-(An aside on credit-assignment and the history of ideas: Ozy says _Blanchard–Bailey_ where I've usually been trying to say _two-type_ in order to avoid the [tricky problem of optimal eponymy](http://unremediatedgender.space/2017/Mar/nothing-new-under-the-sun/), but if you are going to be eponymous about it, I can understand just saying "Blanchard" but feel like it's unfair to include Bailey but _not_ Anne Lawrence. My understanding of the history—and I think Michael Bailey reads this blog and I trust him to send me an angry email if I got this wrong—is that [Bailey's research](http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/research.html) had mostly been about sexual orientation and from-childhood gender nonconformity, not the two-type taxonomy as such. Bailey's popular-level book _The Man Who Would Be Queen_ drew controversy for _explaining_ the two-type taxonomy for a nonspecialist audience (in the last part of a book that was mostly about the androphilic/feminine-from-early-childhood people, not my people), but the critics who disparage _Queen_ as "unscientific" are missing the point: popular-level books that _present_ a scientific theory _aren't supposed_ to capitulate the evidence for the theory—for that, you need to follow the citations and read the primary literature for yourself. In analogy, it should not be construed as a disparagement of Richard Dawkins to note that it would be weird if people talked about the "Darwin–Dawkins theory of evolution"!)
+(An aside on credit-assignment and the history of ideas: Ozy says _Blanchard–Bailey_ where I've usually been trying to say _two-type_ in order to avoid the [tricky problem of optimal eponymy](/2017/Mar/nothing-new-under-the-sun/), but if you are going to be eponymous about it, I can understand just saying "Blanchard" but feel like it's unfair to include Bailey but _not_ Anne Lawrence. My understanding of the history—and I think Michael Bailey reads this blog and I trust him to send me an angry email if I got this wrong—is that [Bailey's research](http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/research.html) had mostly been about sexual orientation and from-childhood gender nonconformity, not the two-type taxonomy as such. Bailey's popular-level book _The Man Who Would Be Queen_ drew controversy for _explaining_ the two-type taxonomy for a nonspecialist audience (in the last part of a book that was mostly about the androphilic/feminine-from-early-childhood people, not my people), but the critics who disparage _Queen_ as "unscientific" are missing the point: popular-level books that _present_ a scientific theory _aren't supposed_ to capitulate all the evidence for the theory—for that, you need to follow the citations and read the primary literature for yourself. In analogy, it should not be construed as a disparagement of R. Dawkins to note that it would be weird if people talked about the "Darwin–Dawkins theory of evolution"!)