"The women's liberation movement cannot be seen as having succeeded in achieving true equality until there are as many female senior figures as there are males."

It's not a biological possibility without "utopianist" genetic engineering of the most drastically dystopian sort. The standard deviations of basic performance measures for males is much larger than the like standard deviation for females. Gender neutral standards would in fact result in males outnumbering females between 6 and 30 to one in the apex of performance for any profession for roughly the highest 10th centile. For activities such as ground combat, about 1 in 300 females can cut it as well as the average male in the military, and in the most extreme high performers in the military, you just aren't going to find women there even with gender neutral standards, because the sample size is so small, an individual women who could make it to that level won't enter the profession often enough for even one to be there contiguously in time.

It works both ways of course, there are more very dumb males than there are very dumb females...

The bell curve for females is narrower, for males, broader.

...yet somehow the real parity in the world never suits those whose real objective is arrogating untoward personal power to themselves.

The entire concept of autogynephilia is dealt with--it is nullified--by simply trying to imagine a woman born with testicles and penis trying to be really enthusiastic about making love with them, or with playing with them solo. How's that supposed to work well or easily? The woman will instead fantasize about having and employing the genitalia which to her own mind seems correct--she will fantasize about using and having between her own legs the correct set of genitals as her internal map of bodily expectation informs her to do.

Blanchard has no point worth addressing except to note and with having taken note dismissing it, his argument is perfectly circular and preposterous. It amounts to the notion that anyone born with male genitals cannot be female in a meaningful sense, therefore their fantasizing about having and employing female genitalia must be a mental illness, a "paraphilia". If you presume a non-biological explanation, of course disorders of thought are what remains to explain such fantasies and any action taken to actualize them, and of course then any surgery or hormonal treatment to meet the expectations of the "delusions" is out of the question wrong. Ergo, trans-eliminationism in the "feminist" and LGB(/T) movement.

Having pursued a theory in avoidance of known facts and one which is generically non-falsifiable, Blanchard is simply a quack; one being at best used, and worst willfully used for political ends--and should be attacked and destroyed as such, a political hack out to get what he can despite the harm he does.

The sadness of a person choosing to exist to do harm can barely be expressed.

"To answer the questions posed earlier:

Why do some quite masculine males who are clearly not at that extreme end of the feminine scale - tall, strong, aggressive and excelling in fields like engineering or the military - seek to undergo genital surgery and change their sex roles?

Why do some extremely feminine men and masculine women not seek to make the change?"

Because they feel the need to.

Because they do not feel the need to.

There is a fulsome explanation for their feeling or not feeling the need to, in that they are or are not comfortable with flesh they are born with. To presume other wise is to give either outward biology or manner of behavior a primacy in determining how people can be expected to act (with respect to what hormone doses and surgical procedure they should or shouldn't seek, now those are possible as a technology) they shouldn't have.

"Emasculation trauma, which very likely has a large bearing on autogynephilic behavior,"

That statement is supposed and not demonstrated with any universality, never mind yet without any salience.

"can affect young males who may be extremely feminine mentally and/or emotionally (as per standard human diversity)."

Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. For anyone who is transsexual and who is extremely feminine, I could find concern for a poor result/bad luck, or even an extreme phobia about needles, before emasculation trauma would be a plausible explanation for not seeking surgery. For someone who is in fact an extremely feminine male, and is happy to have their wedding tackle, why should emasculation trauma even enter be entertained as an explanation for their not wanting to part with it?

Why should an explanation be required?

I am far more interested in the notion that there must be a medical or legal pigeon hole into which every one can be stuffed.

It's not so.

"After much rejection they essentially change over in order to gain greater social acceptance as human beings."

You seriously proposing any statistically significant fraction of very feminine males in a Western setting have had SRS when they did not desire it in and of itself?

"The bottom line must always be a decided on the basis of whether transition will improve the patient's well being and functioning in society."

That was clear before, the issue is, in giving Blanchard the time of day, you are necessarily yielding to someone other than the patient primacy of agency in determining what will improvement will be. In even believing autogynephilia exists as anything like or descended from Blanchard's hypothesis, it is slanted against anything but the "talking cure", or even just warehousing the inconvenient person who lacks sufficient sedation.

" Aggressive internal conflict only plays into the hands of those who wish to undermine what are among the most (unfairly) downtrodden people in society."

"Who" are, not "what" are. An interesting slip.

"The existence of human diversity is the most compelling reason for cross-gender behaviour and identification to be properly accepted by governments and the public at large."

Except I've so far seen only an interest in capturing government to force persons to supplicate to the un-diverse opinion that everything once thought aberrant must now be smiled upon, and no conscience to the contrary is to be suffered to have any expression or agency.

"For instance, many people cannot understand why some masculine males - both physically and mentally - undergo gender reassignment, yet some highly feminine males happily retain an identity as gay (and sometimes heterosexual) men."

Many people? Who?

I can imagine many people wondering why people who cannot "pass" would attempt a feminine role socially, but have no problem believing all but no one has trouble understanding why highly feminine males retain a gay or heterosexual male role. It's because they don't think being highly feminine should equate to their wanting their genitals refashioned to be useful in any female fashion.

There's no mystery there.

The most reasonable intersection between "autogynphilia" and transsexualism is a null set. A biologically male transsexual "should" fantasize about being and acting in female role. It would be more peculiar if they didn't.

Let me see if I've distilled the blog of yours.

You are biologically male?

You desire to remain biologically male?

You are comfortable presenting yourself as a male in society?

You like dressing in a stereotypically feminine manner?

You have some skill in doing so?

You are turned on by imagining yourself as female?

You are troubled by the fact some people don't like whatever your answers to those questions are?

These people are or are not seeking power over you in any way other than the way your giving them the time of day does so?

If you want me to ignore you after this, just put the word semiotics in your reply anywhere.

I'll check back in about an hour.