|
|
|
Why does J. Michael Bailey and other autogynephilia advocates see only two types of transsexuals instead of 3, 4, 5, or more? I suggest this may be because of their underlying value-judgements about what is "normal."
J. Michael Bailey says on his website that there is nothing fundamental about there being only two types of transsexuals. Though he doubts it, he thinks future research could show there are more types. I know lots transsexuals and almost none of them are anything like either of Blanchard's two types. How come researchers still haven't identified any of the other types?
In one sense I agree with Michael Bailey that there is nothing fundamental about there only being two types of transsexuals. Though Bailey believes the number of types is an empirical question, I see the number of types as a consequence of value judgements currently held by sexology. There are two types of mis-directed sex-drives that can lead to transsexuality because there are (currently) exactly two 'legitimate' types of sex-drives to go awry: heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Blanchard's model would have appeared nonsensical to the social context of sexology in the 1960's (when homosexuality was considered a mental illness). How can a sex-drive (homosexuality) that is already awry, go awry? To be more precise, how can you possibly assert that one type of transsexuality is the typical pathology (of normalcy) while the other pathology is a deviance on what they already 'know' is a pathology (i.e., homosexuality was a deviance from the one legitimate' sex-drive, heterosexuality)?
Advocates of Blanchard's model can only incorporate into their understanding what their underlying value judgements allow them to incorporate. Given the way they frame the issue, asking about transsexual types just is not an empirical question. That's why they can't "see" all the transsexuals who are nothing like either of Blanchard's "types."
|
|
|