What a brilliant conversation. Thought-provoking and wide-ranging and completely real. Also quite informative. The sound was reminiscent of a cassette recorder from the 1970s and gave it a vintage vibe that I loved. Thank you.
I have been trying to bring awareness of Blanchard's research on autogynephilia to NGOs, charities and the medical sector -- that it is more likely the truth about the nature of cross-sex identification, rather than the current narrative that everyone has a "gender identity" that can become "trapped" in the wrong body.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice those noises! I like to imagine they were in a comfortable office drinking tea/coffee and eating Jaffa cakes (or some Leclerc Butter Cookies-- Raspberry Truffle in Canada)
It's such a relief to hear you two talk on a public platform. This is how you know we're winning. I get to hear this amazing conversation rather than scramble under my digital bedclothes frantically piercing both of your writings and research together like I'm writing a crazy person note out of collage.
This relaxed conversation between two keen students of sexuality and gender, Ray Blanchard and Julie Bindel, covered a lot of ground. Their lived experiences and intelligent observations gave perspective and help untangle the mess of political and ideological nonsense currently squelching rational discussion about sexuality and transgenderism.
Ray Blanchard made an interesting comment about transsexual Christine Jorgensen (made famous in the 1950's) and Hearst publications. The official story, told by Jorgensen and the mainstream media, has Jorgensen as an unwitting victim of publicity, her "very private" story leaked to the press. But rumours that she was an accomplice to the "leaked" story have circulated for decades. If Jorgensen was proactive in leaking her story, a very different scenario from the official story unfolds, with the media (and those behind it) more actively engaged in promoting transsexualism.
Reading some of the comments here, critical of the audio (which is excellent), or calling Ray Blanchard a misogynist, or going off on hate fuelled tangents, only illustrate how far we are from discussing these topics calmly and rationally. To Julie Bindel and Ray Blanchard, thank you both for this engaging discussion. Ms. Bindel, you ended on such a tantalizing note, "Don't get me started on non-binary!" We can only hope, at some time in the near future, someone will prompt you to discuss the nonbinary nonsense.
This guy is the biggest misogynist and I can’t believe you participated in his bs. MEN invented the entire concept of trans. This guy and his bros were sending these males into female spaces as an experiment without our consent decades ago. He started this bs. To point the finger at women who have been sold a FICTION that a FEMALE cannot contradict as she does not have any reference point to understand male sexuality or deviancy, is disgusting. You were INCORRECT when you said women also have the amputation paraphilia. They DO NOT. There are women who want amputations but it is NOT a paraphilia for them. There is no evidence of any women having any type of paraohilia. Anyway, women do not understand male paraphilias, kinks, etc. They think they do but they don’t. They are incredibly naive about male sexuality and have fallen for the lies told to them by the men that Blanchard et al unleashed onto them. They have been told that the AGP experience, for example, is like being gay. And these women often believe these man are in fact gay. Men are the worst aggressors because ALL men benefit from this and use their position to intimidate and bully women into dropping their questions. For Blanchard to sit there and lie and pretend that females and males face the same abuse when objecting to this stuff is disgusting. Boys and Men get to think and say whatever they want and go about their lives. Girls and women don’t have the same freedom or privilege. We have seen who steps up to intimidate the women who speak up in parliament. It’s the men with a type of aggression they save exclusively for women who say no.
>You were INCORRECT when you said women also have the amputation paraphilia. They DO NOT. There are women who want amputations but it is NOT a paraphilia for them. There is no evidence of any women having any type of paraphilia.
This is incorrect.
Some women do have a paraphilic interest in being an amputee.
For example, Blom et al 2017 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.06.004) found that 80% of men and 40% of women with BIID reported prior sexual arousal related to their form of BIID (eg, seeing amputees, pretending to be an amputee, imagining themselves as an amputee). This information can be found in the supplementary materials.
You are incorrectly assuming a female interest in something originates in the same manner as it does in a male. This is a common error. Males and females have two completely different pathways to developing abnormal sexual behaviours or interests. There is no psychiatric evidence that supports the claim that females have paraphilias. The term ‘paraphilia’ was coined for a distinctly male psychology. Some individuals categorize abnormal interests amongst females as paraphilias but further analysis always shows they have a completely different pathway and psychology than males do. Just because someone develops a sexual interest in something doesn’t mean they have a paraphilia.
Interesting listen so far. Hearing Splosh magazinecome up was a throwback and a half - I knew a Woman who modelled for them back in 2000/2001 or so, pouring treacle on herself in the bath most nights. I used to think it was wacky and weird, fresh from Eurotrash. Now, not so much.
Re AGP - I find the term overused nowadays. Its become the latest thing for the more rabidly online elements of GCism to throw at *all* trans identifying Males. An example is Posie Parker screaming AGP, its always amusing - the puritanical, white picket fencer taking talking points from a sexologist, what a wacky world! Two opposite factions of the same gender cult.
As an admirer and long time follower of Kellie-Jay Keene I think you are totally ill informed to describe her as a "puritanical, white picket fencer". Its also extraordinary you that dismiss her as a "rabidly online element of GC". When did you last actually listen to anything she said?
I was a supporter up until fairly recently, and still support the Women who speak at her events - having attended them, I know how important those events are for them. However, KJK went from 'this is a movement for Women to speak, we are not a political party and we have no leader' to 'buy my t shirts, support my political party, its me, your leader'. Her numerous comments about the legitimacy of same sex parents, her constant attacks on gay men (its not gay men in dresses threatening to rape and assault women, fyi), her views on adoptive parents simply being guardians and not parents...the list goes on.
You're free to support her - shes a populist wannabe leader after all, thats why she exists - but I'm free to no longer offer MY support to her. In an ideal KJK world, we would ultimately all be heterosexual, married and with children. I've not spent 30+ years dealing with homophobic, white picket fence loving puritans to give this one a free pass just because she shouts and calls the men in dresses what they are.
You're free to stay in your position on your side of the gender cult, it makes no difference to me.
I was a supporter of hers until recently too, until I heard her speak after her discussion with Stella OMalley on Ben Boyce’s podcast.
She said something along the lines of, and this is a very general paraphrasing ‘Women come up to me at my events and other places and let them talk to me and don’t say anything I nod and smile and encourage them, and wait for them to say something they regret/something wrong’. I was shocked at how nasty, merciless, treacherous and bullying it sounded, she was smiling as if she enjoyed catching people out saying what she perceives to be the ‘wrong thing’. What if these women are new to this movement and are finding their position? Or they are just nervous approaching her, and say something they don’t quite mean? We aren’t all as well versed and good with our words as she is. It made me feel dirty and like I was a teenage girl back at school. No thank you!
I used to hear similar on her call in's on youtube, but it seems her audience has been whittled down to the purists. I called in once and she was all smiles while I told her how much I appreciated her - until I said that I disagree with her on some aspects of the gender issue, adoption, same sex couples, then it soured.
Its all about purity - its no different to the shenanigans of the left. So many people talk about being heretics while pushing others out for not falling in line. Its why she makes a terrible activist - dogma, ideology and a borderline cult-like following does not a productive movement make. I'm sorry you ended up feeling that way, thats gross...but hey, thats the joy of populism - can't win em all!
I cannot relate to what you claim KJK represents, as in your assertions she is a homophobic, “white picket loving puritan” and a populist wannabe leader who would like everybody to be heterosexual, married and with children. I have never understood her as the kind of reactionary conservative you have come to see. What you have written makes me wonder if you have some sort of great outrage toward heterosexual women who choose marriage and commitment to full time mothering and childrearing? That choice doesn’t mean a woman is passive, patriarchal compliant, ignorant, non feminist or a far right conservative. In my opinion, if the father of the children is committed to the marriage and a good provider then it’s a fantastic proposition for women who love homemaking.
I don’t see myself on any particular “side of the gender cult” and are glad it makes no difference to you.
lol, no, I support Women in their right to do as they please. That doesn’t mean I’m required to support them or agree with them. Please create imaginary narratives with someone else, cultist.
You also didn't touch why KJK, not known for her open views on sex, is so keen to believe what this particular sexologist says, while denying gender dysphoria, something that has been studied in far, far greater detail than Autogynephilia has. Could it be that the rabidly GC sorts are as ideologically corrupt and prone to group think as their mortal enemy, the TRAs?
Why is it obligatory to have an "open view on sex" to be regarded as a legitimate commentor? WHAT exactly does that mean? ...just saying as a person who lived in a free sex commune (child sexual abuse commonplace) and who worked as a prostitute for 6 years, before you accuse me of being an uptight picket fence lover....
In my life experience I can categorically state that believing and advocating for "open views on sex" is NOT a good thing for women.
I do not know any gender critical women I'd describe as "rabid or ideologically corrupt" through seeking to uphold child safeguarding and the recognition of Woman as a sex class of Homo Sapiens.
lol, the hyperbole and constant megadrama from gender cultists is insane to watch. I don't particularly mind what you think I am - thats where we differ. You are engaging in this narrative creation because I said bad things about your Unquestionable Deity, KJK. Your experiences don't place you above anyone else, and you have no idea what others have experienced, get over yourself. GTFO with your gendercult nonsense.
I had to google GTFO to realise you were telling me to get the fuck out. Such hostility from a woman airily claiming she has no problem with what others believe! Within an hour of being challenged you are telling me to fuck off.
You hate women, especially working class ones like me.
Look at you - care to throw any other wild accusations out there? I don't hate Women, just narcissists, and you are displaying your flag clearly right now. You'd make a fantastic trans activist!
Theres nothing on my Substack to see. I blocked you hoping it would mean I wouldn't have to hear any more of your hysterical, narcissistic nonsense, but alas here we are. You are entitled to all of your narcissistic, hysterical opinions - go forth and spew them girl! You are not entitled to an audience or respect, please take all of the time in the world available to you to get over that. Go have a cup of tea, give your caps lock a rest.
Thank you for this largely grounded and intellectually honest and candid discussion. What I marvel about most after listening to this fascinating interview is that after a long career of submerging himself in the world of serious chronic mental illness, Dr Blanchard sounds so sane. God bless him. Thank you for this interview Julie.
What a brilliant conversation. Thought-provoking and wide-ranging and completely real. Also quite informative. The sound was reminiscent of a cassette recorder from the 1970s and gave it a vintage vibe that I loved. Thank you.
I thought this was a very good conversation.
I have been trying to bring awareness of Blanchard's research on autogynephilia to NGOs, charities and the medical sector -- that it is more likely the truth about the nature of cross-sex identification, rather than the current narrative that everyone has a "gender identity" that can become "trapped" in the wrong body.
I put together a referenced, illustrated memo:
https://transpolicy.substack.com/p/trans-memo
I share it here in case anyone else wants to similarly raise the subject of autogynephilia to others.
This is remarkable. Thank you.
I’m fascinated by this but distracted by the heavy breathing and rustling noises. What’s going on???
I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice those noises! I like to imagine they were in a comfortable office drinking tea/coffee and eating Jaffa cakes (or some Leclerc Butter Cookies-- Raspberry Truffle in Canada)
It's such a relief to hear you two talk on a public platform. This is how you know we're winning. I get to hear this amazing conversation rather than scramble under my digital bedclothes frantically piercing both of your writings and research together like I'm writing a crazy person note out of collage.
That was both interesting and educational, I learned so much in that brief conversation. Thank you Julie and Ray.
This relaxed conversation between two keen students of sexuality and gender, Ray Blanchard and Julie Bindel, covered a lot of ground. Their lived experiences and intelligent observations gave perspective and help untangle the mess of political and ideological nonsense currently squelching rational discussion about sexuality and transgenderism.
Ray Blanchard made an interesting comment about transsexual Christine Jorgensen (made famous in the 1950's) and Hearst publications. The official story, told by Jorgensen and the mainstream media, has Jorgensen as an unwitting victim of publicity, her "very private" story leaked to the press. But rumours that she was an accomplice to the "leaked" story have circulated for decades. If Jorgensen was proactive in leaking her story, a very different scenario from the official story unfolds, with the media (and those behind it) more actively engaged in promoting transsexualism.
Reading some of the comments here, critical of the audio (which is excellent), or calling Ray Blanchard a misogynist, or going off on hate fuelled tangents, only illustrate how far we are from discussing these topics calmly and rationally. To Julie Bindel and Ray Blanchard, thank you both for this engaging discussion. Ms. Bindel, you ended on such a tantalizing note, "Don't get me started on non-binary!" We can only hope, at some time in the near future, someone will prompt you to discuss the nonbinary nonsense.
This guy is the biggest misogynist and I can’t believe you participated in his bs. MEN invented the entire concept of trans. This guy and his bros were sending these males into female spaces as an experiment without our consent decades ago. He started this bs. To point the finger at women who have been sold a FICTION that a FEMALE cannot contradict as she does not have any reference point to understand male sexuality or deviancy, is disgusting. You were INCORRECT when you said women also have the amputation paraphilia. They DO NOT. There are women who want amputations but it is NOT a paraphilia for them. There is no evidence of any women having any type of paraohilia. Anyway, women do not understand male paraphilias, kinks, etc. They think they do but they don’t. They are incredibly naive about male sexuality and have fallen for the lies told to them by the men that Blanchard et al unleashed onto them. They have been told that the AGP experience, for example, is like being gay. And these women often believe these man are in fact gay. Men are the worst aggressors because ALL men benefit from this and use their position to intimidate and bully women into dropping their questions. For Blanchard to sit there and lie and pretend that females and males face the same abuse when objecting to this stuff is disgusting. Boys and Men get to think and say whatever they want and go about their lives. Girls and women don’t have the same freedom or privilege. We have seen who steps up to intimidate the women who speak up in parliament. It’s the men with a type of aggression they save exclusively for women who say no.
>You were INCORRECT when you said women also have the amputation paraphilia. They DO NOT. There are women who want amputations but it is NOT a paraphilia for them. There is no evidence of any women having any type of paraphilia.
This is incorrect.
Some women do have a paraphilic interest in being an amputee.
For example, Blom et al 2017 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.06.004) found that 80% of men and 40% of women with BIID reported prior sexual arousal related to their form of BIID (eg, seeing amputees, pretending to be an amputee, imagining themselves as an amputee). This information can be found in the supplementary materials.
You are incorrectly assuming a female interest in something originates in the same manner as it does in a male. This is a common error. Males and females have two completely different pathways to developing abnormal sexual behaviours or interests. There is no psychiatric evidence that supports the claim that females have paraphilias. The term ‘paraphilia’ was coined for a distinctly male psychology. Some individuals categorize abnormal interests amongst females as paraphilias but further analysis always shows they have a completely different pathway and psychology than males do. Just because someone develops a sexual interest in something doesn’t mean they have a paraphilia.
Interesting listen so far. Hearing Splosh magazinecome up was a throwback and a half - I knew a Woman who modelled for them back in 2000/2001 or so, pouring treacle on herself in the bath most nights. I used to think it was wacky and weird, fresh from Eurotrash. Now, not so much.
Re AGP - I find the term overused nowadays. Its become the latest thing for the more rabidly online elements of GCism to throw at *all* trans identifying Males. An example is Posie Parker screaming AGP, its always amusing - the puritanical, white picket fencer taking talking points from a sexologist, what a wacky world! Two opposite factions of the same gender cult.
As an admirer and long time follower of Kellie-Jay Keene I think you are totally ill informed to describe her as a "puritanical, white picket fencer". Its also extraordinary you that dismiss her as a "rabidly online element of GC". When did you last actually listen to anything she said?
I was a supporter up until fairly recently, and still support the Women who speak at her events - having attended them, I know how important those events are for them. However, KJK went from 'this is a movement for Women to speak, we are not a political party and we have no leader' to 'buy my t shirts, support my political party, its me, your leader'. Her numerous comments about the legitimacy of same sex parents, her constant attacks on gay men (its not gay men in dresses threatening to rape and assault women, fyi), her views on adoptive parents simply being guardians and not parents...the list goes on.
You're free to support her - shes a populist wannabe leader after all, thats why she exists - but I'm free to no longer offer MY support to her. In an ideal KJK world, we would ultimately all be heterosexual, married and with children. I've not spent 30+ years dealing with homophobic, white picket fence loving puritans to give this one a free pass just because she shouts and calls the men in dresses what they are.
You're free to stay in your position on your side of the gender cult, it makes no difference to me.
I was a supporter of hers until recently too, until I heard her speak after her discussion with Stella OMalley on Ben Boyce’s podcast.
She said something along the lines of, and this is a very general paraphrasing ‘Women come up to me at my events and other places and let them talk to me and don’t say anything I nod and smile and encourage them, and wait for them to say something they regret/something wrong’. I was shocked at how nasty, merciless, treacherous and bullying it sounded, she was smiling as if she enjoyed catching people out saying what she perceives to be the ‘wrong thing’. What if these women are new to this movement and are finding their position? Or they are just nervous approaching her, and say something they don’t quite mean? We aren’t all as well versed and good with our words as she is. It made me feel dirty and like I was a teenage girl back at school. No thank you!
I used to hear similar on her call in's on youtube, but it seems her audience has been whittled down to the purists. I called in once and she was all smiles while I told her how much I appreciated her - until I said that I disagree with her on some aspects of the gender issue, adoption, same sex couples, then it soured.
Its all about purity - its no different to the shenanigans of the left. So many people talk about being heretics while pushing others out for not falling in line. Its why she makes a terrible activist - dogma, ideology and a borderline cult-like following does not a productive movement make. I'm sorry you ended up feeling that way, thats gross...but hey, thats the joy of populism - can't win em all!
I cannot relate to what you claim KJK represents, as in your assertions she is a homophobic, “white picket loving puritan” and a populist wannabe leader who would like everybody to be heterosexual, married and with children. I have never understood her as the kind of reactionary conservative you have come to see. What you have written makes me wonder if you have some sort of great outrage toward heterosexual women who choose marriage and commitment to full time mothering and childrearing? That choice doesn’t mean a woman is passive, patriarchal compliant, ignorant, non feminist or a far right conservative. In my opinion, if the father of the children is committed to the marriage and a good provider then it’s a fantastic proposition for women who love homemaking.
I don’t see myself on any particular “side of the gender cult” and are glad it makes no difference to you.
lol, no, I support Women in their right to do as they please. That doesn’t mean I’m required to support them or agree with them. Please create imaginary narratives with someone else, cultist.
You know what "cult" I'm in, what is yours called?
oh, and I'm particularly attuned to recognising cult thinking, having been in one 35 years ago.
Good for you, glad you made it out of that one, shame you dove head first into another.
You also didn't touch why KJK, not known for her open views on sex, is so keen to believe what this particular sexologist says, while denying gender dysphoria, something that has been studied in far, far greater detail than Autogynephilia has. Could it be that the rabidly GC sorts are as ideologically corrupt and prone to group think as their mortal enemy, the TRAs?
Why is it obligatory to have an "open view on sex" to be regarded as a legitimate commentor? WHAT exactly does that mean? ...just saying as a person who lived in a free sex commune (child sexual abuse commonplace) and who worked as a prostitute for 6 years, before you accuse me of being an uptight picket fence lover....
In my life experience I can categorically state that believing and advocating for "open views on sex" is NOT a good thing for women.
I do not know any gender critical women I'd describe as "rabid or ideologically corrupt" through seeking to uphold child safeguarding and the recognition of Woman as a sex class of Homo Sapiens.
You seem far more the extremist to me.
lol, the hyperbole and constant megadrama from gender cultists is insane to watch. I don't particularly mind what you think I am - thats where we differ. You are engaging in this narrative creation because I said bad things about your Unquestionable Deity, KJK. Your experiences don't place you above anyone else, and you have no idea what others have experienced, get over yourself. GTFO with your gendercult nonsense.
Projection.
I had to google GTFO to realise you were telling me to get the fuck out. Such hostility from a woman airily claiming she has no problem with what others believe! Within an hour of being challenged you are telling me to fuck off.
You hate women, especially working class ones like me.
Have a really good LOL
Look at you - care to throw any other wild accusations out there? I don't hate Women, just narcissists, and you are displaying your flag clearly right now. You'd make a fantastic trans activist!
HAHAHAHAHA! Fookin incredible!!!!!! You peed your pants!
YOU BLOCKED ME FROM SEEING YOUR SUBSTACK!
oooh eeee....DIDDUMS BABY GIRL!!
ONYA! Big girl who believes all women are entitled to their opinions.
Theres nothing on my Substack to see. I blocked you hoping it would mean I wouldn't have to hear any more of your hysterical, narcissistic nonsense, but alas here we are. You are entitled to all of your narcissistic, hysterical opinions - go forth and spew them girl! You are not entitled to an audience or respect, please take all of the time in the world available to you to get over that. Go have a cup of tea, give your caps lock a rest.
Thank you for this largely grounded and intellectually honest and candid discussion. What I marvel about most after listening to this fascinating interview is that after a long career of submerging himself in the world of serious chronic mental illness, Dr Blanchard sounds so sane. God bless him. Thank you for this interview Julie.