Ray Blanchard
Autogynophilia
[Abstract] Full Text [PDF]
Introduction
Ray Blanchard, Ph.D. has been a rather controversial figure in the world of
transgender studies. In particular with his work on
Autogynephilia and the Taxonomy of Gender. One of the main complaints
has been his poor sampling and statistical significance of data gathered. Some
say his data is researcher biased and lacks validity. Nevertheless, it is
worth reading - see this link.
In November 2003 he resigned from the HBIGDA
(The Harry
Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association). Here is some
information surrounding his resignation.
-
-
-
- Tuesday, November 4, 2003:
- Blanchard resigns in a huff from
HBIGDA!
On November 4, 2003, Ray Blanchard resigned
from HBIGDA, the association of
clinicians and researchers working in the area of gender dysphoria,
transgenderism and transsexualism. A copy of his
resignation letter is attached below (see also an NTAC
Press Release about this incident).
Blanchard's resignation came in response to
dissemination of open
letter from HBIGDA regarding J. Michael Bailey's book on transsexualism,
which among other things said that:
"trust and mutual
respect between the scientific and the transgender communities is essential
. . . to promote the health and well-being of transgender and transsexual
individuals and their families. It is felt by many of our members that this
poorly referenced book does not reflect the social and scientific literature
that exists on transsexual people and could damage that essential
trust."
- HBIGDA Officers and Board of
Directors, October 20, 2003
Well now, just who is Blanchard and what does
his resignation from HBIGDA mean in the overall context of the Bailey fiasco?
We'll explore these questions here (for more details about Blanchard and his
work, see Andrea
James "Ray Blanchard" page).
Blanchard is a sexologist who in the late
1980's coined the word "autogynephilia", mostly as a replacement for
the words "transvestic fetishism". He then went on to claim this
word-invention and the Freudian speculations behind it as a deep scientific
discovery of the cause of most transsexualism.
An "expert in addiction and sexual
paraphilia", it was no surprise that Blanchard discovered that
transsexualism is caused by, you guessed it: sexual addiction and sexual
paraphilia. Blanchard then used a stream of mostly indigent and thus captive
clients at his gender clinic (the
infamous "Clarke Institute" in Toronto, Canada) to get the
answers he wanted in order to prove his new theory of transsexualism.
In the late 1980's, Blanchard began teaching
that all transsexualism is either (i) an extreme form of homosexuality, in
which men acquire female physicality in order to be able to have sex with
large numbers of other men, or (ii) a sexual paraphilia ("autogynephilia"),
in which men acquire female physicality in order to heighten their
masturbation experiences (by being in love with their own bodies). In a
sweeping claim of having discovered the cause of transsexualism, Blanchard
eliminated inner gender identity or gendered feelings (GID) as factors or
mechanisms in transsexualism, replacing them with a model of transsexualism as
a pathological male sexual disorder.
A rat psychologist by training, Blanchard
always wanted to be a famous scientist. (Bailey even talks about Blanchard's
science-fame ambition in his book on pages 157-158
in his book). As is common knowledge in the sexology community, for many years
Blanchard used his highly developed alpha-male dominance capabilities in
efforts to force his so-called "discovery" on his sexology
colleagues and into the sex textbooks. He may have hoped that this approach to
doing science would make him famous, even though his ideas have never been
taken seriously by the majority of clinicians and researchers knowledgeable
about transsexualism.
And then along comes J. Michael Bailey's
book, which teaches the old Blanchardian theory of transsexualism and in
parallel extols the supposed scientific genius of Bailey's hero Blanchard
(without revealing the mainstream GID understanding of transsexualism within
the larger research and clinical communities).
The
Man Who Would Be Queen (TMWWBQ) must initially have been a glorious
sight for Ray Blanchard, published as it was by the National
Academy Press. Especially since Bailey was successful in obtaining a
properly stigmatizing and pathologizing cover
art and title - all quite in accordance with the Blanchardian views of
transsexualism as pathology. Blanchard must have thought: "this will
become a best-selling sex-science book! It's success will insure my scientific
fame...!"
Blanchard and Bailey were inextricably linked
together as mentor and protege, and both of their scientific fates were put on
the line, when Bailey published TMWWBQ. For more insight into the deep
connections between Blanchard and Bailey, see
Andrea James excellent "Bailey on Blanchard" webpage, in which
she explores how pop psychologist J. Michael Bailey expresses profound
admiration for his mentor, considers him a role model, and worked to explain
and popularize his theory.
Sadly for Blanchard, the ill-conceived Bailey
book unexpectedly ran off the rails soon after publication...
Blanchard must have been under incredibly
intense pressure these past months, especially as his best behind the scenes
efforts (and the efforts of Bailey's other key colleagues) failed to bail
Bailey out of his difficulties. He must have felt ridiculed and defamed by his
association with Bailey, as Bailey's work became openly and fearlessly
ridiculed and defamed within the trans community and out into the clinical and
research community.
The worst part of it all for Blanchard was
that people were actually paying attention to what "those
transsexuals" were saying about Bailey's book! "My god" he must
have thought, "why would anyone care what those creatures think"!
Could it be that Blanchard, like so many of
Bailey's other supporters, had never actually read Bailey's book? Is it
possible that he hadn't seen the appalling contents within? Who knows.
In any event, Blanchard could hardly take the
criticisms of thousands of transsexual women seriously. After all, under his
theory trans women are all either ghettoized young sex maniacs or aging male
paraphilics.
Thus Blanchard couldn't allow himself learn
that the book really is as bad as we were saying it was. After all, it
supported his theory, and we trans women have always been targets of his
scientific pathologizing. Thus we are all known to be his "enemies".
So no wonder they were complaining. Right?
Nor did Blanchard express any concern
whatsoever about Bailey's treatment of transsexual research subjects. Why
should Blanchard care whether Bailey ever told trans women he wrote SRS
letters for that they were his research subjects? After all, he treated trans
women that same way for years at The Clarke Institute, using their desperate
need for SRS letters as a means of getting the interview results he needed to
support his theory.
Not visualizing what an actual disaster the
Bailey book is, and not taking trans women seriously as intelligent,
fully-human beings, Blanchard could not possibly understand what the ruckus
was all about. He could not understand why anyone was paying so much attention
to "those darn transsexuals' websites"! (What can we say Ray, except
welcome to the future...). He especially could not understand why the HBIGDA
executives felt compelled to act in reaction to the obvious damage HBIGDA by
now realized had been done by Bailey's book.
It must have been just too much for Ray
Blanchard to take...
Within this context Blanchard resigned from
HGIBDA in a huff, lashing out with barely concealed anger at the HBIGDA Board
Members in the process (see his letter below).
In his resignation letter, Blanchard
continues the style of alpha-male confrontation with opponents that he and
Bailey have long used: He attacks his opponents (here the Board of Directors
of HBIGDA) on a personal level, in this case impugning their due diligence and
personal motives for commenting on Bailey's book. At the same time, he (like
Bailey) avoids mentioning or responding to any of HBIGDA's very
well-considered criticisms of Bailey's work.
It is as if Blanchard and Bailey cannot
possibly conceive of anyone disagreeing with their views unless those persons
are (i) of low character and intelligence and (ii) are out to get them
personally. Could this be projection? Who knows. But it is certainly in
character for Blanchard and for Bailey too to act this way. They have for
years been intimidating anyone and everyone in the sexology community who
dared to publicly disagree with them (as,
for example, in reports that they threatened to impact the funding of those
who challenged their theories).
Nevertheless, it is amazing that Blanchard
would have the nerve to openly accuse the HBIGDA Board of attempting to
intervene in and deliberately bias the Northwestern University investigation
of Prof. Bailey. After all, the so-called "intervention" by HBIGDA
was made in a publicly open, well-considered way. They simply asserted in an
open letter their concern over the very real shattering of trust that Bailey's
book has obviously caused between the trans community and those who
"research us". They also point out that the book is (quite
obviously) "poorly referenced".
My goodness, does Blanchard believe that
Bailey's book has not shattered the trust between trans people and
trans-researchers? Does he think that Bailey's book is "well referenced
" (has he actually found some scientific references in it?...). Does he
not see that the internet is a remarkably democratic place where a handful of
alpha-males cannot get their ways by shouting down and bullying the meek? Does
he not see that the internet is a place where large numbers of people vote by
joining in on collaborative processes they believe in - such as working to
investigate and counter the research behind Bailey's book?
But no, Blanchard doesn't want to be confused
by facts, nor by the reality of the mess caused by Bailey's book, nor by the
reality of the trans community's internet-based reaction to the book.
Nor does he want others to know other key
facts: Namely that it is the clique of Bailey's close intellectual colleagues
and friends, including Ray
Blanchard, Anne
Lawrence, James
Cantor, Steven
Pinker, David
Buss, Kenneth
Zucker, John
Derbyshire, Dan
Seligman and Steve
Sailer who have made their own presence felt, in interventions behind the
scenes - in their strong support for Bailey with the Northwestern
administration, in a series of staged reviews of Bailey's book, in shill uses
of selected clips from those reviews in the National Academy website, in
right-wing targeted articles in media such as the National Review and Forbes
Magazine - all in rather obvious efforts to affect the outcome of the
investigation and save Bailey from the well-deserved 'Rekerian fate' of total
scientific obscurity within an increasingly marginalized intellectual circle
of aging men who live in the past.
Perhaps Blanchard felt so puffed-up in
self-importance as a "famous scientist" that he believed that his
resignation would be a disaster for HBIGDA. Maybe he thought his resignation
would cause its own "controversy", and somehow turn the Bailey mess
around (the NTAC press
release comments along those lines).
Instead, it seems that the research community
has called Blanchard's bluff: His resignation has been met only by unconcerned
silence among other researchers - a clear sign that no one cares much anymore
about what Blanchard thinks or does.
I have personal knowledge of how many HBIGDA
members feel about Blanchard and his methods. Reflecting on the likely
reception Blanchard's resignation letter received from the Board members, I
suspect many thought "Whew - it's great that he's finally out of here, so
we won't have to put up with his constant bullying and dissing
anymore..."
In a way, Blanchard's resignation from HBIGDA
marks the end of an era - an era in which sexologists constantly pathologized
transsexual people, and did so without any remorse whatsoever. Blanchard rose
to the top of the sexology heap by conducting relentlessly pathologizing
scientific forays against trans people and then forcing his
"results" onto his field.
Unfortunately for Blanchard, he and Bailey
went "one book too far" in their arrogance - and in their total
ignorance of the increasingly successful and powerful community of people they
were defaming. Unable to scramble back across that fallen bridge, they're now
cut themselves off from the larger scientific community. Exposed for all to
see as the trans defamers they are, they're falling into well-deserved
ignominy, thus ending an era...
Now the only question is when will Blanchard
be followed by Anne
Lawrence. We're sure that many folks in HBIGDA, along with huge numbers of
transwomen, will be similarly relieved when Lawrence is outta there too!
Lynn Conway
Further suggested readings:
See also the following webpages containing
background information that will help put Blanchard's resignation in context,
and visualize the deeper issues revealed by these recent events. As you can
visualize, Blanchard, via the reaction to Bailey's book and his deep
associations with that book, had already come under fire from the research
community. These events occurred at a time when the research community was
being openly challenged by mainstream transwomen for its long tradition of
doing science that almost always tended to pathologize transsexual people.
This was a time in which a total breakdown of trust of researchers was running
rampant in the trans community - largely due to the Bailey book and to
Blanchard's work behind it - threatening the doing of any new science in this
area in the future.
1. HBIGDA
President blasts Bailey book (on Andrea James' website):
This page discusses the challenge made by Eli
Coleman during his presidential address at the HBIGDA at the 18th Biennial
HBIGDA Symposium, in Ghent, Belgium, September 10-13, 2003. There you will
learn that Dr. Coleman really stepped up to the plate and confronted the
breakdown in relations between the trans community and those who do research
on transsexualism. Here's an except from that page:
“As he outlined the need to “promote
sound and ethical research,” Dr. Coleman made a direct reference to The Man
Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University. The book
has been widely denounced as scientifically unsound and deeply biased.
Dr. Coleman urged members to work with the
transgender community to “end antipathy and distrust of researchers.” To
illustrate what Dr. Coleman called “unfortunate setbacks” to ending this
problem, he displayed the Bailey book cover. The book’s provocative title
and image of masculine legs and feet in feminine shoes are widely considered
to be deliberately insulting.
Referring to Bailey’s shoddy scholarship
and deeply flawed research methods, Dr. Coleman emphatically declared: “We
need to challenge bad science.” ”
2.
The
Banality of Insensitivity: Portrayals of Transgenderism in Psychopathology (on
Katherine Heather's website):
This page thoughtfully considers the overall
issue of the insensitivity involved in past scientific portrayals of
transgenderism and transsexualism as psychopathology, and the challenges now
faced by the research community as the trans community begins to assert its
inherent normalcy and begins to openly confront those researchers who
habitually show gross insensitivity towards trans people. All professional
researchers and caregivers involved with transgender people should carefully
read and ponder this very important article. Here's an opening except:
"It might seem absurd to you to think
of the mental health community as a major source of the insensitive portrayals
of transgenderism. Afterall, by their choice of career, they seek to help. It
puzzles me. When I usually think of insensitivity, I think of: bullies in
school stealing lunch money, whispered gossip on the hallways, exclusion from
groups, and so forth. Shockingly, the insensitivity expressed in
psychopathology towards transgenderism is actually quite similar. It comes in
the form of stereotypes, as the imposition of value judgements, as the
assumption that transgenderism is a problem, and in a 'paternal' way of
assuming they 'know what's best' for us. In short, it's a insensitivity so
pervasive in psycho-pathology that it starts to appear like a normal, natural
thing to do. In what follows I hope I can highlight this insensitivity and,
having done so, help all of us become more sensitive in the future - - -
"
- 3. Commentary
about Blanchard's resignation on the widely read www.queerday.com, Nov.
23, 2003:
-
- "Jurassic Clarke’s sexology
head resigns from HBIGDA
Dr. Ray Blanchard resigned from the Harry Benjamin International Gender
Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA) in protest to the ethics investigation of
his protégé, J. Michael Bailey. Blanchard, a psychiatrist, member of a
eugenics think tank, and vocal proponent of repathologizing homosexuality
as a mental illness, still runs Toronto’s Clarke Institute as a maximum
security processing facility, using the same procedures, locked rooms and
shared space areas for pedophiles, rapists, homosexuals, and transsexuals.
Resigning from HBIGDA is a good start, but why stop there?"
- Blanchard's letter of resignation from
the
- Harry Benjamin International Gender
Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA):
-
-
-
- November 4, 2003
Walter J. Meyer III, MD
President, HBIGDA
Bean Robinson, PhD
Executive Director, HBIGDA
Dear Drs. Meyer and Robinson:
It is with deep regret that I tender my resignation in the Harry Benjamin
International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA). I have long supported
the goals of the HBIGDA. I have been involved in the clinical care of
transsexual persons for 24 years. During the years 1983 to 1991, I
conducted eight research studies on the therapeutic impact of hormonal and
surgical treatment of transsexuals, studies that were reported in six
refereed journal articles and two book chapters. I published an additional
article on the desirability of insurance coverage for sex reassignment
surgery as recently as 2000. It is therefore a matter of some sadness that
the recent actions of the HBIGDA Executive have made it necessary for me
to disassociate myself from this organization.
I am referring to the appalling decision of the HBIGDA Officers and Board
of Directors to attempt to intervene in Northwestern University's
investigation into the allegations made by certain members of the
transsexual community against Prof. J. Michael Bailey. This decision is
documented in the attached letter, which is prominently displayed on a
popular transsexual Web site. Such an intervention, undertaken without any
effort by the HBIGDA to conduct their own systematic inquiry or to learn
all the relevant facts of the matter, could only be prejudicial to
Northwestern's investigation. In fact it has the appearance, whether this
is accurate or not, of being a deliberate and improper attempt to bias
that investigation. The HBIGDA would have been better advised to allow the
Northwestern authorities, who are actually taking the trouble to
investigate the allegations, to reach an impartial decision based on all
relevant testimony and factual evidence.
I do not know the motives behind the Officers' and Board of Directors'
actions, but those motives are irrelevant. It is their actions that are
unacceptable and that make it impossible for me to continue to belong to
the HBIGDA.
Very truly yours,
Ray Blanchard
Ray Blanchard, Ph.D.
Head, Clinical Sexology Services
- Professor of Psychiatry
CAMH - Clarke Site Faculty of Medicine
250 College Street University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5T 1R8
Canada
Citation: Lynn
Conway
