Autogynophelia

[AlainaSC]

I face the wrath for bringing up a potentially controversial subject but I want to see what other girls out there are feeling about this term.

I had the opportunity to learn about it from a gender counselor in NYC and she prefaced it with the controversial nature within the TG community about it. I am new to the forum here but thought I would just see what other girls thought of the subject.

The post that sparked this thread was about whether or not girls would want to be be female if they could. Some answers in there brought my mind back to the term.

Thanks!

[Jonianne]

We have discussed a bit about this in the private GM section (get your 10 posts to join) and also touched on it in the loved ones section on this thread:

http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116295

[Elle1946]

I think that I would have liked to be born female BUT I guess that I might have been a lesbian. I would not have an operation to change to be a female now.

[jenifer m.]

wish i knew what it was.

[Karren H]

Talk about a waste of time and money... Who really cares "Why". After all... If anyone knew would if change a thing in your life? Going forward? No. You would still do what your driven to do and nothing will change that. Personally I'm not wasting my presious time figuring out why.. I have way to many other things to do... Too many pretty things to buy... So much more makeup to try on! Before I retire or expire! Which ever comes first! Lol.

[Elizabeth 66]

wish i knew what it was.


Me too, what does Autogynophelia mean?

[JiveTurkeyOnRye]

Me too, what does Autogynophelia mean?

Essentially it means being attracted to or aroused by the image or thought of yourself as a woman.

[Angiemead12]

guilty!:heehee:

[Kimmy55]

guilty!:heehee:

What she said

[AKAMichelle]

Talk about a waste of time and money... Who really cares "Why". After all... If anyone knew would if change a thing in your life? Going forward? No. You would still do what your driven to do and nothing will change that. Personally I'm not wasting my presious time figuring out why.. I have way to many other things to do... Too many pretty things to buy... So much more makeup to try on! Before I retire or expire! Which ever comes first! Lol.

My initial response was that is probably fit me. Then I read this post and realized the most important issue of another label. What does it change in your life? Is there some kind of treatment which would cure you? NO! Your stuck with it, so I vote to just go forward with my life and not worry about it.

[Lorileah]

I would date me...once, then I would drop me like a hot rock in the desert. Beauty may be skin deep but being a Diva goes all the way to the bone.

But you got to love philosophy. Where would we be without the tree in the forest or one hand clapping. It amazes me how often people here make an assumption of what they "would" be "if" they were something else. If you were born anything than what you are you wouldn't have the luxury of saying "I would have been or done....". So for all you out there who say if I was born a female I would have to be a lesbian...it would have been just like in real life about a 1:12 chance and more likely you would like guys....just saying

[~Michelle~]

All I know is that I started crossdressing when I was about 7 or 8 and that it had no sexual motives, that's enough info for me.

[Stephenie S]

Talk about a waste of time and money... Who really cares "Why". After all... If anyone knew would if change a thing in your life? Going forward? No. You would still do what your driven to do and nothing will change that. Personally I'm not wasting my precious time figuring out why.. I have way to many other things to do... Too many pretty things to buy... So much more makeup to try on! Before I retire or expire! Which ever comes first! Lol.

Oh Karen. What a pleasant and healthy attitude. Yes, yes, and yes! Why waste the time. Why, oh why? It don't change things one whit. You're still stuck doing what you're doing. Enjoy it!

Will we always be stuck with these questions?

Stephie

Oh, and autogynephilia has a serious component of homosexual behavior in it. THAT is why we don't like the term. Autogynephilia (simplified) states that crossdressers are either homosexuals who are sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as a woman, or homosexuals who crossdress to attract men. That's it. Only two types allowed.

As you ALL know, there are many, many, more reasons to crossdress, and many, many, of you would be offended to be (rightly or wrongly) classified as homosexuals.

[ReineD]

Will we always be stuck with these questions?

Yes, as long as there are new members to this forum, and older members move on. We are doomed to perpetuate the discussions on a number of topics. Such is the nature of support forums. :straightface:

[suchacutie]

Isn't there a bit of a self-fullfilling prophecy here? After all, in what image do we see our femme selves? We go through all the effort to bring our feminine selves to the surface and what do we expect??? Are we going to project a femme image that we dislike? OKOK so every feminine creature (GG or TS) on the planet moans about this flaw or that, about not losing enough weight, about needing to add here and subtract there, but that's just normal.

If we projected a femme self that we disliked I dare say that we'd stop our femme presentation until we could change that presentation.

So, are we attracted to ourselves? Uh Duh!!!!

tina

[NV Susan]

Essentially it means being attracted to or aroused by the image or thought of yourself as a woman.

OMG, yes that's me...a very sexy woman I would hope.

[Stephenie S]

No. There is the element of homosexuality.

All crossdressers are homosexuals. Either homosexuals dressing to attract men (yeah, right), or they are homosexuals who get sexually aroused by the thought and deed of crossdressing to become women. That's it.

Remember, I don't believe this. This is not MY theory. The question was asked, "What is autogynephilia?"

Autogynephilia is the second group of crossdressers, those (homosexuals) (remember, all crossdressers are homosexual) who crossdress for sexual pleasure by dressing as a woman or imagining themselves as a woman.

Stephenie

[Elizabeth 66]

Well n ow i know what it means, no i haven't or don't, i have not been aroused by it at all, for me it just feels natural and comfortable, like the way i should have dressed always. if that makes sense!

[jennifer1965]

Hi, may I suggest that everyone read Dr. Blanchard's writings on the subject? Here's a link to a presentation he made in 2000.

http://www.autogynephilia.org/ColoredParisTalk_files/frame.htm

and here's another link to Dr. Blanchard's writings.


http://www.autogynephilia.org/origins.htm


I'm afraid that some of the comments made so far are incorrect, misinformed, or cavalier. I do not wish to argue with anyone. But I do urge all of you to at least read these materials. After that I think you can make up your own mind. There's nothing to be afraid of.

Take care of yourselves, everyone.

[Karren H]

Oh Karen. What a pleasant and healthy attitude. Yes, yes, and yes! Why waste the time. Why, oh why? It don't change things one whit. You're still stuck doing what you're doing. Enjoy it!

Will we always be stuck with these questions?

Stephie
.

Thanks... I thought so! :). So you alluding that if I know why I can get unstuck and move on and do something else? Okkk.. And who's stuck.. I make what I do enjoyable and don't consider doing things I enjoy as being stuck doing them... Ok maybe I'm stuck working... But I know why I work... Wait. If I know why I work then why can't I get unstuck and move on?? I'm confused.. Stuck in confussion! Lol.

[Jonianne]

No. There is the element of homosexuality......


Not necessarily.

It could very well be an element of self-erotic narcissism. Def: Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical (or fantasy of) or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.

Crossdressers often have to very careful about not being too self-centered or selfish, sometimes bordering on narcissism. I believe autogynophelia is an aspect of that, which can affect our sexual intimacy with our wives.

That is why it is important to broach the subject.

[AKAMichelle]

Thanks Jennifer for the links. After more study, I definitely don't fit this definition.

[Barbara Dugan]

Very interesting study..I am homosexual but still I dont totally fit under some of the definitions and results

[Stephenie S]

Autogynephilia:

To quote Dr. Ann Lawrence's interpretation of Blanchard's term:

Based on his research, Blanchard concluded that there were two distinct categories of gender dysphoric males: an androphilic group, those who were sexually aroused exclusively or almost exclusively by males; and a nonandrophilic group, who were, or had once been, sexually aroused primarily by the idea of being female. Blanchard called this latter group autogynephilic: having the propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of oneself as female.

I gave a very simplified explanaion, and I stated that it was simplified. Perhaps Dr Lawrence's interpretation will be easier to understand?

Or, as suggested, one could read the original research paper.

Stephie

[Amymonroe]

"Autogynephilia (pronounced /ˌɔːtoʊˌɡaɪnəˈfɪliə/) (from Greek “αὐτό-” (self), “γυνή” (woman, though the stem is actually “γυναικ-”[1], so that “autogynephilia” is ill-formed[2]) and “φιλία” (love) — "love of oneself as a woman") is the term coined in 1989 by Ray Blanchard to refer to "a man's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman."[3] It has been theorized[who?] to motivate cross-dressing as a sexual fetish (transvestic fetishism) in biological males and to motivate gender dysphoria in non-homosexual biological males[citation needed] (as compared with people termed homosexual transsexuals by researchers, who are driven by their attraction to men). Autogynephilia has also been suggested to pertain to romantic love as well as to sexual arousal patterns.[4] Terms that refer to a person's sex-of-birth (such as "homosexual transsexual") have been criticized by theorists such as Harry Benjamin and Bruce Bagemihl for not referring to a person's sex-of-identity.[5][6]

Autogynephilia is recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association, which indicates that of individuals with gender identity disorder, "[The] adult males who are sexually attracted to females, to both males and females, or to neither sex usually report a history of erotic arousal associated with the thought or image of oneself as a woman (termed autogynephilia)" [emphasis in original].[7]"

[Stephenie S]

I read the Wikipedia definition. Couldn't make much of it. Anyone who wants to can write a definition in Wikipedia. It's not a very strong authority. Try going back to Blanchard himself. I think it's pretty clear.

Many men with GID don't really like being identified as homosexual. There are FAR more reasons to crossdress than to attract men or get off on the thought of being women.

Please remember that these are not MY theories. I want no part of autogynephilia. I am just trying to clear up what Blanchard was talking about when he formulated the theory and invented the term. Someone asked, What is "autogynephilia?" I thought Dr Lawrence's explanation was accurate. While it's true that it is a controversial subject, many, if not most, current authorities agree on the weakness of his research.

My personal opinion? I think he was, and is, all wet. His research group was pitifully small and the previous authorities that he relies on were unsophisticated about transexuality as we know it today. I suspect that he had an agenda, but I'm not really interested in his ideas or in this discussion. I was just trying to supply a definition that most could understand.

Stephie

[RockerTerri]

All I know is if anyone ever calls me this, they better have a dental plan.

I agree, whoever came up with this probably had his own agenda.

[Angiemead12]

Autogynephilia:

To quote Dr. Ann Lawrence's interpretation of Blanchard's term:

Based on his research, Blanchard concluded that there were two distinct categories of gender dysphoric males: an androphilic group, those who were sexually aroused exclusively or almost exclusively by males; and a nonandrophilic group, who were, or had once been, sexually aroused primarily by the idea of being female. Blanchard called this latter group autogynephilic: having the propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of oneself as female.

I gave a very simplified explanaion, and I stated that it was simplified. Perhaps Dr Lawrence's interpretation will be easier to understand?

Or, as suggested, one could read the original research paper.

Stephie

guilty again! :daydreaming:

[ReineD]

Stephie & others who do not agree with the validity in using AGP as an explanation for gender reassignment, I agree with you!

Yes, Blanchard is under much criticism because of the narrowness of his study, which attributes purely sexual motives for TSs who wish to transition: according to Blanchard, they are either homosexual or they are paraphilic, which to make matters worse is classified as a mental illness! I agree that Blanchard missed the boat entirely, since he doesn't seem to consider the very reason TSs do seek gender reassignment: basic gender dysphoria.

BUT ... the term, as ill-applied as it is in explaining motives for transition, does describe a phenomena that is alive and well within the TG community: the fetish aspect to the crossdressing.

How many threads have we had here where TGs have said that nothing can compare with the sexual gratification derived over the CDing, not even being with a partner? This does describe a paraphilia, which is defined as a sexual arousal to objects or situations that, if severe enough, may prevent or hinder one's ability to give and receive reciprocal human love ... in other words, someone who cannot have a healthy sexual relationship with a partner because the partner cannot compare to the sexual thrill derived from the CDing. Whether this should be classified as a mental illness is beside the point, really, when the issue is more about mending relationships that have deteriorated because of the AGP.

:2c:

[AmandaM]

I would date the crossdressed me. But the crossdressed me wouldn't date me. So, I attracted to myself and not attracted to myself. Ouch my brain hurts!

[Jonianne]

.......the issue is more about mending relationships that have deteriorated because of the AGP.

:iagree:

[katiemay34]

Put me in with the guilty bunch.

[Satrana]

I agree that Blanchard missed the boat entirely, since he doesn't seem to consider the very reason TSs do seek gender reassignment: basic gender dysphoria. But there is a question begging to be answered. If TSs are just gender dysphoric then why did Blanchard find AGP among the TS sample group? Blanchard can be criticized for the narrowness of his conclusion but he did reveal that AGP is a factor across the whole TG spectrum. It does indicate that when gender identity is shifted then is invariably consequences for the sexual drive.



when the issue is more about mending relationships that have deteriorated because of the AGP.
I think it is fair to point out that AGP is rarely an issue at the beginning of a relationship because the attraction to the partner exceeds the AGP. Usually there is a tipping point several years in after the initial exuberance of romantic love subsides.

I also would imagine that AGP is usually more pronounced in relationships where the CD is still in the closet or where the SO is unaccepting which results in the CD focusing more of his sexual energy into AGP. I mentioned in another thread that spending years in the closet usually results in a CD building a large catalog of powerful fantasies based around AGP scenarios. This can be a major stumbling block to a mutually satisfying sex life.

Even when the CD is out of the closet with an accepting SO, the deeply personal (shameful) nature of an AGP affected sex drive means that secret remains in the closet even though the physical manifestation of the dressing is out.

It seems to me that many people having been using Blanchard's easily criticized thesis as a scapegoat to downplay AGP so as not to admit to this thorniest of TG issues.

[Jonianne]

It's about time you chimed in, Satrana!

[Ms Jennifer]

:daydreaming:I plead guilty or do I :eek:,OOOOH I don't know.I think I will put on a sexy outfit and think about it and see what I feel like then.:daydreaming:

[Kaitlyn Michele]

The word autogynephilia is considered perjorative by most...

There is alot of politics around gender pyschology and Dr Blanchard is a part of it...

To put it bluntly..
Jerking off to yourself while dressed or images of yourself or eyes closed fantasies of yourself dressed or female is very common among transfolk...but so is jerking off to just about anything!!! theproblem comes in relationships when it overwhelms everything else, and many can't perform sexually unless they are imagining themselves as women...

so how do you describe this? i'm not a doctor..is it deviant behaviour that must be put in a box?? that must be cured? that should preclude a transition to a female role (ie you have a sexual issue, not an identity issue)

On the other hand, if i was your wife and you were not making love to me because you did this all day, then i would want to know how to deal with it...

one big problem with autogynephilia in particular is that the concept was not developed with any scientific rigor, the work was done in a very small sample set, and it attempts to put us all into a very limited set of labels as describd in previous posts...i can say for a fact that I dont fit in either of those categories...so i have to dismiss the whole thing, how can it possibly be true?...i find the whole theory to be incredibly slipshod and lazy

so generally speaking, trans people do not like the word despite the fact that on the surface it describes behaviour that we all know about...

[Stephenie S]

There seems to be no question that the phenomenon of autogynephilia EXISTS. As has been amply demonstrated by responses here in this thread, many of our members consider that they themselves easily fit his criteria. We have a classic case in one of our more active members, yet even he might balk at having to be labeled homosexual. It's just that Blanchard tried to squeeze far more people into the boat then there is room for. The umbrella of transexualism covers a much greater area of behavior.

Blanchard studied a small select group of mostly sex workers in a major Canadian city. Others who read his studies found similar cases within their own work. The theory grew in acceptance. But like other theories in the past (the theory that all women suffer from penis envy springs to mind), new thinking often replaces old.

Stephenie

[Jonianne]

......on the surface it describes behaviour that we all know about...

I think it should only be a concern for CD's in a commited relationship where intimacy is affected, not TS's.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Actually Jonianne i respectfully disagree...

the reason it matters to TS women is that it is used to categorize us incorrectly...and it is helpful to people who want to withhold transition related services and treat us all as if we have a sexual disorder...

the word itself doesnt bother me...call me whatever you want...but its a word and a concept that is used against folks that simply want to live as women and be fairly treated by the medical and insurance communities

[Jonianne]

I think you and I both agree that AGP should not be used by the medical community to deny TS women their proper treatment.

My only reason for talking about the subject is because it does exist and it could be a factor in possibly hurting the intimacy relationship between a CD'er and her loved one if not discussed and worked out.

[zoe m]

i agree with everything satrana said on this thread. i think some of the specifics of Blanchard's theories (which i'm only reading about now) may be off, and it definitely should not be used to deny TS women sex reassignment, but it can't be denied that the phenomenon exists, at least for those who are just CDs, even if it doesn't exist in exactly the way Blanchard says, and it's way different for each person. i agree that the more you keep it in the closet, the more it may overwhelm you. this AGP doesn't have to be the only or even the most important form of sexuality for a CD, but it may become that if you try to ignore it.

for me what's interesting about this concept of AGP is precisely that it's different from the idea of transvestistic fetishism: it's not so much about the clothes as objects, as it is about a situation or state of mind.

just some thoughts, i'm reading about this stuff for the first time.

[RockerTerri]

Actually Jonianne i respectfully disagree...

the reason it matters to TS women is that it is used to categorize us incorrectly...and it is helpful to people who want to withhold transition related services and treat us all as if we have a sexual disorder...

the word itself doesnt bother me...call me whatever you want...but its a word and a concept that is used against folks that simply want to live as women and be fairly treated by the medical and insurance communities

This.

[docrobbysherry]

"How many threads have we had here where TGs have said that nothing can compare with the sexual gratification derived over the CDing, not even being with a partner? This does describe a paraphilia, which is defined as a sexual arousal to objects or situations that, if severe enough, may prevent or hinder one's ability to give and receive reciprocal human love ... in other words, someone who cannot have a healthy sexual relationship with a partner because the partner cannot compare to the sexual thrill derived from the CDing. Whether this should be classified as a mental illness is beside the point, really, when the issue is more about mending relationships that have deteriorated because of the AGP"

Medical terms aside, this is a SERIOUS problem for me! And I SUSPECT for many others here!
My physical attraction for Sherry has, and is, affecting my performance/desire when I'm with real GGs!:thumbsdn:

If I was MARRIED, I'd feel VERY SORRY for my SO! :sad:
As I am for married CDs and their partners, who have this issue!:straightface:

And, Stephenie, in my instance, there's NOTHING homosexual about my activities with Sherry. No, "jerking off", or ANY OTHER VISIBLE SIGN that I'm male! I find ANYTHING visibly male to be a turn off!:brolleyes:
Sherry's ALL WOMAN, after all!:battingeyelashes:

[Kelly Greene]

the shoe fits but it does not change the look of the outfit

[jennifer1965]

Hi again. Ok, here goes. Please be kind.

Remember the Zen koan: "To point at the moon a finger is needed; but woe to the one who mistakes the finger for the moon."

When I read Dr. Blanchard's writings it explained what I was experiencing. I love the image of myself as a classy, elegant, and confident woman. I want to share that with others. It gives me great pleasure and happiness to do so. And the term autogynephelia helps me understand that -- it is the finger pointing at the moon.

But no doubt the medical insurance industry uses the term to say tg/ts/cd are suffering from a "mental disorder" and exlcude coverage. Other groups use the term to castigate us as paraphilic freaks. They mistake the finger for the moon.

And so we attribute good or bad motives to Dr. Blanchard depending on how the term has been used for or against us. But he is only pointing at the moon. It's up to us to see it and figure it out.

For a long time I was ashamed by my crossdressing. I didn't understand what motivated me. It cost me my marriage and a subsequent relationship. But now I have come to a better understanding of myself and what it means to be Jennifer. I love and respect women. And so I present myself as a confident elegant woman. with style and grace. I hope someday to find a partner who will fully accept that; just as I would fully accept my partner. And I think as a community we, all of us, should ensure that we at all times present a respectful image of women. Otherwise we impair our ability to have full, open relationships.

But that is not the case. CD sites are replete with rank masturbation, puerile fetishism, and just plain ignorance. How many times does someone post a god-awful pic and ask "do I pass?" How many time have you seen an image of some guy in a pair of satin panties? Or someone who looks lilke the bearded lady at the County Fair? Or bdsm? Of course a very small bit of it is growing pains; but we know when someone has crossed the line. And it happens all too often.

We as a community owe it to ourselves and to all women that we at all times present a respectful image of women. If you wanna get your jollies prancing around in a skirt flashing your junk at least consider for a moment how you are affecting those cd/tg/ts who are really struggling with their issues and how your behavior makes life much more difficult for them.

Perhaps you think I'm wrong to say this. Consider this: what if you and best friend are at a ballgame. Your best friend has has too much to drink. He starts making crude remarks to a pretty lady sitting behind you. What are you going to do? Stop him right. You know he's crossed the line. He's offended her and, by implication, you for being associated with him.

It's no different here. We, all of us, who are trying to figure things out (or who have figured some things out) owe it to ourselves, our community, and society in general to at all times present a thoughtful and respectful image of women. Otherwise we will be forever at the mercy of "labels" right or wrong.

Who you are on the inside is who you show yourself to be on the outside.

Be kind to yourselves, love yourselves, love your neighbor.

namaste

[Stephenie S]

And, Stephenie, in my instance, there's NOTHING homosexual about my activities with Sherry. No, "jerking off", or ANY OTHER VISIBLE SIGN that I'm male! I find ANYTHING visibly male to be a turn off!!

See?

[ReineD]

It seems to me that many people having been using Blanchard's easily criticized thesis as a scapegoat to downplay AGP so as not to admit to this thorniest of TG issues.

Very well said! I hope that everyone who reads this thread will read your entire post. Twice.



...but its a word and a concept that is used against folks that simply want to live as women and be fairly treated by the medical and insurance communities

Kaitlyn, we are talking about two different aspects of AGP in this thread, and both aspects are equally valid. As a TS, you point out that Blanchard's theory of AGP as a motive for transition is not well-founded, and further, it is a damaging label for TSs. I don't think anyone here disagrees.

The CDs are saying that when AGP is present in a relationship, it causes much harm.


We have a classic case in one of our more active members, yet even he might balk at having to be labeled homosexual.

Stephenie, Blanchard's study dealt with transitioning TSs, not CDs. Also, he didn't say that all TSs are homosexual, but that TSs have sexual motives for wanting to transition: either they are homosexual, or they are paraphilic. We all agree that this view is narrow, and it is damaging to TSs. But Satrana did bring up a good point: when gender identity is shifted, it does affect the sex drive. And based on posts I've read here from TSs on hormones, it also can affect sexual orientation?

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Hi Reine

I agree with you....if you look at my original post in the thread i was pretty descriptive :o ...this behaviour is very destructive to marraiges......

all i'm adding is that when you use the same word for 2 different things, (when you apply it to cd's in a marraige situation you are basically co-opting it and ascribing additional meaning not discussed by the author) not everyone gets the nuance that you correctly point out, and the more commonly that word is used, the more it negatively impacts transwomen...

i accept that my views on the word are selfish and related to my specific situation

i realize there has to be some word that folks use to help describe common behaviors but the "a" word seems tainted, especially when you actually focus on the nonsensical and simplistic definition used by Blanchard himself

:hugs:
Kate

[ReineD]

I don't think your views are selfish at all. If I were TS, I'd be livid!

Thankfully, most people within the TG community agree that using AGP as one of the two motives for transitioning is narrow at best. But, this doesn't mean that the condition doesn't exist. Thread after thread in this forum will confirm this. AGP does describe something that is real, even if you do not experience it personally. And I do agree it is unfortunate that it is seen in the medical circles as one of the prime reasons for wanting to transition.

Does any one know if there are other studies ascribing gender dysphoria as the motive for wanting to transition, and if so, how these studies stack up against Blanchard's? The controversy surrounds AGP's inclusion in the DSM and I am wondering if inroads are being made to change this. It would be nice to begin a new thread about this. We could ferret out more positive studies?

[Blaire]

Stephenie, Blanchard's study dealt with transitioning TSs, not CDs. Also, he didn't say that all TSs are homosexual, but that TSs have sexual motives for wanting to transition: either they are homosexual, or they are paraphilic. We all agree that this view is narrow, and it is damaging to TSs. But Satrana did bring up a good point: when gender identity is shifted, it does affect the sex drive. And based on posts I've read here from TSs on hormones, it also can affect sexual orientation?

Does orientation change? For a TS, the issue is muddied.

You start with a straight male, and replace his body chemistry to turn him female. At some point men become sexually attractive, and likely women become less so.

If sexuality is hormone driven, after HRT you have a woman that has become attracted to men. A woman that's attrtacted to men is straight. So is it orientation that changes, or is it the side you're on that changes? We oversimplify orientation by saying "I like women, so I'm straight", rsther than "I like the opposite sex, so I"m hetero"

The period in between is in transition - but because it is transitory and in such a flux, it should be ignored as far as studies go. It's like making the colour green on white paper. You start white, and end up green, but at some point you had blue before the yellow gets added.

[Pink Person]

TG and TS people aren’t in love with themselves or their idea of themselves any more than other people. TG and TS people also don’t prefer masturbation to sex with other people any more than average. Good sexual relationships require mutual respect, mutual attraction, and sympathetic reciprocity. Finding compatible partners who truly respect and are truly attracted to TG and TS people can be difficult. I am not inclined to blame TG and TS people for their real or imagined relationship problems. There is much more wrong with how cispeople think about transpeople than how transpeople think about themselves. Try spotting the potential relationship problem in that context.

[TGMarla]

It seems to me that one of the reasons that the concept of autogynephilia is downplayed and reviled is because of the man who originated the idea, and the fact that he had a very narrow, and perhaps disjointed definition of this concept and how it fits into the whole TG spectrum. But this does not mean that the idea itself does not have merit. I find it fascinating that someone could originate, or at least attempt to isolate, such a concept, and yet miss the mark on it so badly.

When boiled down to gravy, he has identified something that is likely very prevalent in the transgender community: that many who crossdress or are transgendered are sexually aroused and attracted to the concept of themselves being physically female. And I admit that I fall into this category. I am very drawn to the visualization of myself as a woman, as I am to the concept of myself being physically female. I have always been aroused by the concept of myself being physically female.

As for Blanchard, I don't care one whit about him, or the fact that his science is flawed. He merely identified it, albeit incorrectly. It's a shame that no others have taken this theory and actually done a more complete study on it, one that would actually hold water and have some scientific validity to it. I think then that people would be more willing to accept the idea and apply it with more meaning and compassion for those who fit this description.

[joandher]

I mend Trucks does that mean I have it auto-gyne-philia or is it just those mechanics in Philly

:hugs: J-JAY

[Rianna Humble]

The post that sparked this thread was about whether or not girls would want to be be female if they could. Some answers in there brought my mind back to the term.

I took part in that thread and I desire with every fibre of my being to become physically female. However, there is nothing even remotely sexual in my desire.

I am not homosexual as a GM, and there is nothing paraphilic about my need to transition, so it would seem that I do not fit this definition.

Does that mean that no transgender person is autogynephilic? Of course not! Neither does the Blanchard study prove that every transgender person is autogynephilic.

I tend to agree with those who have stated that the distaste for this term comes from the unscientific way that some people have jumped from the behaviour of a small sample to the conclusion that this is the only possible reason for someone to transition.

[zoe m]

I agree that using an unscientific notion of AGP should not be used against the TS community. If anything, the concept would seem to me to fit CDs better than TSs. For many CDs (not all, of course), crossdressing does have a sexual aspect to it, just not all the time. Many sexual things come mixed with non-sexual things - the most obvious example being that sex between two individuals can come mixed in with romantic love. What I like about the concept of AGP as applied to CDs (not TSs as seems to have been Blanchard´s intention) is that it gets away from the focus on the clothes themselves towards an imagined state. I never liked the image of transvestic fetishism or whatever you call it because it brought to mind a guy fetishizing a pair of panties or a brassiere. AGP focuses on a state, not on the object. Although I would bet that for many CDs it hasn´t been about having a female body or female organs but about playing the role of a woman in social situations or just to oneself (this is not about having sex with oneself but about the situation itself). Which I guess gets us away from Blanchard´s examples, since they focus on the actual female body, but it is one way that I would rephrase his concept to fit many (again, not all) CDs. Whether his concept fits TSs, I wouldn´t know from personal experience, but there are many TSs saying that it doesn´t. I definitely think there should be much more work done before it is assumed to be correct - it shouldn´t be used to deny needed services to the TS community.

Coming back to CDs, again, sex comes layered with non-sexual things. We may feel these desires before they´re even sexual, then they become sexual when we hit puberty, then as we struggle to deal with them we try to rephrase them in a way that is not purely sexual but also about other things. I really agree with whoever it was on this threat that said that CDs should struggle to be classy and present an image of the community that we can be proud of. I would guess that many of the ones who are no longer fully in the closet are trying to do just that. Sex is a part of life and we shouldn´t try to deny it or repress it. But it´s mainly for the bedroom or other private places. A proud and dignified expression of crossdressing, indirectly related to that sexual aspect but also distanced from it, can be more public. And yes, from my experience, this AGP, or however we choose to define it, can become a competitor to a relationship with a partner. The challange, if you still want to be with someone, would seem to be to try to reconcile the two or at least keep them aware of each other even if you keep them separate, so that one does not grow out of all proportion (because really, it shouldn´t have to). Just my two cents.

[jennifer1965]

I really agree with whoever it was on this threat that said that CDs should struggle to be classy and present an image of the community that we can be proud of. I would guess that many of the ones who are no longer fully in the closet are trying to do just that. Sex is a part of life and we shouldn´t try to deny it or repress it. But it´s mainly for the bedroom or other private places. A proud and dignified expression of crossdressing, indirectly related to that sexual aspect but also distanced from it, can be more public.

Yea, Maya!!! Thanks for reading it!

[bepitan]

coming in a little late on this discussion.. a bit worried i might ramble a bit

i just read this link http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/becoming_what_we_love.pdf
(http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/becoming_what_we_love.pdf)
as far as i understand that is a softer take on whats being discussed here..

the reason that i stumbled on this link came about because i am totally obsessed with everything to with transgender. I have been this way since about 5 years old.. and since i am now quite old you can imagine my joy at reading something that finally made sense to me personally.

some people on this forum seem to want to make a joke out of it or ask why would you be interested in knowing why??

for me i really would like to understand myself better and hopefully ween myself off this obsession because as stated earlier its something that can effect all aspects of your life...to the point were you do not get much else done.. like an addiction.

amazingly i had never even heard the term "autogynephilia" before but i had discussed personally in other vaguely related forums my idea that "I loved something so much the i wanted to be that!" .and how this related to women. I also understood in myself the idea that this sophisticated relationship with my alter ego had a romantic and sexual dynamic.

for sure i used to be a crossdresser but i stopped as i got older ..simply because the image of me dressed looked ugly and unrealistic..no point ... unlike when i was a teenager. But that didn't stop my imagination which took up the slack from there. The internet also took the place of crossdressing... i was now the lazy crossdresser.. i didn't have to bother any more... just let other people do it for me.

but still i can see myself as in line with autogynephilia and to me it makes total sense... its like im reading my own thoughts.

personally i don't care for labels as such but to understand and discuss a subject.. lines have to be drawn so you can develop an argument.

i can understand why some guys who had surgery would take offense to somebody classifying their actions as some elaborate life encompassing fetish but to me it makes sense and i suppose in another life that might have been a path that i might have gone down.. who knows??

but at the end of the day if that's true..who cares.. its just good to know yourself better.:)

[MichelleOBrien]

Oh Karen. What a pleasant and healthy attitude. Yes, yes, and yes! Why waste the time. Why, oh why? It don't change things one whit. You're still stuck doing what you're doing. Enjoy it!

Will we always be stuck with these questions?

Stephie

Oh, and autogynephilia has a serious component of homosexual behavior in it. THAT is why we don't like the term. Autogynephilia (simplified) states that crossdressers are either homosexuals who are sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as a woman, or homosexuals who crossdress to attract men. That's it. Only two types allowed.

As you ALL know, there are many, many, more reasons to crossdress, and many, many, of you would be offended to be (rightly or wrongly) classified as homosexuals.

I'm really not that offended. Though I don't fall under the category of autowhateverthehell, I know there are many out there who are confused between being a crossdresser and being a "sissy". For those of you who don't know, there is a sexual "deviancy", or fetish, involving crossdressing, usually forced, that would fall under the condition of autogynephilia.

I'm not insulted by people calling me gay. I chalk it up to people's ignorance and the fact that they don't know the intricate workings of a true crossdresser's mind. I'm typically insulted when people think I do it for sexual gratification, and I'm insulted more when somebody tells me my clothes or makeup is ugly.

[Empress Lainie]

I KNOW I have always really been female. But I confess that after hating the way I looked a male for 72 years, I LOVE the way I look now. So I claim to be very vain. But that is not autogynephelia.

The A word means you want to be a woman because it turns you on or you are in love with yourself as a woman.

I think this was a very sneaky way to put down TS and TG people by the idiot psychnut that created it.


I dont think you will find ANY transexual women (or men for that matter) who did not always know either they were persons of the preferred sex or that they were different from others of the birth sex but didn't know why until they discovered the real reason.

There are more and more of transexual people that are insistent of their true gender at very young ages, 3 and 4, and some as soon as they can talk.

You can quote all the psychobabble you want but it is a fact that WE KNOW. We are born that way.

Autogynephilia has been pretty much rejected by the whole psych community except for a few die hard followers of the originator.

As for male crossdressers, that is a whole different thing, they know they are male and have no desire to become women (although there are cases where a TS started out crossdressing.) I for one never had any desire to crossdress before my Epiphany, but I did once for halloween when I was 12, and YES I liked it. I was disappointed that the teacher fortune teller at school could tell I was a boy.

[JOY445]

Essentially it means being attracted to or aroused by the image or thought of yourself as a woman.
wow..if thats what it is...i have that!! OMG...lol

[sissystephanie]

I am definitely a NO!! No question about it! In over 60 years of crossdressing, I have never once actually wanted to become a woman. I am a man and I really like women!! Sure I do like their clothes, but that is all! I get no sexual gratification out of doing so, and don't care! And I certainly am not a Homosexual!!

Karren as usual said it very well! Why?? Who cares??:doh:

[bepitan]

Empress Lainie

i dont know if you read the pdf link that was posted but on page 9 it seems to fall in line with what you have experienced... i don't know what the significance is of being born like it since i am a cross dresser and accept that my brain was hardwired like that from the get go... and i always new i was different.

[Michaela42]

Hi, may I suggest that everyone read Dr. Blanchard's writings on the subject? Here's a link to a presentation he made in 2000.

http://www.autogynephilia.org/ColoredParisTalk_files/frame.htm

and here's another link to Dr. Blanchard's writings.


http://www.autogynephilia.org/origins.htm


I'm afraid that some of the comments made so far are incorrect, misinformed, or cavalier. I do not wish to argue with anyone. But I do urge all of you to at least read these materials. After that I think you can make up your own mind. There's nothing to be afraid of.

Take care of yourselves, everyone.

Darn it! More reading! Can't I just jump to a conclusion like some people do and be done with it? Just kidding! Thanks for the links. I love reading about stuff like this.

[SamanthaStMichaels]

Well in my experience I knew I was a girl around the age of 4 or 5. There was nothing sexual about it. Just a lot of confusion about the way people treated me. I didn't act like a boy, and I became a major target of bullying.

But now older I have to ask how does one separate arousal and who you really are? They are interconnected. I think that if (I don't know how to say this.) But feel male after the deed, then maybe it could be autogynephilia. In my case I am female before and after. I don't go into a denial phase.

I mean I have deliberately gone into denial over the years. but I'm sure many of us know the whiplash we get once the gender issues still remains.

I think the community is hostile toward the term autogynephilia because the attempted to blanket the community with it back in the late 90's. Again making it feel like a mental issue of immorality. At least in my case I felt that way about it.

[Debb]

Count me as a "maybe".

I don't get turned on by dressing up as a woman, but I do enjoy the fantasy. I'm not in love with myself, but I like myself better when dressed.

[Nigella]

This thread has gone way beyond the OP and has resulted in a lot of Moderater time being spent in cleaning it up. If this goes off topic one more time it will be closed.

[ReineD]

Hi, may I suggest that everyone read Dr. Blanchard's writings on the subject? Here's a link to a presentation he made in 2000.

http://www.autogynephilia.org/ColoredParisTalk_files/frame.htm

and here's another link to Dr. Blanchard's writings.

http://www.autogynephilia.org/origins.htm


Thanks for posting this! :)

I'm embarrassed to say that I had not read Blanchard's study but had instead based my opinions on the many criticisms there are of his findings. I've taken the liberty of extracting Blanchard's conclusion (slides 38 to 41) from the first link you posted and I submit it here for those who are interested:




Discussion

The foregoing studies indicate that there are only two fundamentally different types of transsexualism in males: homosexual and non homosexual [heterosexual, bisexual, and asexual]. This finding points to the next question: What do the three nonhomosexual types have in common? I have suggested that the common characteristic is an erotic orientation that I have labeled autogynephilia. Autogynephilia may be defined as a man’s paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman.

According to this hypothesis, heterosexual transsexuals are males in whom autogynephilia interferes the least with normal erotic attraction to other persons — although many heterosexual transsexuals are able to maintain potency with women only by means of cross-gender fantasy during intercourse. Bisexual transsexuals are males in whom autogynephilia gives rise to some secondary erotic interest in men that coexists with the individual’s basic attraction to women. Asexual transsexuals are males in whom autogynephilia simply overshadows or supplants any erotic attraction to (external) women.

The concept of autogynephilia is obviously related to the concept of transvestism — or transvestic fetishism, as it is called in the DSM. The concept of autogynephilia is much broader, however, in that it encompasses transvestism as well as erotic fantasies and behaviors in which the wearing of women’s apparel is secondary or absent altogether. For example, the favorite masturbatory fantasy of some autogynephiles is simply the mental image of themselves with a nude female body—not doing anything in particular or having sex with another person, but simply existing.

Thus, the concept of autogynephilia is useful, not only for explaining why heterosexual, asexual, and bisexual transsexuals are more similar to each other than any of them is to the homosexual type, but also for understanding the essential similarity of transvestism and the many other forms of sexual behavior in which paraphilic men enact their erotic fantasies of being women with symbols other than women’s attire.

First I think it is important to properly define "paraphilia": I'm paraphrasing somewhat, but it is a term used to describe sexual arousal to objects or situations that are not part of arousal between two partners and that because of this, it can cause distress for the paraphiliac or his partner.

Second, in your second link, Blanchard clearly states that his theoretical statements about autogynephilia (AGP) have evolved over time, among them the belief that "All gender-dysphoric biological males who are not homosexual are instead autogynephilic (erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as females)." And further that the statement may be true, false, or somewhere in between and the accuracy of the statement can be resolved only through further research. Blanchard goes on to say that 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, and that 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 are many posts in this very forum that confirm this.

Back to the first link, one observation I make is that Blanchard's questions (slides 8 to 37) deal strictly with erotic arousal and do not touch on any other motives for a desire to transition. This is evident in his conclusion where he discusses the erotic nature of non homosexual vs. homosexual transsexuals. Nowhere do I see any mention of erotic arousal, or any other motive as a reason for transition. Nor do I see a statement to the effect that all males who wish to transition do so solely for either homosexual or paraphilic sexual motives. Blanchard further states that the concept of AGP is broader as it also applies to transvestites (crossdressers) .. although there is no empiric evidence of this in the above research. But we do see post after post here that corroborate the statement.

Admittedly the research has small samples (under 200), and it is questionable as to whether there would be such a high percentage of AGP among the subjects had there been significantly more participants and from a broader sample than Blanchard's own patients. But Blanchard himself acknowledges the need for additional research.

The contested issue then is not whether AGP exists, or even if it is one of the motives for transition, but whether it is a paraphilia. A condition of paraphilic behaviors is that it should cause anxiety or distress among the people who exhibit the behaviors or their partners. It is clear just from reading posts throughout this forum that AGP is enjoyed by many, but whether or not it impedes the full enjoyment of sex between a TG and her partner is up to them to decide. Together.

I invite everyone to comment. :)

[Kaitlyn Michele]

http://www.starways.net/beth/ag.html

[Satrana]

Still amazed by the amount of denial out there. Is it really that difficult to believe that many TS do sexually fantasize about this? Just as there are different reasons to crossdress so there are different reasons why people transition. Do not feel threatened if this description does not fit yourself but at least acknowledge it does fit others.

Re paraphilia- the problem I have with this is that anything which falls outside the norm is considered paraphilia. But what is the norm? Do you think a jungle tribe would not consider heels, makeup, nail varnish, nylons etc to be outside the norm? Anyone who enjoys any type of role playing or being tied up is a paraphiliac. In fact anything outside of vanilla sex with two naked partners could be considered paraphilia. Since the term only has meaning within the cultural norms and pretty much everybody does or is interested in something that could be included in the definition, it seems to me to be of little value.

As for how this affects couples - IMO this has less to do with the content of the paraphilia than with the cultural conditioning and prejudices in each individual. So it all boils down to finding a compatible mate who shares your values. And isn't that what the mating game is all about? Of course to achieve good results requires honesty and communication, something which humans are usually not so good at.

[LisaM]

Kaitlyn Michele,

That was a terrific article that you posted. It discusses one of the primary problems I have with the all or nothing AGN theory---those of us who desired to be women pre-puberty. Like the author I remember years later being horrified when it led to arousal.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

i remember being in a pool and i was 6 or 7, and the adults got the pool to themselves and kids had to leave for one hour per day...i would duck underwater while the lifeguard whistled at me to leave...and i would get a tingly, strong and very pleasurable feeling down there...i had no idea what it was, but i enjoyed and had no guilt about it..

i guess you could say i started out as a hidingunderwaterphiliac

[Blaire]

This makes me scratch my head a little... What is homo- or hetero-sexuality to a TS? If we're talking about an FtM "stuck in the wrong body" TS, are they homosexual liking men or women? If the mind is right, and the body is wrong, then the hetero FtM person (with male bits) would be attracted to others with male bits? Arrgh!! My brain hurts...

I think those links above will need thrice-readings to make sense. Kind of like legislation.

Satrana, per your thoughts on the -philias, I'm not sure one needs to take it so loosely... Isn't it more a -philia if the object is generally required for arousal? Then followed up with the term disorder if the philia gets in the way of normal function? if its really that easy for a philia, then what's the technical term for whatever-I-can-reach-philia?

[ReineD]

Isn't it more a -philia if the object is generally required for arousal?

As previously mentioned, a paraphilia is only a disorder if it causes anxiety or distress. So the interpretation is very wide. In other words if a TG prefers to become aroused by herself and with herself and she doesn't have a partner who is left out in the cold, then it is not an issue. It is not something that causes distress.

If, removing the focus away from self-pleasure for a moment, a couple both enjoy any of the wide variety of BDSM practices together, then it is not paraphilic. But if someone cannot achieve orgasm without a particular object, be it shoes, a whip, latex, or whatever, then it makes it difficult for this person to have a 'normal' sexual relationship with a partner. And by 'normal' I mean the ability to allow one's emotions about the parter be the source of the arousal, and enjoy the reciprocity of the love-making experience.

But, I'm speaking from a GG's point of view. I know that men are much more visual and I don't know what goes through some non-TG guys minds (especially when they've been in the relationship for awhile) when they makes love to a partner, whether it is the young hottie next door or the porn flick he watched yesterday. But if it is these things and not the partner, I guarantee you that at some level his partner will feel it and it will cause distress in the relationship. Whether or not this guy's need to rely on images of others in order to orgasm is a paraphilia is open to interpretation, but it still very much will cause distress in the relationship.

If a GG feels that her TG partner is getting off on being a woman more than on making love with her, she will feel like an accessory and it will cause distress in the relationship. As to whether or not it is a paraphilia (if it comes between a TG and her partner and it causes distance or distress), it is up to the couple to determine this. Together.


http://www.starways.net/beth/ag.html

I agree with Ms. Orens' preference to use the term "hetero female" for a MtF TS who is attracted to men instead of the "homosexual TS" definition that Blanchard uses. But, the discussion is not about what word we use in order to describe a TS's sexual attraction, but whether AGP does or does not exist, among TSs and non-TSs.

Ms. Orens also acknowledges that she is autogynephilic, and further that she gets off on forced feminization, but she adds that it was not the reason for wanting to transition. I did not read anything in Dr. Blanchard's study that disproves her position. Please do read Blanchard's conclusion that I extracted from his study. Unless I'm missing his point, he does speak of erotic experiences, not motives for transition. Ms. Orens then concludes that it is her sexual reactions to feelings of fear that cause her to be AGP. I don't know how many members here who are AGP will relate to her. It might be interesting to start a separate thread asking the question.

Again I would like to emphasize that Blanchard himself calls for additional research exploring sexuality among TGs (TSs and CDs). I for one would love to see a large scale study. I am guessing that the results would show a percentage of TGs are AGP, although I have no doubt that the overall percentage would be less than in Blanchard's study, since his samples were small and were comprised of the Clarke Institute patients.

This is a bit off topic, but it is interesting that Ms. Orens discounts Kate Bornstein's self-identification (she feels she is neither male nor female) as being in denial about herself and she is a victim of internalized transphobia. Ms. Orens seems to believe that all individuals who vary from the gender norms (gender ID matching the genitalia) should be TS? And then she goes on to say that lesbian, late onset transsexuals are in denial over their attraction to men because of their feelings of shame, or because they don't pass as women and they feel that women will accept them more than men will?

Ms. Orens' article has good points, but she also makes some major sweeping statements.

At any rate, Kaitlyn, when you posted the link above, were you responding to my post on AGP, in other words do you believe that there is no such thing as AGP and that all the people in this forum who identify with it are misrepresenting themselves? Or was the link posted as a rebuttal to Blanchard in general?

[sherri52]

maybe 40 yrs ago or even 30yrs ago but I would have to say not now. Make me younger, I'll start over.

[Anneliese]

As stated in my initial post, I CD during times of great stress. It's one of many things which calm me down, make me feel good, and center me.

That said, I am in love with myself. Is that a bad thing? Many, if not most people, hate themselves. Even highly successful supposedly "normal" people are often self-loathing. I have never hated myself, not for a single solitary second.

I can honestly say, if I ever met a woman who was laid back like I am, who dressed up as a hippie, as I do, who liked what I liked, who disliked what I dislike, I would probably propose marriage shortly. Have I ever found anyone even remotely close to who I am? Nope.

EVERY relationship I've been in has required me to sacrifice a part of myself in order to keep it going, and I simply WILL NOT ever do that again.

I'd much rather imagine being with myself. There is no harm done, and I am admittedly turned on by myself dressed as a woman.

Are there women out there who would work for me, as well as for her? Of course. What is the likelihood I will ever stumble across that person? A million to one, with the time spent on the search being wasted time in my opinion. I am 56 years old. I have experienced the best sex in existence with my ex-wife.

So far, among the rest of the ten or so relationships I've had before or since, I am hotter, nicer, smarter, and more fun to be with than ANY of them.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Hi reine.

on the beth oren article, it describes very accurately how i've felt about my arousal. Her self analysis reflects exactly how it worked for me. so i posted it...

I find that some of her assertions are sweeping as well, and her assertion about Kate Bornstein is kind of offensive.

unlike dr blanchard and B Oren, i won't make huge sweeping generalizations about things that i don't really know.

i didnt comment because i usually talk so much!!! oops
:hugs:kate

[LisaM]

Reine,

Maybe I am missing something but can you help me with those of us who felt like/wanted to be girls before puberty. There was no arousal then. I question if you could call it a paraphilia.

What does AGP say about those of us who were horrified when we did reach puberty and had an arousal reaction?

I understand the desire of finding boxes we can be classified into but what happens if they don't fit? Do we all feel better if we or our spouses can fit into boxes that make us feel better?

[ReineD]

Lisa, if you've read any of my posts, I never suggested a paraphilia as a reason for transition. Please go back and read them. :) Rather my focus has been on AGP when it is present and as it relates to a CD and her GG partner, which is also the focus of my participation in this forum.

But, if you want to go off topic a bit and discuss the concept of AGP as a motive for transition, earlier today I did read Ann Lawrence's "Becoming What We Love". I know that Lawrence is also slammed in the TS community, but reading her paper does offer another perspective. It was published in "Perspectives in Biology and Medicine", volume 50, number 4 (autumn 2007): pp. 506–20. This link was in Beth Orens' writing. I'm posting a few short excerpts here for those who do not wish to read the entire paper.

http://www.annelawrence.com/publications/becoming_what_we_love.pdf

Lawrence does follow Blanchard's nomenclature with "homosexual" and "non-homosexual" TSs. I know this is not the way TSs think of themselves, but if you can get past those terms and substitute "hetero" TS (attracted to men) and "lesbian" TS (attracted to women), then you can focus more on her concepts.

First, this is Lawrence's understanding of the reasons people in the TS community reject the concept of AGP:

Imagine how heterosexual men would respond to the assertion that their attraction to their lovers, fiancées, or partners was based solely on erotic desire or lust and nothing more: I suspect that most would not only regard such a description as woefully incomplete, but would consider it insensitive at best and deeply offensive at worst. The MtF transsexuals who object to Blanchard’s ideas, whether they acknowledge autogynephilic arousal or not, seem to be saying something very similar: "Our desire to change our bodies and live as women involves much more than just erotic desire or lust; to claim otherwise is both wrongheaded and deeply offensive to us."

Lawrence then addresses your question specifically:



It seems plausible that some nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals may experience relatively little erotic desire but may nevertheless experience substantial feelings of attachment to and affection for their idealized images of themselves as female. This would be consistent with the reports by some putatively autogynephilic MtF transsexuals that erotic desire was only a minor aspect of their wish to be female. It is not uncommon for nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals to report having a low sex drive, losing their virginity late in life, having been sought out by female partners rather than seeking them out, and experiencing little sexual excitement with cross-dressing after a few years’ time.



CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT OF EROTIC-ROMANTIC ORIENTATIONS

Nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals often report that their desire to be female began early in childhood, well before the onset of puberty (Lawrence 2003, 2006). They frequently interpret this to mean that their desire therefore cannot be sexual. There is evidence, however, that both erotic desire and affectional bonding can develop in early childhood. It seems plausible that children in whom these erotic-romantic feelings were directed partly or wholly toward the self would experience the desire to become what they loved during childhood. There are two case reports of boys younger than age three who expressed a desire to wear cross-sex clothing and who experienced penile erections when they did so (Stoller 1985; Zucker and Blanchard 1997).These boys plausibly displayed an early form of autogynephilic arousal. Affectionate feelings that are not explicitly erotic also develop in early childhood. Hatfield et al. (1988) demonstrated that many children as young as age four or five can clearly describe feelings of “longing for union” directed toward opposite-sex age-mates and that the intensity of their feelings is comparable to that reported by adolescents. These observations suggest that erotic-romantic orientations can develop well before puberty and that they could plausibly manifest as cross-gender wishes and behaviors in children predisposed to want to become what they love.

Lawrence seems to not agree with the concept of the female trapped in a male body. I don't know what the position is on this within the TS community. Beth Orins disagrees with Lawrence and says that Lawrence came up with her concepts from a lack of a worthwhile model, citing Blanchard's deficient model as the only one that is available. Yet Orins does not propose an alternative model.

What seems to be contentious in all of this is the idea that the love of oneself as a woman is a "paraphilia" and further that paraphilias are classified as erotic disorders in the DSM along with a slew of unsavory fetishes. Lawrence recognizes this as a sticky point and she does not pathologize autogynephilia. In fact, she says that when Blanchard first came up with AGP, he described it as an alternative type of romantic love or sexual orientation, but for unexplained reasons the purely erotic aspects of AGP have received the most attention.



Historically, the paraphilias often have been regarded as exclusively erotic phenomena, and those who experience them have been assumed not to be fully capable of love. For their part, many MtF transsexuals seem to have been preoccupied with the erotic aspects of autogynephilia, albeit in a dismissing way, because they regard these aspects as especially stigmatizing. Wanting to change one’s sex for any reason is stigmatizing, but wanting to do so for erotic reasons is especially so: to employ the distinction proposed by Margolies, Becker, and Jackson-Brewer (1987), an erotic model of transsexual motivation exposes transsexuals not only to society’s xenophobia (fear of that which is different), but
also to its erotophobia (fear of that which is sexual)—and to the internalized versions of these feelings, too.

I believe it is useful to return to Blanchard’s original definition and to think about autogynephilia as an “amatory propensity”—that is, as a variety of “romantic love,” involving more than just sexual arousal—and also as a special type of sexual orientation. Doing so allows us to see Blanchard’s autogynephilia based model in a different light, one that I believe is more consistent with the life experiences of MtF transsexuals.

The entire paper is well worth reading.

[Rianna Humble]

Lisa, if you've read any of my posts, I never suggested a paraphilia as a reason for transition. Please go back and read them. :) Rather my focus has been on AGP when it is present and as it relates to a CD and her GG partner, which is also the focus of my participation in this forum.

But, if you want to go off topic a bit and discuss the concept of AGP as a motive for transition, earlier today I did read Ann Lawrence's "Becoming What We Love". I know that Lawrence is also slammed in the TS community, but reading her paper does offer another perspective. It was published in "Perspectives in Biology and Medicine", volume 50, number 4 (autumn 2007): pp. 506–20. This link was in Beth Orens' writing.

I don't think that you are being fair when you state that Lisa is going off-topic to discuss the concept of AGP as a motive for transition. The original post simply asked:


I want to see what other girls out there are feeling about this term.

That means that any discussion of whether AGP is the motive or even a motive for transition is as valid as your discussion of what effect AGP might have on a couple.

The OP simply wanted to know what other forum members who are or who identify as girls feel about AGP.

I think that the operative phrase in your post is "when it is present". I would not dispute your contention that AGP does exist in this community, but it is definitely not the only reason for people needing to transition.

:2c:

[ReineD]

I don't think that you are being fair when you state that Lisa is going off-topic to discuss the concept of AGP as a motive for transition. The original post simply asked:


This thread touched on the two aspects of AGP: as an issue between a CDer and his wife, and as a motive for transition. The thread lay dormant for awhile and I thought the discussion had veered more towards the first aspect.

It was only in this spirit that I made the comment about being a bit off topic, meaning to not confuse the two separate issues. I should have been more precise and said, if you want to discuss 'Aspect B' instead of 'Aspect A' and for this, I apologize. Sometimes, especially in threads where the main topic is vast and has more than one aspect, we can all talk at cross purposes and it helps to clarify what we wish to discuss. :)


I think that the operative phrase in your post is "when it is present". I would not dispute your contention that AGP does exist in this community, but it is definitely not the only reason for people needing to transition.

It is not my contention that AGP exists. It is my (and other members') observation based on posts that you will find all over this forum in many other threads. I also wholeheartedly agree that it is not the only reason for people who transition. I do thank you for your input and I'd love to hear from others too, both CDs and TSs! :hugs:

[MrKunk]

I don't know if autogynephilia is the right way to describe what I feel but I have felt really feminine on and off for years.

[TxKimberly]

Talk about a waste of time and money... Who really cares "Why". After all... If anyone knew would if change a thing in your life? Going forward? No. You would still do what your driven to do and nothing will change that. Personally I'm not wasting my presious time figuring out why.. I have way to many other things to do... Too many pretty things to buy... So much more makeup to try on! Before I retire or expire! Which ever comes first! Lol.

:iagree:

As usual, I am SO with Karen on this one . . .

[ReineD]

The question isn't 'why' so much as 'what is' and 'what isn't'. I do know that it is helpful for the GGs, and perhaps even some of the TGs, to gain a better understanding of it all.

[Rianna Humble]

I would not dispute your contention that AGP does exist in this community, but it is definitely not the only reason for people needing to transition.

It is not my contention that AGP exists. It is my (and other members') observation based on posts that you will find all over this forum in many other threads. I also wholeheartedly agree that it is not the only reason for people who transition.

If my words seemed critical of your position, I apologise. Perhaps I should have said that I would not dispute your observation.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

"There are two fundamentally different types of male-to-female transsexualism, and they are equally valid. The homosexual type are erotically aroused by other (biological) males, and the autogynephilic type are erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women."

this is a basic premise of Dr Blanchards theory.

This statement is speculation. The fact that guys get off on thinking of themselves as women does not imply all the other things made up by Blanchard...he has to ignore all kinds of facts to come up with his theory...When you get to coin a word that ends up in medical dictionaries, theburden of proof is on you. dr lawrence's writings are the same...she is just speculating .. note how many times she says, "its plausible"...

ok i give in....its plausible..but to be true, then lots of data has to be ignored, including the testimony of tons of people..

the question isnt whether the behavior we are discussing exists....it exists...and there is tons of anecdotal evidence about it..and you deserve to know about it..

but when you say this info is helping you, you are counting on a demonstrably false model that does not stand up to the many many things it ignores....

you get to decide what you think in the end:hugs:

[Vicki-Z]

Yes, as long as there are new members to this forum, and older members move on. We are doomed to perpetuate the discussions on a number of topics. Such is the nature of support forums. :straightface:

Thank you Reine for pointing this out. I see people quite often mentioning that different post topics have already been discussed before and why are we discussing it again. They may have discussed it before but a lot of us haven't. Being fairly new to this forum myself I realise that a lot of my posts may have been discussed before but for me and other new "girls" it's new to us. We greatly appreciate the comments and advice from our more experience "sisters".

Vicki :hugs:

[swiss_susan]

Autogynephilia, is the correct spelling and refers to the love of oneself as a woman. I have no problem with the idea, in fact I love it.

I think that is what we are all searching for to some extent.

[jo_ann]

I think the term is oversimplified, and not clearly defined. To me the definition implies "I dress up like a woman, I get turned on by the female version of myself". That may apply to some (even myself during my much younger years), but I think for many of us, it's simply the fantasy of becoming a woman. Sometimes it's not even about "being a woman", but the transformation of man2woman.

Fictionmania is probably the 2nd (only to this site) most popular TG-related website, and because of that I believe there are many of us out there. The reason why it has so much hatred is because of the research done by a quack scientist, saying that some transition for fetish reasons, which is absurd. Anything in life can get a bad rap if there's enough negativity attached to it.

[shirley1]

I read two pages and couldn't be bothered to read the rest of it. So what auto erotic ???

I had a bloody male sex drive to deal with, what do you do with it ??? People lie when they say they don't have any sex drive very few people are total asexual. Its rare.

I am close to it now as I have been on hormones for 18 months now, so its died off.

So how come so many transsexuals manage to father kids then like it involves sexual intercourse ???

What did they do imagine themselves as women while having sex ?? possibly probably !!!

The problem is people don't want to admit to it, having sexual fantasies is not wrong, natal females do it everyone does well most. I don't buy into this I only had sex with my partner because I had too that's crap, you did it you had sex with a woman, so therefore you either had a male sex drive or were auto erotic ie same thing fantasied to do it. Its not rocket science a gay man would struggle badly to make love to a woman.

[Satrana]

Ms. Orens then concludes that it is her sexual reactions to feelings of fear that cause her to be AGP.

In my 20 years of researching crossdressing this is a new one for me. Tension arising from doing something taboo can heighten your feelings but fear as a source of attraction to your female self-image makes no sense to me at all. That is akin to saying women being raped enjoy the experience. Fear actually ensures the brain will not become sexually switched on. To become aroused you have to be doing something that you consciously or unconsciously enjoy or desire.

[docrobbysherry]

I've some experience with parts of the above discussions. Since I didn't have the desire to start dressing until late in life, I've always known SEX was a/the main reason behind it!

I've read a number of post by CDs of having fantasies of being with a man when dressed. Even tho they r NOT attracted to men.
I can speak to this, as I had these same fantasies when I first began to dress. The thot of BECOMING a female was very exciting for me, back then. Most of my fantasies revolved around those thots. I thot I must be GAY to have those thots!
I'm not.
At that time, I was VERY unhappy with my dressed image. The man-in-a-dress was a big turn off! I WISHED to be a pretty female that I, and other men would find attractive! In my fantasies, I WAS! Maybe other CDs go thru this same sequence of experiences?

Then, suddenly Sherry appeared in my mirror! She looked so pretty and so hot! I took pics to see if I was imagining HER! I wasn't!

The results for me have been AGP in spades! All thots of becoming a female and being with men have disappeared from my fantasies! Why?
Apparently, I DON'T need fantasies when I have the REAL THING in Sherry!

And, to paraphrase Reine, " It's only an issue, if it comes between a CD and her partner(s)". Which it HAS for me. When I've been with real GGs, lately!

I believe any CD who denies that this AGP issue affects them in SOME WAY, could be inviting problems down the road!:doh:

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Satrana..

Ms orens was speculating... and so are the people that made up the word agp..i can speculate too because I have had the exact same experience ms orens described, well before i was able to orgasm...,but i'm not going to make a broad unsupported conclusions

however, because I have experienced the very thing you say makes no sense, i can say for a fact that your statement is incorrect...

also, i have to note that you make the same mistake dr blanchard made

if the premise is people may enjoy taboo/danger sexually, then you say rape is dangerous, since women don't enjoy rape, people must not be able to sexually enjoy danger/taboo..

its called faulty inductive logic

[ReineD]

Up til now, my understanding of TSs & CDs came from my participation in this forum and the handful of TSs and CDs that I know personally. I'd never read any of the books or the studies. Up til this thread, my opinion of Blanchard was based on the many criticisms there are of his research from within the TS community. I didn't respect him very much, even though I did see a lot of evidence in posts here that AGP is alive and kicking (if not among the TSs, then among the CDs, although it is difficult to tell since people don't divulge their particular gender ID next to their names). And then we have all the different understandings here of what AGP really means, or how it plays out in people's lives.

So beginning a few posts ago, I began to read the clinical research and book excerpts I can find, not only about transsexuals and transvestites, but GID among adults and children, and the research history during the last century. A side note here ... the idea that gender variance is a paraphilia has been around for a long time now in the psychiatric community and it didn't originate with Blanchard.

Much of the things I am reading, I had gleaned already from the many posts I've read here, but I am developing a better understanding of it all, and the role that Blanchard is playing in developing the field. He is prolific in his research. I'm not nearly done reading and learning, but I did run across a book that Blanchard wrote in 1990 where he first began talking about transvestites and the various subgroups among TSs.

This book disappointed me, not in the insight it provided in terms of the descriptions of CD and TS desires and motives (Blanchard didn't appear to believe that TSs need to transition strictly for erotic reasons), but in the tone he adopted in his clinical descriptions. Twenty years ago Blanchard did come off as regarding GID as an abnormality. This irritated me, especially reading it 20 years later, when I've come to see that being anywhere along the gender spectrum is a function of who we are, how we were born. But then I don't think anyone who hangs out here as much as I or anyone else does would think any differently. :)

At any rate, I can well understand how disheartening (to say the least) it is for a TS to be told she is not normal and further, that she has a mental disorder.

But we are at the beginning of (I believe) significant inroads made in the field and it will take time for the clinicians to move beyond the notion of binary gender, and to accept that any variance is not a mental disorder. Research is painstakingly slow, especially given the funds that are required to conduct it and that up until recently and even still today, so many people are in the closet making it difficult to have large, representational samples available for study.

So it doesn't surprise me that people are all at different places in their understanding, especially with there being a multitude of different points along the continuum and with having many variables that come into play such as personality traits and personal living circumstances.

I'd hate to see this thread come to blows simply because we all come at it from different perspectives.

At any rate I did find an interesting pamphlet published by the University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry (2000) that discusses the case for and against publicly funded transsexual surgery. Interestingly enough, Blanchard is the voice of reason here. He argues in favor of insurance companies paying for the surgeries. He maintains that SRS is a valid treatment for transsexuals who cannot achieve peace of mind in their original gender role. His opponent, Dr. J. Paul Fedoroff, believes that SRS will not help TSs overcome their "psychiatric disorder".

http://individual.utoronto.ca/ray_blanchard/psychiatry_rounds.pdf

As always, the contentious issue is the fact that GID is still considered to be a psychiatric disorder. But, it is recognized as such by the American Psychiatric Association and by the World Health Organization. Not just by Blanchard. I've no doubt that as more research of genetics and brain wiring is developed, the time will come when it is no longer seen as a mental disorder. We just need to be patient and do what we can to help further the research should the opportunity present itself. But the bottom line is that if GID is not included in the DSM, then won't SRS be considered elective surgery and it will not be covered through insurance?

[Satrana]

if the premise is people may enjoy taboo/danger sexually, then you say rape is dangerous, since women don't enjoy rape, people must not be able to sexually enjoy danger/taboo..

its called faulty inductive logic
It would indeed be faulty logic if you had quoted my reasoning correctly but you did not. You replaced the word fear with danger. Danger is the anticipation of a possible negative outcome, fear is a real emotional response to a direct threat.

A man who has dangerous sex such as in a public space will typically have heightened arousal since the sense of danger will have increased his heart beat, blood flow and adrenalin release. A woman who is being raped is not thinking to herself "Gosh this is dangerous"

A man who fears that he is impotent in bed will probably be impotent even though there is no physical reason to be impotent.

A person subjected to a fearful experience such as rape cannot be aroused by the experience - fear creates trauma and paralysis - the body is primed for a survival flight or fight response. It does not cause sexual arousal.

The faulty logic is to claim fear as a basis for sexual arousal. You must be in some way attracted to or desiring the person/object/situation for your brain to enter a state of arousal.


This book disappointed me, not in the insight it provided in terms of the descriptions of CD and TS desires and motives (Blanchard didn't appear to believe that TSs need to transition strictly for erotic reasons), but in the tone he adopted in his clinical descriptions. Twenty years ago Blanchard did come off as regarding GID as an abnormality.
20 years ago is an eternity in gender theory. If you want to have a real good laugh then get hold of a copy of Glen and Glenda which Ed Woods made 50 years ago. His explanation of crossdressing is a million miles from our current understanding and since he was one himself, it is easy to think he should have known better.

20 years ago I was completely clueless why I crossdressed and what it meant. If Blanchard had asked me probing questions then he would be got back a lot of nonsense. That was true of almost all TGs - we were isolated, confused and lacked insight and support. Psychology was also a different beast 20 years ago and was more interested in neatly fitting TG into standardized classifications. I suspect Blanchard has changed positions on many of his earlier ideas.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

sorry for a misquote...
i won't argue semantics...i feel its unfair of you to call ms orens experience and her speculation regarding it "akin to a woman being raped enjoying the experience"..its a very mean spirited statement towards ms oren, and there is simply no basis for this statement, and it supports a faulty logical conclusion regarding her idea.(that is makes no sense)..if it wasnt part of your logic, then what was it?

..and by the way, you might do some more research. the concept is not a new one...i saw a therapist that spoke about it at a workshop i attended a couple years ago..she noted the exact behavior but didnt make any broad generalizations about it..

Reine. thanks for your continued thoughtfulness and for posting your link...i had not read it before..i have thought about this alot lately and the link you provided was very interesting.

I liked this statement which was made by Dr Blanchard
"A gender identity disorder, as Gertrude Stein
might have said, is a gender identity disorder is a
gender identity disorder."

[Rianna Humble]

In the document linked by Reine, it is unfortunate to see that there are still psychiatrists who treat GID as a delusion despite all the evidence to the contrary. It was good to see Dr Blanchard systematically dismantle the sophistry of the Dr Fedoroff.

If the price of that is to see GID continue to be labelled as a psychiatric disorder - albeit in a class of its own - then perhaps the price is worth paying in the short term.

[anouk]

As a crossdressser I can identify some weak "autogynephilic" features in me. On the other hand there are heeps of genetic women that have same kind of features so is it really relevant theory to make any distinction?

Concerning transsexuals the theory is both useless and injurious in most cases.

[Pink Person]

Cisgender people love to demonize transgender people. I will call this disorder transdemonizationphilia. Unfortunately, some transgender people also like to demonize themselves.

Transgender fantasies aren’t any more harmful than cisgender ones. They might even be beneficial if they protect transgender people from the oppressive hostility that is directed at them from the cisgender population.

Relationship conflicts between transgender people and cisgender people are primarily caused by cisgender people inside and outside of any given relationship.

Cisgender people should spend more time pondering their own guilt, denial, and sickness before projecting them onto transgender people.

P.S. There is no such thing as a cisgender crossdresser, since this appears to be a common misconception. All crossdressers are transgender, to some degree, by definition.

[Empress Lainie]

When I read such psychobabble as Dr. Federer whose comparisons are ludicrous, it does make me think our best solution is just mass suicide.

These people simply deny the truth to further their own careers.

[Rianna Humble]

When I read such psychobabble as Dr. Federer whose comparisons are ludicrous, it does make me think our best solution is just mass suicide.

True, but I don't think we have much hope of convincing them to commit suicide :eek:

[pj]

We are doomed to perpetuate the discussions on a number of topics. Such is the nature of support forums.It's the nature of all forums.

As for autogynohysteria or whatever; oh yeah, I'm in love with myself! I just don't like myself "in that way." But I can still be friends with myself.

Seriously, so many boxes. One day they'll have a box for everyone. Then we'll all be in boxes. Yay.

[ReineD]

pj, there is a significant segment of the population that is gender dysphoric. Some individuals find ways to incorporate it in their lives with their loved ones happily, but this is not the case for many. Think of it .. most TSs in this forum who have transitioned say that a transitioner must be prepared to lose ALL in order to be herself (or himself if he is FtM). How many CDs and TSs live alone because there is such a lack of understanding in our society? This is pretty sad.

As much as we all like to vilify those who do try to define, they do so in an attempt to achieve a deeper understanding of issues in order to help TGs across the spectrum achieve happy and fulfilling lives. Definitions are necessary in order to build knowledge and to communicate ideas.

I don't know why some people are so reluctant to examine and define the issues.

[pj]

Fair enough. I'm not reluctant to examine or explore or define, I just have a iconoclastic nature that rears up when I feel pigeonholed. It's difficult to define when you fit more than one category. Or relate to some parts of many categories.

[ReineD]

I see your point. :) Hopefully there will be more research done that will expand on the current knowledge ... which I agree is limiting. But it is a start.

[TinaMc]

It seems a bit circular logicky to me - reminds me of this comedian here, he was saying he went to the doctor and said, "I've got an itchy anus." The doctor goes, "Ah, that would be pruritus ani." Comedian guy goes home and looks it up, it's basically just latin for itchy anus...

I mean giving a male who fantasizes about being female a complicated name that just means "male who fantasizes about being female" isn't all that helpful for anything really.

[Jonianne]

.....I mean giving a male who fantasizes about being female a complicated name that just means "male who fantasizes about being female" isn't all that helpful for anything really.

Your defination is too broad. Don't you think a doctor would treat pruritus ani differently if it was caused by hemorrhoids rather than poison ivy?

[SophiaGirl]

Does this definition apply to me? Is it BS. I have read about others who believe it's BS. I do get excited when I dress or become en femme. It seems that I would be autoG. Does the excitement from dressing stem from a desire to be a woman. Is it because I feel I am a woman, that the excitement is just because I feel that’s the way I should feel sexually (as a woman) ? Did I even make any sense right there? Basically is there more to it than just the excitement?

I think it would be easier for me to be AutoG, but I also feel more than that. I do get the excitement, but I also feel more comfortable as a woman.

Thanks for listening!

[mister-mason]

Autogynephilia is, for the most part, a label created by psychologists who want to police who's a 'real' transsexual and who isn't ... and who define 'realness' at least partly by "I think they'd be hot when they're finally finished with surgery, and they would only sleep with men after."

I wish I were kidding. But if you read the specs, and the other work of the people who created the category, it's pretty clear they think anyone who'd be a lesbian after transition isn't a 'real' transsexual, because 'real' transsexuals are just confused gay men who hate their gayness enough that they have to change themselves to stop being gay (!!!!). I really, really wish I were kidding on that one.

Of course, I could just be bitter because these same people think I don't exist -- only people assigned as male at birth can be 'true' transsexuals in their light, because they think (a) it's a sexual fetish and (b) people assigned female at birth can't have fetishes .... needless to say, I think both those premises are batshit crazy, but, well. I know a lot of ciswomen with fetishes, for one thing!

IMHO, 'autogynephilia' isn't a useful psychological term, it's just perjorative language. The only way a sane, genderpositive psychologist would ever apply it (and I know, because I asked mine) is if someone (a) is really, really turned on by the act of crossdressing itself -- like, instant wood, plus near-inability to function sexually when not dressed -- AND (b) this tendency was negatively affecting their life in general to the point that they want to get treatment for it.

Without both those criteria, even sexual reaction to CDing isn't autogynephilia, according to my psych, and is in fact no-treatment-necessary, because it's not a disorder ... it might be a CDing urge, it might be genderqueerness or somewhere on the trans spectrum, but just getting hot from dressing isn't an actual mental disorder.

[kimdl93]

I'd agree - the label shouldn't define you. Its just another arbitrary classification, created in an effort to codify one aspect of TG behaviors.

[Sarah Michelle]

I agree with the two comments offered in response. Labels cause me nothing but grief. The mainstream community including the psychologists and psychiatrists really have no detailled understanding of gender-bending and cross-dressing. They want to be able to slot everyone.
My desire to desire in women's clothing is not sexual, at least not on a level that I'm conscious of. I dress because I feel complete in women's clothing even without the make-up and the wig. I feel at peace in a manner that I never felt in suits, jeans, or shorts. Label that....

[Shadeauxmarie]

Labels are commonly used to compare others. Usually to say, "I'm better than they are because I'm not a xxxxx."

[CherryZips]

Hey this sounds like me.

Should I get a T shirt made?

If we don't use this term surely people will only come up with another? Labels don't define attitudes. That idea went out of fashion with Orwell.

Look at the term queer. It was once used pretty much exclusively as a term of abuse. It was reclaimed as attitudes changed.

I'm not saying I expect attitudes to change but I feel have to be honest and say I relate a lot to the term.

I suspect this debate could break the terms and conditions quickly.

Drop me a PM.

[erickka]

I think that "labels" that they use for humankind are plain B.S. I, personally, despise being pigeon-holed into some kind of "group" Everyone is different, so why in the hell do these psyco babble idiots try to call out so many people as being the same??

[Blaire]

I don't know why some people are so reluctant to examine and define the issues.

Perhaps becuase by accepting definitions, the people in question actually have to admit to something?

Why would many of us bother to examine the issues, when we can barely acknoledge that this thing that makes us who we are isn't a terrible beast that needs to be taken out back and shot?

[TinaMc]

I just think it's pathologilising something that doesn't need pathologising. Is there a medical treatment for tranvestism/crossdressing? Erm, no. So why would you need to invent a subranch of something that isn't a medical issue in the first place? What do you call non-autogynophelic crossdressers then?

[Blaire]

It is a medical issue... if you're considered AGP, you're not likely to be qualified for SRS.

[TinaMc]

Thanks for your post blaire, made me think about it a bit more and read a lot more. I think I was looking at it from the wrong angle really (ie, AGP as a sort of motive for CDing rather than as the underlying reason for wanting SRS). It's a bit clearer now. Not sure I agree with it, but at least I see the point of it now...