Thanks for the detailed reply! Indeed, 2 is the main group I was thinking of and which seems most affected by the whole...just using Blanchardianism as a way to legitimize their disdain for (perhaps not all) trans women, although that's probably an oversimplification. I'm happy for groups 3 and 4 having a way to reason about their personal experience as well. Group 1 is the one I'm most interested in -- it does seem reasonable to not just assume that all people are equal and that differences between groups could impact how we should structure society. I follow as far as:

They are usually conservatives trying to build models of society which acknowledge human differences as causes of group outcomes and ignore the relevance of ideology.

Although I don't have very much faith that these questions can be well answered with much confidence. I totally disagree by:

And Blanchardianism is also important to them because they are ordinarily conservative so they kind of want to say that trans women are socially bad in an abstract way.

A while back, I had a conversation with ChatGPT to try to understand the conservative perspective on trans people and it finally managed to stump me when it justified its claims on the basis of religious morality. I imagine this is a similar situation -- I don't quite understand how trans women transitioning in part because of autogynephilia is actually relevant for how we should structure society or how one ought to interact with a trans person. After all, cis/het people can make big life decisions like marrying a specific person (partly) on the basis of their sexual desire, and everyone seems okay with that. Does the argument go deeper than "autogynephilia bad and standard cishet sexual behavior okay because [gestures vaguely at religion or tradition]"?

...one controversy that has recently come up is "rapid-onset gender dysphoria", a phenomenon where teens come out as trans to their parents and want to transition, without having exhibited unambiguous signs of transness early on. Some parents think that this is due to social contagion and that their children should be forced to go through puberty as their natal sex and should leave the ideology that caused the transness. The O.G. Blanchardians say that this is probably what happens among AFABs, but that among AMABs it is instead probably due to autogynephilia, and that it is plausible they could benefit from transition.

It seems pretty legit that questions about sexuality and previous gender dysphoria could help determine whether someone should transition (i.e. if they will be happier and not want to detransition with high probability). It also seems like the decision rule could be informed by whether Blanchardianism is correct or not. Thanks!

Hi! I'm doing the seemingly common thing of making an account under a pseudonym so I can have discussions and get smarter without the terrifying and probably dangerous prospect of having all of my partially-formed opinions freely associated with my IRL identity. I thank you all in advance for helping me be less stupid!

I have a somewhat meta-level question to people who sympathize with Blanchardian writing: what is the interest of this research? What questions could we answer by knowing to what extent sexuality plays a causal role in transition? Are there decisions we make as a result of this? Is it for the benefit of trans people themselves that they think of themselves in this way?

I come across a disproportionate interest in noting the (generally) taboo sexual fetishes that are (perhaps) more common among trans people. I would search for quantitative evidence by going to Google Trends and looking at autogynephilia as compared to some similar term for a different social group, but I'm not even sure what other term I'd plug in just because I've never come across something applicable. Correct me if my perception is wrong, though.

From my perspective, this discussion feels akin to questions like "is (x group) socially bad in (y abstract way that is very difficult to answer without splitting hairs over definition)?". You don't really learn much that is actually concrete or useful, but you solidify an ontology that associates a socially disadvantaged group with undeserved toxicity.

To be clear, I don't mean to attack the character of OP with this post, in particular because I think I trust lesswrong more than other places to have discussions that are (and should be) generally taboo. Also, to the extent that I am familiar with Blanchard's research, I +1 Orual's reply.

I feel fairly convinced that the legitimization of this line of questioning is bad for societal opinion of trans people in an unearned way. Blanchard's research is frequently cited by pundits with the strongest anti-trans political opinions. However, I only feel weakly that it is a basically useless line of questioning.