Correct. Nor was there a stated or implied "because". Do I need to break out the crayons?
Correct. It was a joke, criticized later.
Do you recall me specifically saying the "lead author" in one of my responses? I'll go dig it up if you are playing dumb again. Do you know what a "lead author" refers to?
No, you stared blankly at the sky (that means not responding) to multiple questions put to you about your dodgy posts. By the time you invoked Professor ◊◊◊◊ Saw, I was already testy with your refusal to accept criticism of your postings. Er, I mean dimwitted tweeters.
I have already criticized it. Don't tell me: you didn't understand? Allow me to repeat: it contains no information that is externally supported (beyond a few tangential links to other studies) and makes factually wrong statements about AGP. One that I recall was the authors saying they didn't know how many trans people were affected by it, but they kinda thought it was 75% (no citation, of course). All the other research indicates 1-3%.
Ya I laugh at stuff. I had forgotten about him and his dildo-modified reciprocating saw, as it was a long time ago. But yes, myself and countless others found that to be so outlandish (it's a tool I use regularly and can appreciate the power and speed more than many here) that it is like something out of a very twisted mind's dark comedy skit to even picture.
However, I'll retract the post. Anything to be done with this. You win. Well done.
There certainly appeared to be an implied "because". Not so much of a joke, merely a puerile rant comparable to the sniggering of a ten-year-old boy who has heard a smutty joke. No, I don't recall you saying "lead author" as it happens. I tend to think of the article as Blanchard's work, because it's more his area of expertise, the names were probably in alphabetical order.
You don't do criticism of anybody's posts, you simply deny any validity to anything that counters your world-view about the poor helpless, harmless, oppressed, marginalised ladybrains we should all be nice to. Or else.
The article is an overview of Blanchard's (in particular) work and publications. It's not an academic paper. You have given no details about what you think is "factually wrong", or any references to support that assertion. And be warned, we all know about the TRA-published rubbish that's on a par with the stuff published in the Journal of Homoeopathy that homeopaths use to try to fend off criticisms that shaken-up sugar pills are not medicine. Anyone who thinks that only 3% of TIMs are AGP is delusional. It's quite possible that 3% of the general male population is AGP though.
You make the schoolboy error of assuming that everyone else has heard of an old incident that amuses your schoolboy mind. It seems outlandish to me too, but then I am not a sexologist. I suspect that you have to be a bit nuts to be a sexologist in the first place. However, I bear in mind that people in a particular academic speciality can become blind to how their daily work appears to other people. Three of us veterinary pathologists once emptied a restaurant with our conversation about canine faeces. It wouldn't be hard to write a hilarious "ooh matron!" description of several of my undergraduate practical classes, which involved items you would probably describe as dildos, and other items called artificial vaginas (which had to be kept warm with warm water, I actually do remember a student skit about that, "please hurry up Dr Selman, my vagina's getting cold!"), and sundry innocent farm animals. Still, glad you found something to amuse you.
For clarification. I do not accept any man in women's single-sex spaces, and I will wait until a maintenance man has finished, or ask him to leave if necessary while I use the facilities. Normal, decent men are quite happy to do this. It's not a question of "maybe he'll rape me!" It's a question of modesty, decency and propriety. And neither a doctor's certificate to say this man thinks he's a woman, nor a note from his mum saying that he's a nice boy and wouldn't harm a fly, will change my mind.
However, the actual nature of these men who are so insistent that absolutely nothing with a sign saying "women" should be closed to them needs to be more widely understood. Maybe that will choke off some of the nonsense about believing they are who they say they are, and being respectful to them, and all the rest.
And if you don't like that, too bad.
