I didn’t know. . .

That Ray Blanchard had entered paedophilia into the DSM as a sexual orientation. It appears it was corrected after an outrage, but I just didn’t know he’d done that. I came across the information in an article How pedophiles are being normalized in The Post Millenial. The relevant paragraph states that

In the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the first new edition in 10 years, the American Psychiatric Association described pedophilia as a “sexual orientation.” It later retracted this classification. However, this was not an error, it was the very careful and deliberate action of Ray Blanchard, an American sexologist who co-wrote the chapter on sexual disorders in the new DSM. Blanchard’s work has been criticized by many in the medical field, who have also pointed out his propensity to slip things stealthily into DSM writings. After receiving backlash from conservative pundits, the DSM removed this classification, stating it had changed the definition in error.

I felt the need to highlight this information because I’ve name-dropped Blanchard in the past in this post. I had a quick look around the net and it is indeed legit that Blanchard was involved in reclassifying stuff relating to sexology in the DSM. One aspect to this was the separation of those who were ‘non-harming’ and those who caused harm.

An issue I have with anyone trying to undertake such a feat is that it plays straight into the hands of the so-called virtuous paedophiles. I couldn’t give a flying fuck if some people feel stigmatised because of their sexual proclivities – specifically, if they relate to anyone or anything that cannot give informed consent and that which involves the so-called consensual physical harm of another.

Transgendering is commonly believed to be akin to a sexual orientation and is tagged alongside lesbian and gay sexualities. As is often pointed out, however, it is not a sexual orientation. It’s nothing of the sort.

In a conversation on Twitter yesterday, I was reminded of how Blanchard’s categorisation of the men who claimed to be trans actually helped a significant number of men to gain access to women’s spaces. Blanchard basically said there was two types of trans; the HSTS and the AGP’s. He felt the HSTS were not a problem to the safety of others, whereas the AGP’s were fetish-driven. As I’ve worked my way through this debate I’ve come to realise there is no such division among late-stage transitioning males whether they identify as HSTS or anything else. There is simply no such thing as trans. Any masquerading as what they perceive to be ‘woman’ is nothing more than misogyny at its finest. There are no good trans/bad trans/true trans. We have men and women, and some of those men and women have body issues for complex reasons. I’ve not the time nor patience to explain myself right now but I am concerned that Blanchard’s typology has led to an established consensus that some trans are somehow more worthy that others. The trutrans narrative is currently ripping feminism to pieces.

If Blanchard is of the opinion that some paedos are okay and has used the same reasoning to categorise those who are transgendering, I can’t help but wonder if he knew all along that they were ALL fetishists. The fact that a small minority, and it IS a small minority (likely less than 20%), would not seek to impose themselves on others doesn’t really give much fucking reassurance.

I find it hard to believe that men who are transgendering and relying on Blanchard’s typography to somehow distance themselves from the hardcore AGP’s are unaware of this problem with the categorisation.

The whole movement has been pushed by late-stage transitioning men and a handful of women. I am concerned that we shouldn’t be medicalising gender dysphoria at all. By that, I mean we shouldn’t be giving hormones and surgery as a pseudo-treatment. Ultimately, it has led to the medicalising of children and young people who would not have gone down that route. The only reason the fetishists have pushed to legitimise trans as a thing in itself is so they could hide their own sexual dysfunction. I knew this, but I think I might only just be realising it. . .

One thought on “I didn’t know. . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s