I guess where the book was right was in its refusal to accept the 'gender is entirely a social construct' idea, which the book did go to great lengths to debunk, even if it didn't always do it well. As I've said before, I strongly believe that real trans acceptance can't come about unless that idea is debunked.

As I previously wrote, I think that men and women were actually seen as archetypal categories historically, because these concepts arose before the age of science and 'definitions'. It is the attempts to build rigid boundaries around these terms, and then knock down these terms using rare exceptions, that has derailed the traditional understanding. As the science shows, there is actually not a good way to build a rigid boundary between 'men' and 'women'. However, the archetypal understanding is still valid, given that even without clear definitions, we can still differentiate men from women 99%+ of the time. This clearly refutes the 'queer theory' worldview which basically attempts to completely invalidate our understanding of gender. But then, queer theory is not rooted in empirical reality, it is ideologically driven, and at least partly inspired by the 20th century radical feminist project to 'abolish gender' (which I believe is like saying abolish gravity). The sad reality is, right now, trans people are being used as political footballs by people with questionable agendas of all kinds.

As for the Blanchard typology, it is invalid because it makes the absolute claim that all trans people are either the 'HSTS type' or the 'AGP type', there is no other type and no one in between. This clearly contradicts empirical reality, because many trans people have features from both types. It's like saying that all flowers are either roses or tulips, and force classifying all other flowers as roses or tulips based on arbitrary criteria. The Blanchard typology can only add confusion for those trying to understanding trans people.