Originally Posted by
Acastina
2. Dr. Blanchard's autogynephilia theory is just that, a theory, not a proven fact. It is but one way of attempting to describe transgendered behaviors, and the sexual arousal patterns of some TG/CDs in particular. Like all such informed theories, it has substantial conceptual appeal, but exceptions abound, which certainly calls into question both its validity and its general applicability. IMHO, quoting at length from 20-year-old clinical writings adds little to this conversation. Blanchard's theory has plenty of critics, and AGP doesn't really address bisexuality (the topic here) in any meaningful way. My personal take on AGP, dating back to its first entry into TG science, is questioning whether it states a causal relationship to TG/CD sexual-arousal patterns or simply compiles and describes behaviors. In other words, is AGP a pathology that distorts TG/CD sexuality from some kind of posited "normal", or is it merely a conceptual description of common TG/CD sexual behaviors? If the latter, it's useful as a tool for understanding and comparing; if the former, welcome to a debate that has raged out in the open for decades without reaching a consensus. As a way of explaining the causes of TG behaviors, it's inadequate psychobabble compared to real possibilities like brain-wiring anomalies in utero, many of which have been verified in lab-rat experiments that tinker with prenatal hormone doses to produce male rats with female sexual behaviors and vice-versa. I place it somewhere above Freud's classic, discredited strong-mother/weak-father nurture theories but below real, verifiable agents of causation, whatever they may someday be found to be.