Why do Bisexuals make Ray Blanchard seeth?

"muh trans bisexuals are fake they are straight trans"
"dog whistling that all bisexuals are fake"
"ugh bisexuals with a wife and kids that sneak out for some cock have nothing to do with the rest of lgbt" actual tweet lmao link proof twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1324747208177209345

Attached: Ray Blanchard bisexual.png (751x798, 124.18K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/K7WvHTl_Q7I
twitter.com/AnonBabble

"THEYRE ALL LYING" lol

hes a seething faggot and always has been

based, fuck bishits

he's just mad that his bi bf left him for a woman

maybe it's not lying
maybe it's just not having a full clinical understanding of what one's preferences are

is heterosexual transsexualism another term for agp, or has he finally decided that hsts (male attracted) involves heterosexual (not homosexual) attraction

>everyone's trans bro believe me

Bisexual trannies ate definetly comphet transbians.

youtu.be/K7WvHTl_Q7I

Imagine this guy staring down his nose at you pompously explaining what "sophisticated medical experts" you've never heard of think about your own sexuality

but he's saying they used to believe that. not that they're right or that he agrees

Sexuality doesn't even exist as a category, this psychological babble is unfalsifiable and can never create a resilient model of behavior.

Maybe Contra is but most self-described bisexual trannies are meta-attracted.

everything in this picture is totally reasonable

>this psychological babble is unfalsifiable and can never create a resilient model of behavior.
is there any subfield of psychology this doesn't apply to?

it's clearly a useful and necessary field, but in practice, psychology seems like such a meme

The tweets in the picture seem reasonable and don't agree with your dumb strawman quotes in the post text.

Psychology as a science needs to be entirely empirical. Any attempts at theory without hard data, or with incomplete/falsified one, will result in shitstorm. Same with sociology.
Also i think its retarded to use hard terminology with social sciences. If you ever say that always x = or leads to y i immidietly distrust you in those fields. Its almost always "x influences behaviour enough to increase LIKELYHOOD of y"

>bisexual male-to-female transsexualism?
>actually, they're lying, they're heterosexuals

>many people [wikipedia tag: who?] have asserted that self-described bisexual men are actually deceiving themselves
>through erection tests, we are able to identify these liars and confirm who is truly bisexual

this is pseudoscientific drivel. there is no strawman. the tweets clearly show he's skeptical of people being honest about self-reports. this is especially clear when he essentially refuses to believe reports of people with autogynephilia claiming to be bisexual or exclusively androphilic

his entire career is a case study in confirmation bias and attempting to mold reality to fit a just-so theory, like much of Freud's work

What a dumb post. You're clearly trying to make him sound edgier than he actually is. Why?

Oh really? Do you think picrel is reasonable too?

Attached: 1646666058173.png (598x291, 58.53K)

Sure, why wouldn't it be?

i dont like it but he makes a point

He's literally comparing trans women to p*dos

Are you mentally retarded? He's saying that trans women *aren't* pedos.

are you retarded? what level of reading comprehension is this?
anyway im disappointed he didnt notice some sort of agpedo diaper subgroup