the same about your alternative.
What alternative did I suggest? I don't recall suggesting one.
You cannot compare pre and post 9/11 worlds so easily.
I think a study on how 9/11 affected transsexuality would be fascinating, if not most likely pointless, but I would be very surprised if one exists. Can you point to one that can actually prove what you are implying or is this just conjecture as before?
prove that it is in fact ethical for care providers to place arbitrary and unproven restrictions on care that turn away 90% of people in need
care providers have no ethical responsibilities. their only duty is to do what their owner desires. in most cases, especially if the care provider is publicly traded, this desire is to generate profit. if turning away patients can increase profits, it is justified. if blanchard wants to turn away patients to get data that supports his ideas, it is justified.
care providers have no ethical responsibilities. their only duty is to do what their owner desires.
Holy shit lmao, I actually didn't expect you to just give yourself away like this. I don't think anything I could say would change your mind on this, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You implicitly suggested the existence of an alternative by rejecting my idea.
Whether there exist studies specifically about transsexuality and 9/11 is irrelevant, as transsexuals are part of the general population, and all of the studies about the general effects on mental health and societal change apply to them as well. Gender is extremely social; the greatest societal shift in recent times is sure to affect gender. It was not just the events of 9/11 that changed the world, but the Patriot Act specifically allowed the federal government to step in and proactively heal faketrans and stop them from seeking treatment. That explains the success of informed consent.
i play it as i see it. no medical professional has ever improved my life with their 'treatments'. I have no reason to believe that ethics plays any role in the operation of healthcare institutions
You implicitly suggested the existence of an alternative by rejecting my idea.
No, I did not in fact do this. I merely pointed out that your idea has no proof supporting it. Something can be untested and still be true, something can be untested and be false, something can be tested and be true, and something can be tested and still be false. You only believe that I must have suggested an alternative which you believe to be false because you can't get your ego out of your arguments. The fact that you cannot point to an alternative that I suggested and instead pontificate on implications is proof enough that I did not in fact suggest an alternative to your hypothesis.
Whether there exist studies specifically about transsexuality and 9/11 is irrelevant
If you sincerely believe that evidence is irrelevant to scientific inquiry then I don't believe that we have much else to discuss. I seriously hope you are only saying this to soothe your ego instead of actually believing this.
Gender is extremely social; the greatest societal shift in recent times is sure to affect gender. It was not just the events of 9/11 that changed the world, but the Patriot Act specifically allowed the federal government to step in and proactively heal faketrans and stop them from seeking treatment. That explains the success of informed consent.
This is a very interesting hypothesis and I would actually be seriously interested in seeing some kind of research on it, but as it stands it merely remains an interesting hypothesis without any proof. Hopefully some kind of proof turns up when you search pubmed! :3
I have no reason to believe that ethics plays any role in the operation of healthcare institutions
I agree to the extent that I think modern healthcare has a serious paucity of ethics, but I think this is a terrible thing. I think ethics *should* govern healthcare, not that it currently does.
Is he really pretending RLE wasn’t a thing?
"nooo even though they told you you had to live as a woman for a year before you could transition they didnt mean to use the womens bathroom!!!"