Autogynephilia, anybody?

[Ruth]

I came across this term in Helen Boyd's book a while back, and was intrigued because it was close (though not right on target) to what I feel about my CDing. For those not familiar, it means being turned on by either the idea of having a woman's body or by the idea of being a woman.
I don't see it discussed on this forum and I was wondering why. Was it done to death years ago or is it still too new to be in common circulation?
It's not an explanation for CDing, but it's an idea of what our motivation might be. And it's distinct from the fetish CDer, who is basically turned on by the clothes themselves.

[Violetgray]

I've only seen the word 'autogynephilia' used to categorize a type of transsexual, not crossdressers with a fetish. Even though I'm not too sure about the whole theory because he says the types are autogynephilia and homosexual ts, and we all know that gender and sexual preference are different.

[Hope]

The term isn't used because it is generally understood to be demeaning and derogatory. Part of that is included in the way you describe autogynephilia, reduces the experience of anyone with a gender identity issue as a sexual deviant. Part of that has to do with the political bias of the terms originator... though I don't remember all of the details. Part of it has to do with the diagnostic connotation behind "fill-in-the-blank-a-phillia."

All together it isn't exactly a term that is held in high regard among the CD/TG/TS community.

[TGMarla]

Autogynephilia was discredited, wrongly in my opinion, years ago because the rest of the sexual-psycological community ostracized Ray Blanchard, the originator of the theory, for bringing forth an idea that flew in the face of accepted norms when it came to transexualism. There is a fallacy that one either is, or is not, a transexual. Room is not made for those of us who fit into a vast grey area where we experience a lot of transexual tendencies, but do not opt to go the whole nine yards and get sex changes. I am really quite sure that many transexuals relate to the idea of autogynephilia. But many crossdressers, who may well have transexual tendencies, also fall into this category. It is not exclusive to transexuals. I think any open discussion of the condition is valid, and in my opinion, welcome. I think that a great many of us have long fantasized about actually having female genetalia, and many more who have and will not admit it.

All it takes to prove the theory is one person who takes a look at this idea, and says, "Hey, that describes me!" So if you ask me, it's completely valid.

[sherri52]

Ruth the term is used for people wanting to be the other sex. Crossdressers want to be with the other sex, wear the clothing of the other sex, and certainly get people to think we are the other sex (to pass).

[jo_ann]

there's a great blog that delves deeper into this subject:
http://autogynephiliac.blogspot.com

I believe the attributes that this term has tied to it are important (since I find many of them describe me). Unfortunately, it has horrible stigma tied to it in the transgender community.

[Lyndi]

Hi Ruth - I am reading Helen Boyds book at the moment and could not get my head round that word Autogynephilia either. We all know our own feelings and I dare say some girls are in turmoil over the wish to transition, but only they can decide. Great forum idea though !!!!

[Elsa Larson]

Here's an article by Anne Lawrence, M.D., Ph.D. about it:
http://www.annelawrence.com/publications/autogynephilia,_a_paraphilic_model_of_GID.pdf

Here's an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogynephilia

Others whom I also respect (Lynn Conway, Ph.D.) are completely opposed to the idea of autogynephilia.
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/

I don't understand why highly educated women with transsexual history cannot at least agree to disagree on this subject.

[Meghan]

there's a great blog that delves deeper into this subject:
http://autogynephiliac.blogspot.com

I believe the attributes that this term has tied to it are important (since I find many of them describe me). Unfortunately, it has horrible stigma tied to it in the transgender community.

Goodness!

http://autogynephiliac.blogspot.com

This is an outstanding blog! I have learned much here, but it is rare for me to get so much out of one source. Thank you so much for your contribution!

Meghan

[Alice Green]

Not really for me, I think, I like crossdressing but, I'm not really turned on by the thought of dressing or being a woman, to be honest it's something to relax at the end of the day for me, like an escape.

[MissConstrued]

Part of it has to do with the diagnostic connotation behind "fill-in-the-blank-a-phillia."

Excuse me! Mind your mouth, mister. There are some of us here who have fillintheblankophilia, and we do not appreciate your tone. :D


Anyway...


Inquiring minds want to know: why can't I just be an executive transvestite, without people in white lab coats inventing excuses for me? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and other times it's a... well... sometimes a dress is just a dress. :straightface:

[docrobbysherry]

It's not an explanation for CDing, but it's an idea of what our motivation might be. And it's distinct from the fetish CDer, who is basically turned on by the clothes themselves.

Ruth, where did u get the idea that fetish CDs r, "---basically turned on by the clothes themselves"?:eek:

The more I can create an illusion of being a REAL female, the more exciting the dressing experience! :D

Sometimes the clothes DO feel arousing! But, for me, they're usually just the icing on the cake!:straightface:

I have NEVER experiencing anything as stimulating in my CD life, as seeing myself appearing to be a naked, or near naked, female in the mirror!:o

The danger of being an autogynephiliac, is a bit like losing track of reality, for me! :sad:
Apparently, Sherry is more attractive to me than real GGs R!:eek:

Having a great sex life with/by yourself, is one thing. But, I don't think that turning away from real human companionship is a healthy trade off!:doh:

Oh, by the by, I may be an autogynephiliac but I don't think I'm a "trans" anything!
Take THAT, Dr. Blanchard!

[MelanieCA]

I think that a great many of us have long fantasized about actually having female genetalia, and many more who have and will not admit it.

All it takes to prove the theory is one person who takes a look at this idea, and says, "Hey, that describes me!" So if you ask me, it's completely valid.

Hey, that describes me!

I was reading the entry on Wikipedia on the subject and came across this passage:


Philip was a 38-year-old professional man referred to the author's clinic for assessment....Philip began masturbating at puberty, which occurred at age 12 or 13. The earliest sexual fantasy he could recall was that of having a woman's body. When he masturbated, he would imagine that he was a nude woman lying alone in her bed. His mental imagery would focus on his breasts, his vagina, the softness of his skin, and so on—all the characteristic features of the female physique. This remained his favorite sexual fantasy throughout his life.

This describes me nearly perfectly. Until this day I never knew there was a term for it. Although I knew it was probably not a usual fantasy for a heterosexual, it never occurred to me that it was deviant in the pejorative sense of the word.

[ReineD]

It is my understanding that Blanchard's 'autogynephilia' theory was not well accepted in the TG community because Blanchard categorized TGs as either being homosexual (M2Fs wanting to have sex with men), or non-homosexual in which case they were autogynephilic (loving themselves as women). Blanchard defined autogynephilia as "a man's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman." Blanchard suggested autogynephilia as an explanation for transsexuals wanting to transition.

The term 'paraphilia' in the definition is key as it means having unusual sexual desires or fantasies to the point where it interferes with the ability to enjoy equally satisfying sex with a willing partner. You can well imagine why there was such an uproar in the TG community. Also, Blanchards' research methods were questioned since his sample group was small and consisted of self reported gender-disphorists.

But, in later years other researchers suggested that autogynephilia was a valid condition attributable to some, not all non-homosexual members of the TG community, members who did not wish to transition.

I've read countless times here that for many CDers, nothing compares to the sexual thrill that accompanies the CDing so it appears to me as if autogynephilia is more widespread that some people like to think.

[TGMarla]

:iagree:

[Always Susan]

Well said,Reine!

[suchacutie]

The issues swirling around this thread are certainly hard to lock down. I've read all the posts very carefully and tried to see if I fit.

I don't think so.

I am personally very attracted to women (read GG). I enjoy the interaction of myself as a male with women (well, one woman, as I am in a long-term, committed relationship).

However, it is also clear that there is a very feminine streak slicing through my psyche. It is nothing short of thrilling to be feminine (but not sexually thrilling). Notice that I'm separating the words feminine and woman. I have read here many times as others remind us that being a genetic women is not an option, although many of us come as close to it as might be imaginable! (those of you who do that are soooo very impressive!).

I'm not one of that group. I enjoy being as feminine as possible, even as I retain male plumbing. I do hope that over time I am able to present a very convincing feminine personality and visage, not as a fantasy, but as a reality. My fantasies have never involved me as a genetic woman.

I have to admit, I'm almost disappointed, as yet again I don't seem to fit.

tina

[Raquel June]

I've heard it used by some to dismiss people with gender issues as just being perverts. It's often derogatory, but then so are most other words used to refer to people with gender issues. But I'd say that autogynephilia is more derogatory than most terms to me. Although I know plenty fetishistic crossdressers who are nice people, I don't like people assuming that I'm some horny dude who gets turned on by dressing like a woman when I'm pretty much the opposite of that.

But the term autogynephilia applied to transwomen is absurd. What's the alternative -- being turned on by your male qualities? Of course I'm more excited about being a woman.

[skirtsuit]

Why is this thread in the MTF crossdressing forum?

There is a MTF transgender forum off the main page, just scroll down abit.

All the Best,
Ann / SS, good ol' fashioned crossdresser

[ReineD]

Why is this thread in the MTF crossdressing forum?

There is a MTF transgender forum off the main page, just scroll down abit.

All the Best,
Ann / SS, good ol' fashioned crossdresser

AGP could be a motivating factor for some CDs. It is not strictly a TS condition. Many self identified CDs have said they feel they are autogynephilic.

[Raquel June]

Why is this thread in the MTF crossdressing forum?

Maybe because that's where it belongs.

Autogynephilia is basically another way of saying "fetishistic crossdresser." Transsexuals aren't generally motivated by some kind of turn-on they get from being feminine.

[BritneyLynn]

I'm not sure we should be categorizing ourselves into completely separate categories. I believe gender identity, sexual orientation and the appeal of wearing feminine trappings (what's currently "appropriate" as womens' clothes, jewelry and makeup) are independent scales instead of "check one, M or F".

Most people are at the same end of all the scales, corresponding to their physical sex. That status is so common those that enjoy it are sometimes afraid of people with mismatching feelings, possibly fearing our expression will result in corrupting or otherwise victimizing their children. There are also cultural pressures, ironically shifting as a result of fashion changes (togas, roman army skirts, 18th century ponytails under wigs etc). Fortunately the percentage of people willing to tolerate our public gender expression has been growing in recent decades.

Gender identity and physical sex at the opposite ends of the scales results in frustration that may lead to pusuit of a surgical reasignment. A gender identity somewhere in a broad range in the middle of the scale might result in secretly dressing, dressing adventures in public or living (without surgery) as a woman full time. Combine a mid range gender identity with a similar mid range sexual orientation (or opposite their physical sex) and a person might have erotic fantasies where they imagine themselves as the other sex. The trappings help us realize what it's like for the opposite physical sex weather for intimacy or going about other daily business.

Awareness of the high expense, medical risks and painful post operative recovery period probably discourages some potential reassignment patients.

[TGMarla]

If I say I'm right-handed, I'm categorizing myself only in the aspect that I'm right-handed. By identifying oneself as having some of the attributes of autogynephilia, one does not categorize oneself in any other aspect, except for being sexually drawn to the thought of having feminine genetalia. So it's still a very valid conversation, and it does not necessarily place one into a narrow box. Autogynephilia is something that I believe is common across a broad spectrum of transgendered males, not strictly transexuals, crossdressers, or any other artificial category one chooses to throw out there.

[Pink Person]

I think autogynephilia is a two-bit term that is used to trivialize and invalidate TG people and their behavior. Some people like Blanchard seem to derive sexual pleasure from pissing on people that they don't like and can't understand.

[Wen4cd]

Here's one well-written critique of Blanchard's taxonomy:

http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/autogynephilia-critique.html

It's outside of my realm, since I don't experience any 'philia' associated with dressing, but it's an interesting read.

The gem of the essay is this line imo:

"A diagnostic label is often an intellectual fetish - something that provides an irrational sense of security and control to the person who uses it." :D

[helenr]

Wow, no shortage of opinions on this topic! I think Blanchard knows quite a bit and has keen insight to many crossdresser's weaknesses. Perhaps he is a bit cruel in his generalizations. We are still people. I find that any autogynephilia that affects me is, alas, related to the reality that, to be honest, no one else appreciates helen-I don't consider this pure narcissism as I really don't like myself or how I look, but in the fantasy state, I am OK.
I truly love women, but I sense that I will never be close physically to one who values Helen for who she is and I know that transgenderism and committed crossdressing (I still view it as transvestism) is so ingrained I can't change now at 62. Nor should I be expected to or required.
I confess envy for those who can 'lightswitch' from crossdressing to be a 'normal' male to maintain conjugal relationships. I can't do that any more.

[MissConstrued]

I don't like people assuming that I'm some horny dude who gets turned on by dressing like a woman when I'm pretty much the opposite of that.



So, you're a horny chick who gets turned on by dressing like a dude?



Just to throw this out there... some gals assume that I am some horny dude... and I'm toooootally okay with that. It pays off. :) Wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean?

[Sammy777]

First off Blanchard is a frackin self centered blow heart ego-fk'in manic TOOL.

Forget for a sec whether or not the term "might" or "might not" fit "some" CD or TS people.

He main and only goal is to promote his own bloated ass and asinine screwed way of looking at the world.

His " Autogynephilia" boils down to everybody who does anything that even remotely falls under his catch all psycho-babble-bullshit rhetoric theory is either one or the other.

Homosexual TS
1) You are a GAY MALE [You like OTHER MALES]
Yessss Neo -
You are NOT a straight Female because Mr Blanchard does NOT think you have a Female mind or identity.
No to him you are still a MALE. But because you like boys in the bedroom you can be a "TS" in his book.

Non-Homosexual TS
2) You are a Straight MALE [You like FEMALES] ewwwww
You like FEMALES - how dare you!!!!!!! But there is hope!
Because if, according to Mr. Potato Head, you like girls then you are definitely NOT a TS.
Infact, you like girls soooo much that even the though of seeing yourself in the mirror as a girl gives you a stiffy.

You are screwed in the head and disgusting. BUT Mr. Prozac has a soft spot for you [and in his head] and feels that if you want it sooo much you might as well get it too.
Hense you are the other white eat, the lesser of the two, but still worthy of being called a TS to in his book.

SAD SAD part - all his great work :lol2: revoles around just one thing.... SEX -
The horizontal hustle - bumpin Uglies - gett'in down - ect.
It has NOTHING to do with your Gender Identity or who you fell you are or might be the other 23 1/2hrs out of the day.


This thread makes it painfully obvious that a lot of people on there either have no fracking clue, don't know any of the facts, and/or just like to talk to be heard.
Which is something hard to do considering that no one can hear you when your head is so far up your frackin ass.

Like it or not - Mr Bullshit has no ones best interest in mind but his own. And he will do what ever it takes to further his warped ideas and line his pockets while running amuck among the so called [and usually self proclaimed] psycho medical elite.

Have a nice day! :D



I will put these back away.......... For now
http://samantha.arcaco.com/deathstrike.jpg

[TGMarla]

Without resorting to foul language and name-calling, whatever opinion one might have of the man himself, Blanchard and Lawrence did identify a trait that many transgender people feel: they are emotionally drawn to the image of themselves with female anatomy instead of the male anatomy they were born with. Now, whether the further categorization of such people as this or that was valid or true is open to mature debate. But it does not negate the fact that many transgender people do exhibit this trait. And all the derisive comments, name-calling, self-righteous anger, and low-brow language does not change that fact.

[Nadia-Maria]

they are emotionally drawn to the image of themselves with female anatomy instead of the male anatomy they were born with.

I agree with you that the level of the debate has not been very mature so far.

Anyway, I can't see much insight in this sentence as for MTF crossdressing people :
"they are emotionally drawn to the image of themselves with female anatomy instead of the male anatomy they were born with".

Because that's just another means to say "crossdressers like to see themselves crossdressed".
I simply mean that they would not crossdress at all if they preferred to see themselves dressed as males in their male anatomy. :battingeyelashes:

Too often complicated words like "autogynephilia" are just created to disguise ignorance into a "high level" insight.

I prefer not "crossdressing" a simple reality into a fuzzy, complicated and unproven theory such as Blanchard's.

[Sammy777]

Blanchard and Lawrence did identify a trait that many transgender people feel: they are emotionally drawn to the image of themselves with female anatomy instead of the male anatomy they were born with.

But it does not negate the fact that many transgender people do exhibit this trait.

Oh sure while that may be true in some cases.
What you forgot to mention is that Blanchard and his Lapdog only acknowledge and directly tie that solely to SEXUAL thoughs. IE: Self Gratification

Let me spell it out for the cheap seats.......
Their theories have nothing to do with how a person thinks, feels, acts or what they believe to be true in themselves. They do not care about Gender or Gender Indentity.

All Blanchard cares about is SEX SEX SEX and bases his "findings" and "theories" :lol2: solely on who you happen to be shacking up with. Be it another Guy or a Girl.
Because to Blanchard that is all you ever are and will be in his eyes - A GUY.

*** Who would of thunk it?????
A person who studies sex came up with a theory revolving around sex as to why we are the way we are... WOW! Now there is a shocker! :lol2: *** [ADDED]

Go ahead tell me I am wrong [and actually be able to prove it]
And I will bow down at the feet of Mr. Blanchard... The SEXOLOGIST.
You know a Sexologist.... A person who studies Sexual [as in the act of having sex] behaviors, NOT Gender.

Because I put about as much weight into what a Sexologist says about who I am as I do a Mixologist*. *Thats an over gloried bartender for those that don't know, :D

PS: See I can be nice. I didn't even once call him Mr Potato Head or an Idiot in this post :D

[ReineD]

His " Autogynephilia" boils down to everybody who does anything that even remotely falls under his catch all psycho-babble-bullshit rhetoric theory is either one or the other.


I understand your anger. There are many people in the TG community who share it. But, as you point out and others do as well, Blanchard's error was in classifying TSs into one of only two categories: homosexual or hetero-autogynephilic. I agree it is not as simple as that. I also do not believe Blanchard extended his theory to include CDs.

But, if you take your focus off of Blanchard's conclusions and just look at the term autogynephilia alone, it does apply to many CDs. There are many CDs whose preferred form of sexual release is through masturbation while fantasizing. There are many marriages where the wife after some years does not feel she is enough for her husband. It is hard to say whether the husband's loss of libido with his wife is due to aging, or whether it has switched to wanting to masturbate while thinking of his femme self.

This is an issue that is of great concern in many heterosexual relationships and it should be discussed. If the CD is single, it does not present a problem, unless of course he wants to develop a relationship with a GG and he finds that he cannot.

So please, for this discussion do not think of it as a definition of who Blanchard thinks TSs are or are not, but as a real condition, an aspect some CDs' sexuality that does very much exist, which BTW brings us back to the OP. The original post has nothing to do with debating where the term was first coined and by who and how it was correctly or incorrectly applied. The OP asked input from others who also relate to feeling this way, and whether others feel there is a difference between a sexual turn-on over the clothes vs. the self as a woman.

I'd personally love input as to how the wife fits into all of this. :)
:hugs:

[Sammy777]

If the CD is single, it does not present a problem, unless of course he wants to develop a relationship with a GG and he finds that he cannot.

Well here lies another problem in his "theory".
According to him - Anyone who falls under the second category of non-homosexual / autogynephilia is only doing it so they can have sex with themselves.

According to him - these people once post-op will have no want or need to find a sexual partner because their preferred sexual partner is now themselves and they [all] will end up alone.

Once again proving that all his work is centered around SEX and who you are [or aren't] having it with.

And also why he completely omits F2M TS' because he can't neatly put them into his slot A or slot B theory.

PS:

The OP asked input from others who also relate to feeling this way, to whether there is a difference between a sexual turn-on over the clothes or the self as a woman.[/i]
:hugs:

OK. Well what if ones sexual feelings/thoughs have nothing to do with the wearing of the clothes or the though of ones self as a woman??

Who knows?
Maybe I'm the odd duck here, the monkey in the wrench, the fly in the ointment.
But the though of being sexually turned on by the woman I see in myself is just as,
if not more creepy then the though of me being sexually turned on by my sister. :puke:

[ReineD]

Sam, I was editing my post while you replied. Would you please go back and read my last 2 paragraphs. :)

Oops, never mind, you edited too. :p



OK. Well what if ones sexual feelings/thoughs have nothing to do with the wearing of the clothes or the though of ones self as a woman??

Then I would say that this thread has nothing to do with you since you do not relate to feeling this way, and you can simply say so and move on.

But many others in this forum do relate, and as with everything, it is best not to put down how other people feel when they feel differently than you do. Blanchard's limited definition of a transsexual's sexuality is not in question here.

The question is how others relate or cope with being autogynephilic to any degree.

[Sammy777]

Sam, I was editing my post while you replied. Would you please go back and read my last 2 paragraphs. :)

Oops, never mind, you edited too. :p


And edited some more, so hit refresh again, lol.

[ReineD]

Geez, we've got to stop meeting like this. I edited too. lol

[Sammy777]

Geez, we've got to stop meeting like this. I edited too. lol

DAMN!!!!! I was going to write that....... OK Im going to get coffee and not post or edit for 10 minutes :lol2:

[TGMarla]

Thank you, Reine.

Blanchard merely identified the trait. His expanded theory may be way off-base, but that does not negate the existence of the trait in many trans people, TS or CD or whatever.

The fact that for centuries, man incorrectly thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth did not mean that they did not exist, and that they did not have some kind of relationship to each other. Simply because Blanchard was way off-base in many of his theories does not mean that AGP does not exist and is not valid.

So back to Ruth's original post....yes Ruth. A lot of us feel that way.

[ReineD]

And thank you, Marla. :hugs: So yes, back to the OP, and if Ruth doesn't mind my asking, how does the wife fit into all of this if a married CD is autogynephilic?

[Sarah_GG]

DAMN!!!!! I was going to write that....... OK Im going to get coffee and not post or edit for 10 minutes :lol2:

Hilarious! You're on the same wavelength!


And thank you, Marla. :hugs: So yes, back to the OP, and if Ruth doesn't mind my asking, how does the wife fit into all of this if a married CD is autogynephilic?

Very interesting question...

[Raquel June]

In the real world I run into horny antisocial crossdressers at clubs quite a bit, and it embarrasses me to be in any way associated with most of them. On a good day they sit there not talking to anybody waiting to be picked up and acting socially crippled if you do try to talk to them. On a bad day they approach me like I'm their best friend and ask me what's under my skirt, or if I'll "make a woman out of them," or what sexual favors I like. I have never in my life been treated with such disrespect in public as I have been by several horny crossdressers on several occasions. Just last month a crossdresser at a club I frequent roofied a GG I had been dancing with earlier because he assumed she must be lusting after guys in dresses. I'm not saying that's you. I'm not saying that's anybody on this forum. But that's the world I see, and I don't need you giving me shit for saying I don't want to be referred to in the same category as fetishistic crossdressers.




So, you're a horny chick who gets turned on by dressing like a dude?

Hmmmm... :) Being the opposite of that makes me a non-horny chick who gets turned off by guys dressing as women. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And I'm not asexual; there are definitely people who are very capable of making me horny.

[Melissa A.]

I was going to say almost exactly the same things as SamanthaM....

Whatever autogynophelia is, and however anyone feels they relate to it, is fine for any individual. Any discussion of Blanchard, Lawrence, J. Michael Baily("The Man who Would be Queen") and to some extent, Dr. Kenneth Zucker as serious, unbiased researchers, well, that is going too far.. Blanchard uses the term as a springboard to discredit the very existence of those of us who know who we are. Baily conducted most of his "research" in bars frequented by sex workers. Lawrence mystifies me completely, I must say. And CAMH in Ontario, where both Blanchard and Zucker have worked, is basically of the opinion that most transsexuals lie. The conditions they put on those who need to transition are from the dark ages, relatively speaking. It never ceases to amaze me when people who make my condition their job spend the majority of their time completely ignoring how WE feel and live.

Blanchard, Helen Boyd, Janice Raymond, Germaine Greer....All of them are somehow offended, for their own personal reasons, by my existence. And they've made it their life's work to make their "research" fit their biases. They are dangerous people. As I said, however you identify, if you think the term fits you, more power to you. But it's use was coined by Blanchard to make transsexual's lives more difficult. That is why it's been attacked so passionately. We know who we are. And these people refuse to listen to us. To hell with them.

I'm not sure what this is doing in the main, CD section. Maybe the word is something some can relate to. But it's use, and main reason for being, is beyond demeaning and offensive. I can't just walk by and say nothing when I see it, or Blanchard's name. fighting back against this crap is always necessary.

Hugs,

Melissa:)

[ReineD]

I'm not sure what this is doing in the main, CD section. Maybe the word is something some can relate to. But it's use, and main reason for being, is beyond demeaning and offensive. I can't just walk by and say nothing when I see it, or Blanchard's name. fighting back against this crap is always necessary.

Melissa, please read post #35. The OP's intent was not to discuss the validity of Blanchard's theory, but to get feedback from others who can relate to the condition of autogynephilia as she does.

I hope others who decide to join in this thread will decide to begin a new thread if they want to discuss Blanchard's theory on the motives for transiton. Let's bring the focus back to the OP's request in this thread.

[Melissa A.]

I came across this term in Helen Boyd's book a while back, and was intrigued because it was close (though not right on target) to what I feel about my CDing. For those not familiar, it means being turned on by either the idea of having a woman's body or by the idea of being a woman.
I don't see it discussed on this forum and I was wondering why. Was it done to death years ago or is it still too new to be in common circulation?
It's not an explanation for CDing, but it's an idea of what our motivation might be. And it's distinct from the fetish CDer, who is basically turned on by the clothes themselves.

I understand that, Reine, but if you look at the original post, there are also questions about why it is or isnt discussed, whether or not it is very new phenomena. and a mention of a particular writer. The people I mentioned in my post have published books and research papers, and my fear is some of their stuff may be accepted without question. And it does need to be questioned. I realise I wasnt the first to weigh in negatively, and I am sorry for getting on my soapbox. I did mention that for those who feel the term applies to them, that's fine. But I also felt some mention of the context and the sources was needed. I am sorry if I offended or stepped on toes.

Hugs,

Melissa:)

[Sammy777]

Blanchard merely identified the trait.

His expanded theory may be way off-base, but that does not negate the existence of the trait in many trans people, TS or CD or whatever.

Simply because Blanchard was way off-base in many of his theories does not mean that AGP does not exist and is not valid.

I'm not saying it does not exist or is not valid.
After all, all he did was just completely rip off the definition of a "Fetishist Crossdresser"
and just slightly twist it so it would conform to TS' that didn't fit into his original "All TS's are really just Gay Men" theory.

Hiding and Omitting ALL F2M TS was hard enough.

But hiding any TS that happen to like women was to hard for even him I guess!!
So he had to scurry like a rat running from a sinking ship to come up with something, anything that would help his original theory still hold water [ya right, lol] but still explained these strange freaks of nature that were interfering with his original freaks of nature.

Because, after all, why would a person who CD'es want such a term as AGP when they already had the same thing. Unless of course the newer term just sounded better.
Which makes about as much sense as his body of work. :D

PS:
If back pedaling was an Olympic Sport I'm sure you'd have a shot at the Gold. :lol2:

Did I mention I have a black belt in Sarcasm ..... and the boots to match (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OVVUpVlSoM) :lol2:

[Kaitlyn Michele]

i wouldnt use the word because of the negativity around it...

I could say that all Transsexuals who never had a sexual feeling relating to their innate femaleness are simply not transsexual, but have a disorder called unfetishgynophelia...

of course i just made that up and so did Dr Blanchard....

for better or worse, the term just sets people off....

the fact that many transsexual women feel a sexual feeling when they truly feel their womanhood makes all the sense in the world...add testosterone to the mix and you get alot of unwanted erections...but then like pavlov's dog, you learn that it feels good, and more importantly it relieves your anxiety...

years ago, saying this outloud would get you immediately off the list if you were looking to get hormones and transition...so girls learned the script..

this myth did great damage to me...i have suffered for years and years thinking that i was cursed to stay a bitter man because i had these erections..i was told that i had fantasies...so just like with my maleness, i tried to work with that, and i got more and more anxious and depressed...

then i met 2 women that have transitioned for dinner, and i talked openly about this and they just laughed and laughed and said join the club..

so if the question is what do i think of autogynephilia...i try not to...

if you ask if i've been sexually aroused and what i think about it...i think it makes perfect sense, what sexual feeling was i supposed to have as a woman with a penis?? I never ever had a thought about using it to penetrate a lover..it just never occured to me.. of course, i was totally functioning down there and without that release of anxiety i would be dead...

i just wish i had somebody to talk to about this 10 and 20 years ago...

[Samantha Girl]

I doesn't feel to me like there's much of a distinction between CDing and Autogynephilia, at least to my mind anyway.

AND the word Autogynephilia is just icky! :p

[Sammy777]

I doesn't feel to me like there's much of a distinction between CDing and Autogynephilia, at least to my mind anyway. :p

You better be careful Sam, them there words might ruffle more then a few feathers in this here hen house. :heehee:
Some might even want to take ya out behind the woodshed for a good lickin' -
And I don't mean that in a fun way neither. :lol:

If I were to respond, expand, or do anything regarding that statement it might be the last thing I do here for a bit .......... or ever :lol2:

[How is Washington treating you so far? Probably less rain then we're getting in Jersey]

[ReineD]

But I also felt some mention of the context and the sources was needed. I am sorry if I offended or stepped on toes.
:hugs:
You didn't offend or step on my toes. I understand your point too, and although the OP did ask why the term is not often discussed, the main thrust of her question I thought was her intrigue about the concept and if it might be an explanation for some motives behind the CDing. The OP identified with the feelings, as have others here.

But then the focus of the thread shifted to a debate between those who want to answer the OPs question and others who (rightfully) feel the term is not a valid label for TSs who are not attracted to men. These are two completely separate discussions. Everyone agrees that Blanchard's views were limited but expressing outrage over his misconceptions belongs in a separate thread since the concept of autogynephilia in itself does exist. We frequently see it expressed on this board and not strictly by transvestic fetishists.

Just take a look at many of the responses in these recent threads:

http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114076&highlight=thrill
http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110684&highlight=thrill




So he had to scurry like a rat running from a sinking ship to come up with something, anything that would help his original theory still hold water

I don't know if by "backpeddling" is you are referring to the following, but Blanchard did write about the validity of his theories 15 years after he originally coined the term. I quote from the last paragraph on his website: Origins of Autogynephilia (http://www.autogynephilia.org/origins.htm)

"All or none of the foregoing propositions may be true, false, or something in between. Their accuracy is an empirical question that can be resolved only by further research. In the meantime, it is important to distinguish between the truth or falseness of theories about autogynephilia, on the one hand, and the existence or nonexistence of autogynephilia, on the other. The latter is also an empirical question, but it appears, at this point, to be settled. The primary evidence that autogynephilia exists is the self-report of biological males who say “I am sexually excited by the idea of having breasts,” “I am sexually excited by the idea of having a vagina,” “I am sexually excited by the idea of being a woman.” There is no particular reason to believe that these individuals are merely distorting the familiar transvestitic narrative to make it more acceptable to others."

I take it Blanchard is saying his original research may or may not be true, and he suggests there should be further research. He also observes that many biologic men identify with experiencing sexual feelings when imagining themselves as women, which we've all seen expressed on this board time and time again.




the fact that many transsexual women feel a sexual feeling when they truly feel their womanhood makes all the sense in the world...add testosterone to the mix and you get alot of unwanted erections...but then like pavlov's dog, you learn that it feels good, and more importantly it relieves your anxiety...

this myth did great damage to me...i have suffered for years and years thinking that i was cursed to stay a bitter man because i had these erections..i was told that i had fantasies...so just like with my maleness, i tried to work with that, and i got more and more anxious and depressed...

so if the question is what do i think of autogynephilia...i try not to...

if you ask if i've been sexually aroused and what i think about it...i think it makes perfect sense, what sexual feeling was i supposed to have as a woman with a penis?? I never ever had a thought about using it to penetrate a lover..it just never occured to me.. of course, i was totally functioning down there and without that release of anxiety i would be dead...

i just wish i had somebody to talk to about this 10 and 20 years ago...

Thank you for your honesty in sharing this, Kaitlin. I've learned a lot from it and I'm sure others have too. :hugs: I wonder how many CDs feel the same way.

[Sammy777]

Thanks,
I truly do appreciate the time and effort put forth in this and your other posts on the subject.



I don't know if by "backpeddling" is you are referring to the following, but Blanchard did write about the validity of his theories 15 years after he originally coined the term. I quote from the last paragraph on his website: Origins of Autogynephilia (http://www.autogynephilia.org/origins.htm)

Actually....... uuuuuu ....... No, it wasn't that or him that I was referring to. :cute:

[TGMarla]

If back pedaling was an Olympic Sport I'm sure you'd have a shot at the Gold. :lol2:

Yeah, Reine. I think she was cracking on me. I guess while I understand the concept of autogynephilia, I just don't feel this terrible rage towards Blanchard over it. Har har.

[christinek]

I think another long word not used here is Transvestic Fetishism.

I have read the previous and most has been spoken so I digress.

[Pink Person]

Oh FFS (charming acronym) people are subjects, not objects. We express our sexuality subjectively. Are women who have breast implants or want them, and are sexually excited about having or wanting them, suffering from autogynephilia? Not likely, because we all view ourselves as sexual subjects not as sexual objects. It is only other people who objectify us.

What Blanchard and other people like him, including the ones who validate his supreme stupidity and offensiveness, will not allow is that someone who is born with a penis can be a female subject or feminine subject in any meaningful way and express their subjective femaleness or subjective femininity in a sexual manner that is satisfying to them. Blanchard’s opinions imply that every person with a penis is either a healthy authentic male or a sick male. He probably views people with vaginas in a similar or dimmer light. Blanchard’s opinions reduce some people to penis objects who objectify themselves as vagina objects. He denies the basic humanity of TG and TS people.

Do people who masturbate get excited because they imagine having sex with themselves? Perhaps Blanchard and a few others do. Everyone else imagines themselves as a sexual subject who is expressing their sexual subjectivity.

Is it difficult for TG and TS people to find compatible sexual partners and maintain relationships with them? Yes it is. The primary reason is that most people (who are not TG or TS) don’t respect the authenticity of TG and TS self-identification, and they don't respect the natural expression of personal TG and TS humanity and personal TG and TS subjectivity.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

auto
a combining word meaning self

gyno
a combining word meaning self

philia
a combining form used in the formation of compound words that have the general sense “unnatural attraction” (necrophilia),

why would anybody "like" being defined as having an unnatural attraction that is compared to necrophilia

what is wrong with being a fetish crossdresser or having any nondangerous fetish (unlike like dangerous fetishes that hurt others including corpses..heh)
, if you do enjoy dangerous fetishes, then you can fantasize in your mind about any type of sexual pleasure,

The term autogynephilia was created AS a perjorative term...it does not at all describe the reality that I and others have personally experienced..transsexuals care DEEPLY about the word because most of us view it as quackery and folks like Dr Blanchard are part of the group that is working to define us in the next DSM...it matters..how it is defined medically has all kinds of reprecussions for those of us that seek treatment or surgery..doctors can hurt us...go look up Dr John Money...

so i would respectfully ask that we simply not use that term..what term should we use?? who cares...just not a term coined by a self serving man using incredibly flawed research...

but it doesnt mean that there are alot alot alot of girls that either enjoyed sexual pleasure or a release of anxiety through their testosterone laden existence...

my educated GUESS is that for ts women that felt sexual things about themselves it is about coping with the confusing feelings regarding just knowing you are a girl but genetically being a boy....

[Jonianne]

.......Thank you for your honesty in sharing this, Kaitlin. I've learned a lot from it and I'm sure others have too. :hugs: I wonder how many CDs feel the same way.

Reine, your grasp on things CD/TG is amazing!

As a cd'er I do also feel the same way Kaitlin expressed. I used to think that something was wrong with me for having those feelings, that being turned on either by cloths or by fantasizing myself as a female negatated or discredited the deeper desire of my identifying "with" or "along side" females.

As humans we are very beautifully complex, especially with our emotions and minds. Since childhood, I have only felt comfortable "letting in" strong female role models in my life to identify with. For me, that is the core reason I am a crossdresser. Yes, after puberty, the rest kicked in and I am happy with that, even though it certainly complicates what was already complicated at best. But, I have settled in and am very happy being an ever changing, complicated me.

[Sophie_C]

I came across this term in Helen Boyd's book a while back, and was intrigued because it was close (though not right on target) to what I feel about my CDing. For those not familiar, it means being turned on by either the idea of having a woman's body or by the idea of being a woman.
I don't see it discussed on this forum and I was wondering why. Was it done to death years ago or is it still too new to be in common circulation?
It's not an explanation for CDing, but it's an idea of what our motivation might be. And it's distinct from the fetish CDer, who is basically turned on by the clothes themselves.

I really hate the term, since it's really quite simple. It essentially is making the word "pervert" (in a derogatory sense) academic. Additionally, it's denying the concept of gender identity altogether, tying it into sexuality and using it as a way to deny transition for transgender girls. Read up on the writer of it, that person has a personal agenda, has been panned across the board by the trans community as well as peer reviews and has caused probably more damage than any one person to all trans people in the world.

Note: I have no problem applying such a term to crossdressers, since they are NOT transgender, but it's never done that way. It's done the opposite.

[TGMarla]

I have no problem applying such a term to crossdressers, since they are NOT transgender.


That is a blanket statement that I disagree with. Whereas some crossdressers may not be truly transgendered, others truly are.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

i agree marla..and thats why i think we should not use a term that could have real life negative implications for folks that want to have surgery or live their lives in their proper gender..

its interesting that alot of girls are correctly saying that they want to define themselves...this makes alot of sense...unfortunately what's missing is that there are people out there trying to define us and they don't share our agenda, and the term autogynephilia helps them and hurts us..

the doctors and lawyers WILL define you whether you like it or not..

[TGMarla]

the doctors and lawyers WILL define you whether you like it or not.


Hmmm.....so, it seems, will everybody else.

[sometimes_miss]

I think the biggest problem with the supporters of the autogynephilia theory is the same with every other psychological theorist; they all think their own idea is the only correct one out there, and that it applies to everyone. You find it with Freud, Erikson, Jung, Piaget, every single one of them. And when someone comes up with an exception to their 'rule', they come up with increasingly bizarre explanation of how it 'really still fits' their theory. Lets face it; we are a very complex organism, and we are learning new things about ourselves all the time. Yes, autogynephilia explains some crossdressers. But it's completely wrong with others. And the search for a 'unified' theory goes on........

[Jonianne]

........And the search for a 'unified' theory goes on........

Nicely put!

[NathalieX66]

If Blanchards "theory" is so disputable and outmoded, then what has replaced it? Theories are not facts, that's why they're called theories.

I believe there is a definite distinction between feminine expression and the term listed by DSM-IV & V as "transvestic fetishism". ...where that diverges, or whether they're even related, I know not. Anybody want to quote me on this thread, this is the paragraph I wish to be quoted on.

As for the term "autogynephilia" ....it seems to imply 'sex with one's self as seeing one's self a woman'. Is sex not involved, but just the state of femaleness?

[Sophie_C]

That is a blanket statement that I disagree with. Whereas some crossdressers may not be truly transgendered, others truly are.

Then they simply haven't realized what they are yet. It still doesn't make someone who gets pleasure from clothing in a fetishistic sense entirely different from one who is inherently a different gender between their mind and body.

Mind you, do NOT forget that when you put your argument that "there is no difference" that is the core of the argument against being TG as a medical condition which is why treatment is NOT covered by insurance (since it's just a 'perversion' and only for pleasure, not something that needs to be helped with), as well as them being excluded from GLB rights (like the ENDA bill).

So, I hope you understand that any argument of the two being 'the same' angers me, since it undermines ALL trans rights in America, only for selfish reason, so that people who have not figured themselves out yet can take down the ship with themselves, even before it begins sailing.

[ReineD]

The word auto.gyno.philiac means liking. yourself. as a woman. So far so simplistic. Autogynophilia is an interesting word and it describes a real phenomenon, at least in this house.

But I seriously doubt if it's much more than that. It certainly doesn't advance us very far in understanding crossdressing.

It is a little more than that. Blanchard defines AGP as being paraphilic, which describes "sexual arousal to objects or situations that are not part of normative stimulation and that can cause distress or serious problems for the paraphiliac or persons associated with him or her" (Paraphilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia)). An AGP would not be able to have sex with a partner without engaging somehow in the paraphilia. So the partner in this situation is an accessory rather than the (edit: [-]object[/-] subect) of desire. This creates an empty sexual experience for the partner.




Are women who have breast implants or want them, and are sexually excited about having or wanting them, suffering from autogynephilia?

I agree with most of your points, but not this one. Women do not get sexually aroused over having breast implants or undergoing any other physical "improvement". They get excited about the sexual reaction they think these improvements will cause in a male.



The term autogynephilia was created AS a perjorative term...it does not at all describe the reality that I and others have personally experienced..

The term describes a condition and it is not meant to be perjorative any more than other psychological terms. Blanchard theorized that non-homosexual TSs were all AGPs but this is not fact. You and others are proof of this since you are not AGP. And I venture to guess future studies will disprove Blanchard's theory. But it doesn't mean the condition doesn't exist. There are far too many people who say that it describes them to dismiss the term entirely. See "this thread (http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87494)".


And the search for a 'unified' theory goes on........

There will never be a unified theory since there are far too many differences among the members of the TG community. People will need to become comfortable with the idea that certain conditions apply to some people, but not all.


I think it would be better for the human race if the word "fetish" was restricted to its original psychiatric meaning: object that is essential to or replaces sex. Having a fetishism is an illness that disables people from "normal" sex.

You describe a paraphilia. Yes, a sexual fetish is also an arousal brought on by an object or a situation, but it is a disorder only if it is debilitating. It can also be an enhancement to a sex life if it is mutually enjoyed between partners. It is when the fetish replaces or becomes more enjoyable than the sexual relationship with a partner that it is a paraphilia.

[Pink Person]

Dear Reine,

I’m not sure what your objection is. Is it that the excitement that women feel about their artificial breasts is not sexual or that it does not constitute autogynephilia? I believe I already said it doesn’t constitute autogynephilia. I believe I already said it is the excitement that a person feels as the subject of sexual activity. If you are asserting that their excitement isn’t sexual that is very high minded of you. It made me laugh.

Pink

[ReineD]

Is it that the excitement that women feel about their artificial breasts is not sexual or that it does not constitute autogynephilia?

Both, but I didn't frame my response very well. I took it you were likening GGs with breast implants to the TGs who say they are AGP. The former as you pointed out is not true, but the latter is since it is the TGs themselves who speak about their own erotic responses and no one else is in a position to disagree with them. If the act of masturbation, no matter the source of the fantasy, is the preferred form of sexual release and consequently sex with a GG partner becomes rare or dutiful because it cannot compare, then it does fulfill the definition of a paraphilia.


If you are asserting that their excitement isn’t sexual that is very high minded of you. It made me laugh.

I'm sorry you are taking it this way. But believe me, the excitement is not sexual. The motive for implants may be to attract a male sexually, but it is more about a woman wanting to feel better about herself. A GG looking at her new breasts in the mirror is not sexually excited at all. Ever. Just like a guy who looks at his flaccid penis.

[Melissa A.]

The term autogynephilia was created AS a perjorative term...it does not at all describe the reality that I and others have personally experienced..transsexuals care DEEPLY about the word because most of us view it as quackery and folks like Dr Blanchard are part of the group that is working to define us in the next DSM...it matters..how it is defined medically has all kinds of reprecussions for those of us that seek treatment or surgery..doctors can hurt us...go look up Dr John Money...

so i would respectfully ask that we simply not use that term..what term should we use?? who cares...just not a term coined by a self serving man using incredibly flawed research...

This is why I said these are dangerous people. And why you open up alot of anger even when casually talking about them and and their "theories". It's so frustrating. I won't be at DSM V and they wouldn't listen to me if I was there.

Thank you, Kaitlyn.

Hugs,

Melissa:)

[docrobbysherry]

For ME, anyway!:sad:


--- because we all view ourselves as sexual subjects not as sexual objects. It is only other people who objectify us.
Do people who masturbate get excited because they imagine having sex with themselves? Perhaps Blanchard and a few others do.


Normally, I'd say you're rite, Pink P. However, when it comes to CDs, things CAN GET very WEIRD! :eek:
Sherry is the object of my sexual fantasies. I don't think of her as "me". I "objectify" her, if u will. I know she doesn't mind, but I DO!:brolleyes:



I think it would be better for the human race if the word "fetish" was restricted to its original psychiatric meaning: object that is essential to or replaces sex. Having a fetishism is an illness that disables people from "normal" sex.
For some people crossdressing can be a fetish, but then it has nothing to do with feminine expression. Same effect, different causes.

Yes, Katie, u r SO RITE! I believe Sherry has become my "fetish". I feel very little of her has to do with fem expression! For years, I have been concerned about "her" affecting my ability to enjoy sex with REAL women. And, after a couple of affairs, that seems to be the case!:doh:

It's NOT so much a case of my, "falling in love with myself", as it is, falling in love with my fem alter ego/creation! Whatever u choose to call Sherry.
If THAT'S not sick, I'm not sure what is! Blanchard's theory not withstanding!

[Gerard]

Melissa, please read post #35. The OP's intent was not to discuss the validity of Blanchard's theory, but to get feedback from others who can relate to the condition of autogynephilia as she does.

I hope others who decide to join in this thread will decide to begin a new thread if they want to discuss Blanchard's theory on the motives for transiton. Let's bring the focus back to the OP's request in this thread.

I have no clue who this Blanchard or any of the other names are, but I'll try to reply to the OP's question.

I've been aroused by fantasies of myself as a woman in the past. In general I am attracted to books, movies and comics that deal with the issue of changing into the opposite sex or switching bodies.
So this seems to resonate with the term autogynephilia (which is just a Greek term for loving your female self and seems a good term as such, as I said I don't know any of the stigma that seems to go with it.

Do I love a female version of myself though? No. I'm attracted to other women more than any image of myself.

I also think it's not a transsexual feeling. I don't want to be, don't feel or identify as a woman.

I've been on a journey, with a lot of help from this forum, in trying to figure myself out. What I'm starting to think is that most of my crossdressing and transgender behaviour and fantasies are related to inhibitions and taboos in our culture preventing me to express my feminine side. So as a release I end up asking myself what it would be if the bounderies were gone and one could move fluidly from the male to the female side.

I have found that since I've started accepting that I'm a man who wants to be very feminine, I feel more integrated, and clearer, and a lot of these old fantasies have lost their allure. I've also found I've become more confident in dating women.

As I currently see myself, it seems that more than anything, my crossdressing and fantasies are a result of not really fitting into the constraints on looks and behaviour that society sets for me. I'm happier with long hair, shaved legs and soft flowing clothes in bright colours.

Next to that I'm fascinated by how men and women can be so similar and so different at the same time, but not as something that arouses me, but because both very masculine men and feminine women are an enigma to me. I do not really identify with either but I feel an urge to try and understand. This coupled with a vivid imagination also leads to strange fantasies, sometimes more disgusting me other times turning me on or leading me in entirely different directions.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my reply is that I do recognize some of what is being described, but for me it seems mostly to be of a symptom of not having found my identity yet.

[Wen4cd]

Sherry is the object of my sexual fantasies. I don't think of her as "me". I "objectify" her, if u will. I know she doesn't mind, but I DO!:brolleyes:


You know, that may still just be a part of development. Jung would say that Sherry is your anima, but that it is still in the 'Eve' phase of development, recognized as just the first of four distinct levels.

from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_and_animus)

Eve

The first is Eve, named for the Genesis account of Adam and Eve. It deals with the emergence of a male's object of desire, yet simultaneously generalizes all females as evil and powerless.

This would mean that your anima still has the "Helen," "Mary," and finally "Sophia." phases to explore.

"Helen" may just be one little 'doorway' away. You can sometimes find these doorways by changing her 'look' now and again, and exploring different sides of the picture. (eg: Try a "gothy" Helen look or a pure "Mary" ourfit, or a more "Sophisticated" manner of dress and see how it makes you feel looking at it in the mirror.)

[ReineD]

The term autogynephilia was created AS a perjorative term...it does not at all describe the reality that I and others have personally experienced..transsexuals care DEEPLY about the word because most of us view it as quackery and folks like Dr Blanchard are part of the group that is working to define us in the next DSM...it matters..how it is defined medically has all kinds of reprecussions for those of us that seek treatment or surgery..doctors can hurt us...go look up Dr John Money...

Blanchard's theory of AGP as a motive for transition cannot be accurate, judging by the sheer number of transsexuals who express outrage over its inclusion in the DSM. The theory has been around sometime now (1989) and I wonder if you, or if anyone else knows if there has been any significant research done to finally disprove it, or if not, why.

I realize that conducting research was difficult in the past due to members of the TG community being so deeply closeted, and this is perhaps one of the reasons why Blanchard's theory may be flawed, but is this not changing with the proliferation of the internet?

So where are you, young researchers and why are you being so silent?

[Ruth]

Thanks for all the thought and energy that has gone into these responses. I did not think my post would create such a storm.
By the way, I know about Blanchard but did not wish to mention him because I wanted to consider the idea of autogynephilia in isolation, so to speak, without the unpleasant baggage that Blanchard produced with his over-prescriptive categories.
It's a theory, that's all. We should be able to think about it in a level headed way.

[joandher]

We keep going on about all the different labels that can be stuck on to peoples preference can anybody tell me what normal is??
We are all different in ways and preferences, and have multiple choices in all aspects of life and the way we dress,and sex
look back in history ,the Romans wore skirts, the Scotts the kilt, in Africa the caftan etc etc
so what is normal???
:hugs:
J-JAY

[LisaM]

A little late but I thought I'd post my :2c:

The problem I have with Blanchard's theory of Autogynephilia and Transexualism is that it is all about "Sex" like so many have already stated. For me (and so many TSs that I know) my gender issues preceeded puberty by almost 10 years.

I have always wanted to be female. My earliest memories are of wanting to play with dolls and wear girl's clothes. I remember walking home from school in first and second grade and wishing I had long hair like they did. All during this time I would sneak into my mother's room and play dress-up by myself. So for years pre-puberty I dreamed and prayed that I would wake up the next day and God would haved saved me from my daily nightmare.

I also remember the day years later when in the middle of my dressing-up I became physically excited and..... I didn't even know what had happened. I was distraught and it began a period of self-loathing and guilt.

Now I have read on these forums that many people have started dressing when they reached puberty and maybe they can relate to Blanchard's theory. But I can't because the sexual aspect of it ruined what up to that time had been my dream of becoming female.

So I guess my point is that the theory may have relavance to some but not to all of us. Sex and gender to me are two different issues and I have struggled with both of them.

[NathalieX66]

Once you get beyond realizing that there's a the fetish aspect of CD'ing, you realize that there is something real going on.

For me , my cd'ing started by observing my female cousins enjoying aspects of feminine style, which goes way beyond dressing to attract males....they enjoy it too much. it's them, and who they are. I'm just jealous because of their free-mindedness about it. There always seems to be no boundaries with women . "How come they can wear dresses and get their ears pierced, but I cant?"

As I stated earlier, "autygynephilia" seems to require sexual gratification. Fine, whatever excites one's self, I say.

Some guys find it within their identity, and therefore persue that direction. So be it.
Me, I never went far enough to the point of saying "this is me...and I can't live as a male" but I came to the conclusion that I am both. I like my guy side too much. Sexual gratification is not important.

As I stated earlier, "autygynephilia" seems to require sexual gratification. Fine, whatever excites one's self, I say.


Society frowns upon crossdressers because: One, it shows weakness....caving into sissy desires, thus a failure of being a macho man=being a weak-ling,..........and two, caving into what is percieved as kinky desires, which scares the living daylights out of lots of people. It's ok for the media to expose the fact that there were president Bill Clinton's semen stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress, and he walks away from impeachment, but a guy is treated with suspicion and derision if he wears nail polish.

You look at any non-human mammal, or other wise, and they don't wear clothes ....therefore gender identity is a human created concept. Things happen when one has an extremely intelligent brain, , an an imagination, and with a congnitive sense of one self.

In the end So much of what people thin is what is percieved, not the truth.

[Pink Person]

(To Reine)
My research indicates that some women do derive sexual pleasure from their breasts in sexual situations. I will concede that glancing in the mirror generally doesn’t qualify as a sexual event.

(To Everyone)
I believe that autogynephilia is an imaginary disorder. It doesn’t exist for anyone, not even the people who confess to having it. If self-love does exist, it is subjective self-love, not objective self-love. It is love of the person we really are or love of our essential nature, not love of an imitation or artificial version of ourselves. TG and TS self-identification and expression do not spring from a desire to be something we are not. If other people would allow TG and TS people to be themselves then the false issue of self-induced sexual isolation would fade away.

[jo_ann]

I believe that autogynephilia is an imaginary disorder. It doesn’t exist for anyone, not even the people who confess to having it.

I disagree with it being an imaginary disorder and that it doesn't exist for anyone (there are also people that don't believe bi-sexuality exists). By it's very definition states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogynephilia

* Transvestic autogynephilia: arousal to the act or fantasy of wearing women's clothing
* Behavioral autogynephilia: arousal to the act or fantasy of doing something regarded as feminine
* Physiologic autogynephilia: arousal to fantasies of female-specific body functions
* Anatomic autogynephilia: arousal to the fantasy of having a woman's body, or parts of one.

At least 2 if not 3 of those things apply to me and have so even during puberty. When I was 12 it's not like the internet even existed, and even if it did it's not as if I looked that up and said "Hmm, I'm bored.. what condition could I believe I have in my hypocondriac ways? Ahh, autogynephilia! that sounds twisted enough". I had those feelings long before I even knew other people shared those same feelings.


If self-love does exist, it is subjective self-love, not objective self-love.

Well of course it's subjective, if it were objective that would mean it was real (I.E. I could physically turn myself into a woman at will). It's a fantasy, an idea, but most sexuality is in the mind.

[battybattybats]

I agree with most of your points, but not this one. Women do not get sexually aroused over having breast implants or undergoing any other physical "improvement". They get excited about the sexual reaction they think these improvements will cause in a male.


I know several GGs (lesbian, bi and straight!) whose wearing a 'strap-on' certainly arouses them!

This is an interesting take on the subject that attacks it as a defining model of GID severely. http://www.tracieokeefe.com/Autogynephilia.htm

[docrobbysherry]

Pink and Jo Ann, it's perfectly OK to jump rite in on ANY thread!
However, u both may have missed my earlier post:


I believe that autogynephilia is an imaginary disorder. It doesn’t exist for anyone, not even the people who confess to having it. If self-love does exist, it is subjective self-love, not objective self-love. It is love of the person we really are or love of our essential nature, not love of an imitation or artificial version of ourselves.

Pink, u can believe in autogynephilia. Or NOT! I don't think that's important.
But, I believe I'm living proof, that the rest of your argument just isn't valid!
In my earlier post, I explained my involvement with Sherry, my "alter ego". To me, she IS an object, and NOT any part of myself, that I can relate to! Which results in GUILT for my CDing!:sad:
If she isn't an, "--imitation or artificial version of myself", I don't know what/who is!



Well of course it's subjective, if it were objective that would mean it was real (I.E. I could physically turn myself into a woman at will). It's a fantasy, an idea, but most sexuality is in the mind.

While I agree with MOST of your post, Jo Ann, I can't with this last paragraph.
The mind is CERTAINLY the body part that is MOST important for arousal.

However, with the latest scientific advances, (or fetish devices, pick the term U prefer), I CAN physically change into a female!:eek:
Or, at least enuff to satisfy MY FANTASIES! ( I think my pics speak to my gender change!):o

I may be the ONLY CD here that "objectifies" themselves. But, how many do u and Pink need, to prove it's possible?:brolleyes:

[Pink Person]

My definition of subjective self-love means love of yourself as the inner subject of your being or love of your internal essential self. Objective self-love means love of yourself as an object of thought or love of an artificial version of yourself that exists outside of your true self. If you were born male but your true self is TG or TS then you aren’t autogynephilic no matter what you do for sexual gratification.

[sometimes_miss]

Hey, Reine, we're crossing each other's paths a lot recently.
You wrote:
There will never be a unified theory since there are far too many differences among the members of the TG community. People will need to become comfortable with the idea that certain conditions apply to some people, but not all.
Actually, there will eventually be one. Not that everyone will want to accept it, there will always be the few that still think the world is flat, too.
But it won't be what people think. Perhaps something along these lines, but bear with me, I've never tried to write this down before:
Crossdressing is: 1. A manifestation of a person's sexual and or social role self identification and/or desire to assume the opposite physical sex person's identity or self image so that it fits who they believe themselves to be. 2. Some people get sexually aroused by wearing the attire of the opposite sex, whether to feel as if they are that sex, to feel more intimately connected to the person who's clothes they are wearing (to become 'one' with the other person, for example), or perhaps to enhance the feeling of being free to enjoy the customary role of the opposite sex in any given situation.

Confusing enough? I think so. It needs more clarification, and there's always more possibilities, but right now, the definitions I've seen are way to limiting.

[Lucy Long Legs]

[QUOTE=jo_ann;1853453]I disagree with it being an imaginary disorder and that it doesn't exist for anyone (there are also people that don't believe bi-sexuality exists). By it's very definition states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogynephilia

* Transvestic autogynephilia: arousal to the act or fantasy of wearing women's clothing
* Behavioral autogynephilia: arousal to the act or fantasy of doing something regarded as feminine
* Physiologic autogynephilia: arousal to fantasies of female-specific body functions
* Anatomic autogynephilia: arousal to the fantasy of having a woman's body, or parts of one.

The first three of these seem to apply to most CDs and certainly to me. The first one speaks for itself. The second involves putting on makeup, walking in high heels, sitting in a demure way in a short skirt etc. And the third, for me is to achieve fullfillment in a female way without any of the usual male manifestations. The fourth one is a step too far for me, but not for some people.
Lucy

[Wen4cd]

!
In my earlier post, I explained my involvement with Sherry, my "alter ego". To me, she IS an object, and NOT any part of myself, that I can relate to! To my unfortunate REGRET!:sad:
If she isn't an, "--imitation or artificial version of myself", I don't know what/who is!


Not to jack the thread, but just to add to my earlier reply...

You know, you might just be having trouble relating to that part of yourself because of the mask.

It might expedite matters for you to take it off and look at your self once in a while, in makeup or something. (That is, if you do really have an unfortunate regret about it. I don't see a reason to be ashamed if you're completely content that way either.)

Eye contact and facial expression can be powerful things. I certainly understand the distraction your own 'familiar face' can be to the losing of the ego into the image. It's one reason why I do a lot of makeup.

But the other reason is that it enhances the visibility of facial expression. It's like an amplifier for the emotive signals displayed by the face. (The way I make up, it's like an amp set to 11, lol)

You're naturally going to have trouble seeing yourself in her if you can't see either of your faces.

[Honeygirl]

I would just like to say thank you for this thread. It has been helpful, educational and a refreshing read.

Honey,

[ReineD]

This is an interesting take on the subject that attacks it as a defining model of GID severely. http://www.tracieokeefe.com/Autogynephilia.htm

I've seen this before and this is where I first began thinking of AGP as also being applicable to non gender-dysphorics. It does fit in with the notion of AGP as a paraphilia, in that it is independent of gender identification, like any other paraphilia.

In most of the cases cited by O'keefe, the people seem to have had unsatisfactory sex lives with their primary partners, which caused them either to end their relationships or seek for satisfaction elsewhere while staying in the relationship. Whether this was caused because they were paraphilic or not was not addressed. An otherwise healthy kink or fetish becomes a paraphilia when it "causes distress or serious problems for the paraphiliac or persons associated with him or her." I take it this means an inability to have satisfactory sex with a partner without the preferred object or situation. In other words, the emotional connection with the primary partner does not culminate in a sexual experience that satisfies, making it necessary to explore different situations or partners.

It is a complex issue.



Actually, there will eventually be one. Not that everyone will want to accept it, there will always be the few that still think the world is flat, too. [...] Crossdressing is: [...] 2. Some people get sexually aroused by

You are only addressing CDing, which is a subset of the TG community. And even within you definition, you use the word "some" which proves there can never be a unified theory. ;)

[Wen4cd]

Reine, you quote something (DSM IV ?) as saying that an otherwise healthy kink or fetish becomes a paraphilia when it "causes distress or serious problems for the paraphiliac or persons associated with him or her". (My underline.)

Is this really chapter and verse, or have I missed something? Does this mean that if I spend so much time on the internet that my wife gets cross, then I'm suffering from a paraphilia? Does this mean that my family's reactions are the crucial factor in deciding how much of my crossdressing is enough? Does this mean that a report from the hot gospeller next door that he's seen me in black latex is enough for me to be classed as paraphiliac?

Tell me it isn't true! I want to have more faith in the medical profession than that.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I just happened to have the book within reach.

The DSM-IV usually uses this type of language around crossdress-y issues:

Criteria (both or all must be met to diagnose)

A. (The 'whatever' behavior or urges themselves, getting worked up thinking about crossdressing, or whatever.)

B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

This phrasing is used frequently throughout different 'harmless to others' categories, and basically says 'if the subject doesn't see a problem with it, or doesn't make a problem out of it, that means there is no problem with it."

[MarinaTwelve200]

I have talked about AG in several of my posts. I use the definition as it being a desire to be a woman based on a very strong hetrosexual attraction to one's "female self" as opposed to the conventional Transsexual desire to be a woman because one 'feels :like a woman(ie. a woman in a man's body)

Both types are known to get SRS and the AG term is used for a SRS recipient as ANOTHER TYPE of TS.

AG is one of SEVERAL reasons for CDing as there is no single cause, CDing is but a manefestation or 'symptom" of several different conditions.

The controversy with AG arises from several definitions floating around--Thats why I STRESS to ALWAYS explain the definition of terms one is using in one's writings so the reader and the author are 'on the same page', so to speak. Its really a good term to describe an obsession wits one's female self to various degrees, even to the point of persuing SRS. Yes it is ONE motivation for a guy to crossdress---but not THE only one of course.

I cannot imaginge why some would be "offended" by the term. An honest scientific persuit of the truth needs terminology to work with concepts and ideas.--it is what it is and we cannot let personal feelings interfere with our studies.

[ReineD]

Tell me it isn't true! I want to have more faith in the medical profession than that.

I was not quoting the DSM. I gave a definition for a paraphilia. Obviously if the paraphiliac lives alone, no one else is affected. As Wen pointed out, the DSM considers a condition diagnosable only if the behavior causes signigicant distress in the individual or it is disruptive to his or her everyday functioning.

Please understand I am not talking about partners not approving of the amount of time spent on the computer (although this as with many other things can become a compulsion to the extent that it can damage a relationship), or TGs or anyone else occasionally pleasing themselves without their partners, or couples engaging in any type of kink.

But if a married TG can no longer have a sexually satisfying intimate life with a partner because the TG becomes AGP, the partner is affected as well. This would cause stress in the relationship and it might even cause the marriage to end. It seems to me this would be a disruption to everyday functioning .. the inability to have a healthy sexual relationship with a partner.

[battybattybats]

I cannot imaginge why some would be "offended" by the term. An honest scientific persuit of the truth needs terminology to work with concepts and ideas.--it is what it is and we cannot let personal feelings interfere with our studies.

Because the Hypothesis of Autogynephilia states that TSs are all either 'homosexual transsexuals' or 'autogynephillic transsexuals'. It's not just the term but the model of explaining the transsexual phenomenon attached to the term that is offensive to all the women-attracted TSs (Blanchard and his cronies seem to think they don't exist) to FtMs (somehow left out of these peoples work).

The scientific evidence that some and maybe all TG people have differing neurology that leads to the partial-to-total self identification, brain body map and need to express themselves as the opposite sex to some degree is completely dismissed in favour of a blanket - 'everyone either is gay and wont face it or just wants to do themselves' Hypothesis.

The disregard of this evidence and denial of the experiences of those who dont fit into it is offensive.


I was not quoting the DSM. I gave a definition for a paraphilia. Obviously if the paraphiliac lives alone, no one else is affected. As Wen pointed out, the DSM considers a condition diagnosable only if the behavior causes signigicant distress in the individual or it is disruptive to his or her everyday functioning.

Please understand I am not talking about partners not approving of the amount of time spent on the computer (although this as with many other things can become a compulsion to the extent that it can damage a relationship), or TGs or anyone else occasionally pleasing themselves without their partners, or couples engaging in any type of kink.

But if a married TG can no longer have a sexually satisfying intimate life with a partner because the TG becomes AGP, the partner is affected as well. This would cause stress in the relationship and it might even cause the marriage to end. It seems to me this would be a disruption to everyday functioning .. the inability to have a healthy sexual relationship with a partner.

And where a married man, married to a woman, was Gay?

See the definitions have still not taken into account the argument that was used to remove being Gay from the paraphillia list!
That argument was that the disruption to life quality, the depression and suicidal ideation co-morbidities and failure to maintain a proper normal functional straight relationship were due to societies discrimination against Gays and the last the point that they were gay and so should be in a functional gay relationship.

The definition is broken!

If the sex-life of the married TG is failing it may be because of the partners issues with TG and not the fact the TG is TG.

It also could be because of the TGs issues with being TG because of the discrimination they have internalised and so again being TG is not the issue but merely an arbitrary subject within the issue.

It's about time that Homophobia and Transphobia got added to the DSM. It's about time that the nature of whether the disruption to everyday functioning is intrinsic to the condition or caused by external bias and bigotry was counted for everything the way it is with being gay!

Some consistency and cogency shouldn't be much to ask for.

[ReineD]

The disregard of this evidence and denial of the experiences of those who dont fit into it is offensive.

Well said, Batty.




And where a married man, married to a woman, was Gay?

If the sex-life of the married TG is failing it may be because of the partners issues with TG and not the fact the TG is TG.

Yes, these reasons could also be true for a failing sex life. But the OP was wondering if others, like her possibly, also relate to being AGP. I added another question to the mix asking how the wives fit into all of this, since I've also spoken to supportive GGs who report failing sex lives due to their husbands preferring to pleasure themselves than being with their wives. There was never any thought these husbands might be gay. I posted a link in one of my posts above to a thread where many TGs reported having more intense and pleasurable sexual experiences by themselves than with their partners.

It was my hope to invite those who relate to this situation to post their thoughts, and this would also answer the OPs question.



It's about time that the nature of whether the disruption to everyday functioning is intrinsic to the condition or caused by external bias and bigotry was counted for everything the way it is with being gay!

I also thought of this. If there is a carry-over of shame due to experiencing a lifetime of external bias and this somehow affects a husband's sexual relation with his/her partner, then a thread focusing on this, and not Blanchard, would be helpful in beginning a dialogue which would lead hopefully to some insight and resolution.

[jo_ann]

Marina Twelve and batty batty bats both well said.. I don't think this term can be taken as black and white, nor will it ever have good vibes when it's brought up. Because of what it's based on "a quack psychologist trying to explain away transgenderism", it will never be well accepted.

I also don't think any one term can describe a person much less a group of people, this is a varied and complicated issue that has a long way before it can be defined because it's so hard to know what each person is feeling, sometimes the individual cannot even express themselves.

However I don't want this term to ever die simply because some of the attributes describe some people quite well. I almost wish there was a movement to draw some of these terms out, and create a new definition.

[battybattybats]

Something that needs considering...

Repressed things often emerge first or are least able to be purged from sex!

Being Gay is not just about sex. Its about love, romance, long-term partnerships and science shows its even about the whole function of the emotional centres of the brain!

But what does a struggling Gay or Bi man do? Fantasise about it sexually, perhaps look at Gay porn, masturbate to the fantasy, maybe start to cruise the local beats.... oh and are three times more likely to attempt suicide, more likely to suffer depression etc.

Till they gain more self acceptance. Then the rest emerges, the suicidal ideation drops away, the depression becomes lees likely etc.

And what is found with CDs?

As they struggle its more likely they see it as just a sex thing. TGs are listed at a 4+ times higher than average attempted suicide rate, higher depression etc.

And as self-acceptance increases non-sexual dressing becomes more common and the other aspects emerge more and the negatives go down etc.

So is it the CDing comes purely from a sexual urge or is it that the sex is the chink in the armour that the pre-existing TG aspects get through?

In the vast majority i'm certain its the latter.

[ReineD]

However I don't want this term to ever die simply because some of the attributes describe some people quite well. I almost wish there was a movement to draw some of these terms out, and create a new definition.

The TG community here (CD, TS, and everyone else around and in-between) could begin by letting go of Blanchard's hypothesis and talking about if and how AGP relates to them, keeping in mind there will be varying degrees.



And as self-acceptance increases non-sexual dressing becomes more common and the other aspects emerge more and the negatives go down etc.

So is it the CDing comes purely from a sexual urge or is it that the sex is the chink in the armour that the pre-existing TG aspects get through?

In the vast majority i'm certain its the latter.

It would be interesting to invite other members of CD.com to share their thoughts and personal experiences, (as the OP did. Sorry if I sound like a broken record.)

But maybe people would feel freer discussing this in the GM forum?

[Gerard]

I think scientists have a tendency to make all encompassing theories and categories. It seems this Blanchard person has fallen into that trap of trying to explain too much with too little.

[Pink Person]

I don’t know anyone who is opposed to having a sexual partner. I know some people who are opposed to having sex with me but I don’t know the name of the mental illness that afflicts them.

[RobynP]

This thread has been very enlightening! There are certainly thousands of different reasons why we are CD, TG, TS or some blend. One thing that many of us have in common is that we are searching to find out why we are the way we are. Some of us can say, "I am what I am," and do not need to know why. As different theories are proposed, we look at them and look at ourselves and wonder if we have found the key that unlocks the mystery inside of us. I know I do this all the time...

One very important part of this discussion about AG often overlooked (and maybe this should be a new topic) is that some CDs determine that they are really TS and transition. However, there are people who transition, realize they've made a mistake, and transition back.

Is there a difference, a real, fundamental difference between CD and TS? Or is everything kind of blurred together under the TG umbrella? (This is a very important question for most wives...) Is it possible to transition for the wrong reason? Or is any reason acceptable for transition? Many in our community think there should be no barriers to transition especially coming from the medical community (such as removing TV/CD/GID from DSM). The concept of AG has acted like a lightening rod forcing us to look into ourselves. Individually, we may or may not agree that AG "fits me" or is even acceptable for anyone. However, we do owe it to ourselves and our spouses to examine our motivations for our behavior(s).

Robyn P.

[Pink Person]

It is perfectly possible for anyone to do anything for any reason. I believe the definition of autogynephilia is used to claim that everyone who transitions does it for the wrong reason because everyone who transitions is defined as mentally ill and motivated by their mental illness. I am going to invent a disorder I call autogynephiliaphilia. It defines the mental illness of people who embrace the idea of autogynephilia because they love to hate TG and TS people. I think this disorder is far more likely to exist than the one for which it is named.

It's possible for TS people to regret their transitions for good reasons. It is also perfectly possible for people who regret their transitions to regret them for the wrong reasons, but let’s not try to overanalyze other people’s thoughts and behavior. If anyone believes they have made a bad decision then they must cope with the consequences like we all do. There is no moral imperative to stop TG people from making bad decisions because there is no moral imperative to stop any normal person from making bad decisions.