God, Ray Blanchard is fucking disgusting. Here's the paper: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/00926238708403899 (don't worry, I specifically chose the way that doesn't get him any royalties) (THREAD) (CW: clinical transphobia; me using the T slur for effect) https://twitter.com/setoacnna/status/1289841175604551680

Blanchard gets big ups for having published on trans affairs, which is rather like me as a reserve @QldGreens getting big ups because I'm familiar with @younglibs' next agenda. If you look at this paper, though, many of the words just drip with hate. Some choice selections:

1. The paper uses the 'homosexual' (likes guys) or 'heterosexual' (likes girls) typology. Just to make sure the subjects know absolutely definitely that Blanchard, Legault and Lindsay consider them men.

2. In the paper, the authors admit that the sample size is extraordinarily small; not a detail Blanchard bothers to publicise, now that his main occupational label has shifted to 'vicious transphobe'.

3. You can see the seed of Blanchard's entire pseudoscientific approach: "some contradiction in patients' self-reports". Because they were fine and he expected them not to be, that's "contradiction".

4. The explanation he presents first is that "patients misrepresent or misperceive reality so as to maintain their self-image as women or avoid acknowledging the limitations of reassignment surgery". Couldn't just be that... they enjoy sex as they are.

5. "It is conceivable that such defensive manoeuvring [to limit penetration] is accomplished so automatically that neither the transsexual nor her partner is fully aware of it." Thus relieving us of the burden of asking her.

6. "the seeming insufficiency of neovaginas in reassigned transsexuals". Insufficient for you, maybe, not for us.

7. "One must rely heavily on self-reports almost certainly coloured, in many instances, by the transsexual's need to perceive herself, and be regarded by others, as a normal female." But instead of figuring out how to assess this, we'll just *assume* she's deluded.

8. "One must give careful consideration to self-reports that are consistent with the male pattern of sexual response[...]" Read: "She's bullshitting. If she says she's not a man, ignore her."

9. "Some patients reported experiencing 'multiple orgasms.' Pomeroy was skeptical of this type of self-report, and we are inclined to regard it as prima facie evidence that whatever is being described is not orgasm." (cont'd.)

Read: whatever you fucking freaks have isn't the same as the good, normal orgasms that we proper, nice, non-perverted cis people have. (Addressing this from the modern point of view where trans girls consistently report multiple orgasms to the point that it can't be ignored.)

10. "Such reports impress as authentic. Other observations, however, underscore the need to evaluate self-reports of sexual functioning critically."

It's like that scene from Chicago: "Who are you gonna believe, your own eyes or me?"

11. "The unreliability of our three patients who never had clitoroplasty could, once again, reflect a quasi-delusional conviction of normal female structure or function, but it could also represent a confusion of nearby anatomical structures ... resulting from simple ignorance."/

But we'll put delusion /first/, because all these tranny freaks are fucking delusional.

12. "This phenomenon is generally regarded as evidence of continued prostatic function." Or continued Skene's gland function, as we would have called it in 1987 if we weren't trying to masculinise women as hard as possible.

In conclusion: Ray Blanchard has never been a scientist, and the only reason he got published is because the people publishing him weren't scientists either.