For the purpose of reading my tone, I'm grateful that you added the disclosure. My priors have been adjusted, and you're alright in my book.
(I've been welcomed into the LessWrong community, after my high effort comment, with negative karma and the inability to even vote, but I'd otherwise give you an upvote.)
I think disclosures of conflicts of interest are important when you're authoritatively presenting conclusions, or when you're authoritatively rebutting scientific conclusions. We don't need to know our personal details when we're just talking to each other, and not standing on a metaphorical stage making proclamations. Nevertheless, to reciprocate, I'm not a HSTS. (For the audience, HSTS = homosexual transsexual, a transwoman who is attracted to men. For further context, sometimes HSTS's believe that AGP's aren't "true" transsexuals, hence tailcalled's guess.)
I'm a straight, cis-male, registered Democrat. In terms of bias, I think Blanchard is brilliant; he's poured much of his life into this stuff, and I don't like people glibly taking shots at his work. Regardless of what Twitter would have you believe, Blanchard is highly respected in the scientific community.
What study ... do you have in mind?
The following study, for which you are credited, has its conclusion in the title: "Autogenderphilia Is Common And Not Especially Related To Transgender" (https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/02/10/autogenderphilia-is-common-and-not-especially-related-to-transgender)
I am suggesting that there is a conflict of interest that hasn't been disclosed for this study. Scott Alexander apparently didn't work with you for the analysis/conclusion, so the bias may be strictly limited to the methods: the questions on the survey. (Unless, as I've read, Scott Alexander is romantically involved with a trans person, which makes the whole study highly suspect.)
I believe you in that you had little to do with it, other than coming up with the AGP questions. Nevertheless, in science, if you believe that a study is erroneous, it is standard to request that your name be removed from authorship, so as to not tar your career. The extent to which we stray from that standard is the extent to which our community loses credibility.
What ... socially undesirable traits do you have in mind?
Everyday sexualities, like homosexuality or fetishes like BDSM, are increasingly acceptable to society. Strange sexualities, however, make even progressives uncomfortable. Adult diaper people, for instance, struggle to find friends. But if your sexuality is normal, if most humans have a considerable degree of AGP, (as is concluded by the study that bears your name), then you can expect to be embraced in the kumbaya circle of circle. We all have AGP, let's hold hands!
On the other hand, if AGP is as Blanchard and Bailey understand it, then you're in for (greater) social difficulty. Blanchard and Bailey believe that AGP is analogous to apotemnophilics, also called "transabled" people. These folks are aroused by the idea of getting their limbs amputated. If Blanchard and Bailey are correct, both AGP's and apotemnophilics are consequences of an erotic target location error (ETLE).
Foot fetishists are another example of ETLE, and they're probably the most socially accepted ETLE. Many of us don't care if a friend has a foot thing, as long as he keeps it to himself and doesn't publicly ogle feet. Transabled people, meanwhile, are freaky to almost all of us. Having a sexual desire to chop off parts of your body would fit in a horror movie: an unacceptable sexuality to most.
I think AGP people would fall somewhere between foot fetishists and transabled people, were Blanchard AGP theory widely understood and accepted as valid.
Thus, what's on the table: whether your sexuality is normal or an oddity. And consequently, whether your sexuality is acceptable or highly uncomfortable. The latter would push you (deeper) into the social margins.
The specter of ostracization is a powerful source of bias — a lot is at stake for you! I believe that you have scientific integrity, but as I said in my previous comment, the odds are stacked against you on this topic. Your mind is going to try to find a way to believe the favorable thing and to reject the highly unfavorable thing. To compensate for that inevitable bias, the standards of your work in the field must be higher. It's a pragmatic consideration, not a judgmental one (as long as disclosures are provided!)
I cannot comment on flaws in your questions, as I'm not an expert in the field. I can tell you, though, that Bailey is a warm guy, and he's more accessible than you might expect. If Scott Alexander has slighted you, and it sounds like he has, you could probably steal his thunder. Beat him to a follow-up study done in conjunction with Bailey. I think Bailey might be happy for the chance to make a scientific convert.
For what it's worth, I'm sorry you got a shitty set of cards in the sexuality department. I hope you're able to find a satisfying way to get your kicks and be happy.
I am autogynephilic, and there's been a lot of autogynephilia talk lately. One subject that sometimes comes up, but hasn't been discussed much on LessWrong, is how common autogynephilia is in cis women.
Two datasets that are sometimes used for this question are Scott Alexander's and Aella's. Part of how they happened to be made is that I reached out to Scott and Aella, suggesting experimental questions for assessing autogynephilia, in ways that might function in cis women too and not just cis men[1]:
This is somewhat different from usual autogynephilia measures, which contain questions such as:
The reason I didn't include these latter questions is because it seems likely to me that they will be interpreted differently for males and females (e.g. if males do not have female anatomy, then they cannot be aroused by it literally, so instead they get aroused by imagining some other female anatomy that they don't actually have), and because these usual questions seem very bad if taken literally ("ever" and "while" rather than "how frequently" and "by" seem like there could be a lot of ways to get affirmative answers while not actually being autogynephilic - though the low rate of endorsement among women suggests to me that they are not taking it literally?).
Anyway, Michael Bailey (activist researcher for autogynephilia ideology) responds in Aporia Magazine, saying "It's important not to confound y'know being seen as a woman or having a female body from having sex with a partner while having a female body or the prospect of going out on a date while wearing sexy clothes".
I don't think this makes any sense. "Do you find the thought of masturbating alone as a woman to be erotic?" explicitly states that one doesn't have a partner around. "Picture a very beautiful woman. How sexually arousing would you find it to imagine being her?" doesn't suggest a partner any more than "Did you ever feel sexually aroused when putting on females' underwear or clothing?" or "Have you ever become sexually aroused while picturing your nude female breasts?" does. This seems like a completely unfounded critique.
I think people who dismiss these questions should admit that they are starting with The Bottom Line that cis women are not autogynephilic, and reasoning backwards about what sorts of measures they do or do not want to endorse, rather than pretending that they are driven by evidence and desire for good measurement.
Since nobody really knows how to assess this.