AGP theory aligned psychologists are going to consolidate power in the US, Canada, and UK, which dominate discussion of the subject. Finland is also in this cluster. And the outcome is entirely political. So no.

Christa Peterson points out that people at Blanchard's critic felt morally entitled to control the reproduction of partner's of trans people: https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1692375769459347568

Looking closer, more specifically it appears that this was written by Betty Steiner, who I don't know much about.

(I think "Concern" about nontraditional families was very much the moral fashions of the time, and I suppose people could argue that the Blanchardians were swept up in it? I don't know the extent to which the Blanchardians were less into it due to them being activists for gay rights, or more into it due to the fact that they have close ties woth eugenicists.)

New criticism by Christa Peterson: https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1692248982368707007

My model is that the people who might make decisions about retraction do not think about this subject in sufficient detail to understand what facet of this critique are valid or invalid.

Christa Peterson's calls for retraction are published in Assigned Media: https://twitter.com/assignedmedia/status/1690811570354352128

Christa Peterson calls for retractions ASAP: https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1684786085493440513

Christa Peterson responds to autogynephilia papers, accusing them of being unethical: https://twitter.com/christapeterso/status/1683597800339300352

betting YES more on political sentiment than anything

as in, I expect academia to continue to shift leftward

They got the ROGD paper retracted, but that doesn't count under this question because the ROGD paper was not about autogynephilia.

However, after it got retracted, Kathy Montgomerie named an intent to get the AGP papers retracted:

https://twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1669652693055418370