"Who's afraid of Blanchard"?

[Kate T]

I am hoping to put forward a discussion regarding Blanchards Autogynephilia (AGP) theories as they pertain to transsexualism, particularly "Late onset" or "non classical" transsexualism. Please, this is not intended as any sort of comment or opinion on anyones personal experiences but more as a general discussion. Please note for the purposes of this discussion when I use the abbreviations TS I am referring to Male to Female Transexuals unless specifically stated otherwise.

Like it or not, Blanchards theories on AGP were an important milestone in the development of our understanding and treatment of transsexualism particularly in adult MTF TS. Prior to Blanchard access to appropriate treatment for TS relied heavily on demonstrating an almost exclusive sexual attraction to males. This was generally regarded as vital so that the post op TS could have a "normal" social and sexual life post transition. What Blanchard described and demonstrated was that there was a clear population of TS who were NOT male attracted but were actually female attracted. What he also found was that many of these individuals had experienced arousal at the idea of having a female body or body parts or through wearing female clothing. AGP as a sexual behaviour undoubtably exists. Not only that but AGP as a sexual behaviour demonstrably exists in "late onset" TS. Arguably AGP as a sexual behaviour also exists in a small number of male attracted "early onset" TS. What this meant was that there was now no reason why TS who had experienced AGP should be denied access to gender reassignment treatment.

Blanchards mistake was in linking sexuality with gender identity, not only linking them but suggesting a causative relationship between AGP and non male attracted TS (which essentially he implicitly correlated with late onset TS even if he did not explicitly make the correlation). The flaws in this theory have been pointed out by a number of authors and researchers, those flaws notably being that TS gender identity is often traceable back to before the onset of AGP behaviour, if AGP is a causative agent and TS the symptom then it does not explain why gender reassignment treatment of any type from HRT through to GRS, will generally resolve AGP, nor does it explain the still considerable number of TS who are not male attracted but have never experienced AGP. There are some fairly convoluted theories that have been proposed to explain these issues, notably Lawrence and the "romantic love" theory, but they seem overly complicated explanations when the far simpler "gender identity is distinct from sexual identity" can explain many of the observed problems with Blanchard's theories.

As much as Blanchard's conclusions regarding AGP and transsexualism are at best not descriptive of a large number of TS and at worst may be stigmatising, it is worthwhile considering where TS gender and sexuality theory and even treatment access would be today without his original work. So he didn't get it quite right in the interpretation, neither did Newton on gravity. It does not mean that we should necessarily throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak and ignore the contribution to understanding gender nonconformity that AGP can make.

[Starling]

I think a whole lot of philias and phobias populate the brains of people who in many cases without knowing it for years and years, were born into the wrong-shaped body--and have to try to function with the wrong body chemistry, to boot. It's a double whammy, and a recipe for desperately seeking something to hold onto, whether it's a fantasy, a drive or a hope.

I used not to feel this way, but I'm seriously beginning to think that no one who isn't transsexual can possibly grasp how destructive and debilitating gender dysphoria is to us. Theories and studies are nice, and may help us gain friends and get medical treatment, but they don't help us feel any better, do they?

:) Lallie

[Zooey]

Starling - that's been becoming clearer to me too. I was trying to explain the sinking feeling I get in the morning when I see myself with facial hair (starting removal soon), and the intense relief I feel when shaving while watching it disappear. While I think people can logically understand how it would be stressful, nobody I've talked to about it has really had an analogous feeling that would be comparable.

It's made me start to wonder how many of the other sorts of feelings I've been having all my life - which I always assumed were things most people felt at least periodically - are actually things that nobody else in my life really gets.

[PaulaQ]

Blanchard's theories were pretty badly substantiated to begin with, and aren't standing up well to the test of time. For example, trans women who are attracted to men are assumed to be homosexuals who just can't face up to being gay men.

This was pretty obviously bullshit back in the 80's when he proposed it, but consider the absurdity of it now. It's a whole bunch easier and more socially acceptable to be a cis gay man than a trans woman. If I got to choose, I'd have picked "gay guy" for myself over being trans. But we don't get to choose.

Oh yeah, and transmen. He forgot about them.

If his theory was just wrong, it would be fine, it would just die. Unfortunately, the political ramifications of his ideas have made it not just wrong, but dangerous. After all, if you are really just a fetishist, do you need to transition? And hey, if you did this to yourself, should the world even care what happens to you as a transsexual?

The really popular variant of this theory here is that all the CDs are really fetishists - but by "controlling" their CDing, giving them some time - but not too much - they can be prevented from falling down the awful path of transition! I read variants of this idea on the forum a lot. It'll most likely eventually kill someone, unfortunately.

[Starling]

...the sinking feeling I get in the morning when I see myself with facial hair...

I know what you mean. I get a sinking feeling every morning, even if I don't look in the mirror. And it lasts all day and night.


...It's a whole bunch easier and more socially acceptable to be a cis gay man than a trans woman. If I got to choose, I'd have picked "gay guy" for myself over being trans...

If only. There are even a number of fields where it is positively advantageous to be a gay man. Name one in which being a transwoman is a bonus.

[Rianna Humble]

Blanchards theories on AGP were an important milestone in the development of our understanding and treatment of transsexualism particularly in adult MTF TS.

I have to disagree with you completely on that statement. Blanchard's hypothesis (it does not qualify to be a scientific theory) was bovine scatology from the moment he first proposed it. It has been thoroughly discredited as has his methodology and his invention of so-called autogynephilia. His work has been used to cause great harm to transsexuals and continues to be quoted by TERFS and sundry other transphobes precisely because instead of adding to understanding about transsexuality, it can be used as a basis for denial.

[kimdl93]

I think we've learned more about Transgenderism in the past 20 years than in the preceding 100. I don't blame researchers like Blanchard for offering hypotheses, but they had so darn little evidence to test these with. Now we can actually see brain structures and brain processes in action. Our understanding remains incomplete, of course, but imagine what we will know as fact in another 20 years.

[Nicole Erin]

You mean people still care what that guy thinks?
Wasn't he that guy who wrote some book about the man being a queen?
I don't know what he wrote cause I don't bother reading books about TS'ism (cause they are boring) but whatever it was, he sure caused a stir.

Whatever he wrote is not important to me in how I live.

[whowhatwhen]

No, that book was from some other dude.
The same one who had a live demonstration in his sexuality class involving a power saw and a marital aid.

[Michelle.M]

I have to disagree with you completely on that statement. Blanchard's hypothesis (it does not qualify to be a scientific theory) was bovine scatology from the moment he first proposed it. It has been thoroughly discredited as has his methodology and his invention of so-called autogynephilia. His work has been used to cause great harm to transsexuals and continues to be quoted by TERFS and sundry other transphobes precisely because instead of adding to understanding about transsexuality, it can be used as a basis for denial.

Well said! And he has persisted in this line of nonsense even up to now, after many years of contradicting research.

A few years ago WPATH denounced J. Michael Bailey’s book “The Man Who Would Be Queen” for its inaccuracies and misinformation with respect to the origins of transgenderism and treatment. This was a huge professional blow to Blanchard, since Bailey was Blanchard’s biggest supporter of this AGP nonsense. Blanchard’s response was to resign his membership in WPATH and go on to continue his practice in a professional vacuum.

[BillieAnneJean]

Some of us were born with one kind of plumbing and another kind of mind. We don't care what you call it, it is just us.

Some people make their living out of studying things, trying to put a reason on things.

We who are the object of the study would likely be better served if those doing the studies would focus not on us but on those who make lives difficult for anyone not fitting the general description of "normal" when our normal (to us) causes no harm to anyone.

[Frances]

Baily is the guy who wrote the book "The man who would be queen." Most of the hatred should be directed at him. He ran away with Blanchard's hypothesis and conducted his own pseudo-scientific research to confim it. I say pseudo because he operated with a confirmation bias without intent of falsifying it.

Blanchard said on the record that AGP was an additional differentiation criterium that should be added to the diagnosis, but was not a reason to deny treatment. However, others have taken over in that direction. Here is a paper by the therapist of approved my transition. The team of that hospital is affiliated with Blanchard and the CAMH.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Use+of+sexoanalysis+for+patients+with+gender+ident ity+disorder-a030412092

I don't if anyone mentioned it, but Blanchard is heading the team rewriting the GID section of the DSM.

[Nigella]

I have never been one to try and fathom out this aspect of my life. Blanchard was not a name I had heard of until I came to the forum. Others, far more qualified than I were the ones that "confirmed" my transsexualism, a long time after I a started down the road.

I never looked at the what?, why? and when of being transgender, the internet is full of "professional" theories and TBH, my simple mind could not make heads or tails of it.

I left all that to the professionals I needed to consult to continue the road I had begun to travel well before talking to them.

Not understanding it all has kept me sane, never trying to fight, just doing what felt right for me.

[KellyJameson]

The female and male exist in nature for reproductive purposes but gender is about more than reproduction even though I believe gender identity does come out of the instinctual forces and how they shape us that also influences sexual behavior.

The same forces that created my gender identity as that unwavering conviction as a child that I'm a girl and not a boy that I have always carried inside me, also touched my sexuality and you see this everywhere in the world of trans people.

A great deal of sexual behavior is socialized into us as "This is normal and this is abnormal or this is OK and this is not OK". Society attempts to control sex because sex is so powerful as a creative or destructive force and most adults have witnessed the destructive potential of sex.

My gender identity has always had a permanence that I could not eliminate from my mind no matter how much I tried to ignore it or reject it.

The reason for this is simple. I "sensed" early on that I was not a boy because I never "experienced" a boy "like me". I was born "instinctually different" than boys. I have the instincts of a female and my "sexual instincts" are wrapped up and woven into this.

It is the instincts I was born with and without that created that "knowing" of what I was and was not. I moved toward those I knew myself to be and identified "with them" and moved away from those I knew I was not and "did not identify with them".

Identity is about movement toward or away from something.

The absence of male instincts created a vacuum that my female identity poured into and nothing could have prevented this, including my "willing it". For me gender identity was never a choice but something pushed onto me from the very beginning and the only thing that changed was my relenting in the fight against it and transitioning (mostly from exhaustion).

No scientist could comprehend or explain the experience of living inside my own head with these forces pushing me in the opposite direction as everything and everyone else was pushing me.

You are constantly fighting agianst everyone trying to define you as one thing when you know you are another and also struggling with a body that makes no "sense"

To be born transsexual is to be born "into a state or war" between your instinctual mind and everything else. You will be at odds with everything because something has created you that results in your standing "outside of nature" until you transition and it has nothing to do with being shaped by society and everything to do with being shaped by biology(on the inside out of sight)

My gender identity was there long before I was sexually aware but my sexual awareness has definitely been touched and affected by the instinctual forces that created my gender identity.

For me they are inter-woven so I understand why scientists and intellectuals are having such a difficult time understanding "Transsexualism and Transsexuals"

Ulitmately I think we are a variance in nature "that loves to experiment" regardless of the suffering caused by what is created.

I chose to stop suffering "mostly by my own hand" and transition.

My instincts, body and society now align so I am at peace and not at war with the external world my internal world must live in.

Technology and medicine has allowed me to stop living on the fringes of society because of what "nature had created"

Transitioning allows you to escape from the "suffering" nature creates by the variances created by nature that keeps you "outside of everything else nature has created"

I do not want to be the tip of the arrow flying through the space and time of evolution anymore. Let nature experiment with something else, but not me.

[Kate T]

Blanchard's hypothesis (it does not qualify to be a scientific theory) was bovine scatology from the moment he first proposed it. It has been thoroughly discredited as has his methodology and his invention of so-called autogynephilia.

I would agree Rhianna that his Hypothesis of the origins of TS'ism are riddled with holes. Perhaps that opening line should have better read "Blanchards research on AGP......."

Your dismissal of AGP as a sexual behaviour though I think is unwarranted based even on the experiences of members here on these forums. As Frances said, Blanchard is on the record as acknowledging that AGP should NOT be a criteria for denying treatment to TS individuals. In Blanchards original research a phenomenal number of adult onset TS reported as being exclusively androphilic. Why? Maybe he just had crappy methodology, or maybe they reported that because it was one of the criteria for accessing TS treatment. It is notable that following dissemination of the AGP theory there are nowhere near as many adult onset TS who report being exclusively androphilic in studies. Even Blanchards most vehement critics acknowledge that the actual sexual behavioural description within TS that Blanchard described was probably helpful in allowing more TS access to treatment.

I wonder how many gynephilic male to female TS were able to access treatment BEFORE Blanchards AGP descriptions and how many are able to access it now AFTER? That would be a telling piece of information as to whether research on AGP is helpful to TS or not.

[Michelle789]

Blanchard's theories are very flawed from the very start, that at it's very best, was a way of categorizing transsexuals to the best of the knowledge back in the 1980s. The one good thing Blanchard did was to open up the doors that gender dysphoria can take on more than one face, and it did some good for those who were not solely attracted to men.

1. Blanchard attempted to create a binary of transsexuals. It was convenient to try to create a binary, as we live in a binary world that likes to categorize everyone and everything into binaries. Rich and poor, male and female, type A and type B, doers and thinkers, active and lazy, winners and losers. So why not do that with transsexuals too? This is very flawed because there are no binaries in reality, just a spectrum of different degrees of whatever it is you're trying to measure. Degrees of poverty or affluence, degrees of gender identity, degrees of personality, degrees of losing, degrees of activity. Many of these spectrums are multi-dimensional. The Myers-Briggs is a good example of a four-dimensional way of measuring personality, and even though it tries to create a binary of each of the four dimensions, you can actually fall on any degree of each of the spectrums. You can be lean introvert, be extremely intuitive, be moderately feeling, and a tossup between perceiving and judging.

Gender dysphoria manifests itself in the same way, on some sort of a multi-dimensional spectrum. One of the things I struggled with was the fact that I didn't neatly fit into either of Blanchard's two categories. When I read the descriptions of his "classical" and "late onset" transsexuals, I found that I fit a part of each of the descriptions, but into neither one fully.

2. Blanchard says we're not women, just gay men or men with fetishes. In either case, the key word is he believes us to be men. He is classifying us as gay or fetishists, but in either case says we're men, thus denying our female identities.

3. Virginia Prince did the closest thing to breaking the binary of Blanchard, by stating a third type of transsexual. This type shares characteristics of each of Blanchard's and is distinctly different. I actually fit into this description better than either of Blanchard's. However, she is still wrong in that she ultimately sees us as gay men, fetishists, and failures as men. Once again wrong, we're women. But at least she did something to recognize that gender dysphoria can manifest itself in more than two ways. Also, GD is not restricted to a ternary either, they're just three spots along a continuum.

4. Many "late onset" TSes actually turn out to be attracted to women. They may be either straight or bisexual. There are many "late onset" lesbian TSes too. Perhaps this shows that many of us fall on a bisexual spectrum, with leanings towards men or towards women, or with sexual attraction being more fluid and changeable. Maybe some of us tried so hard to fit into the male box that we mistakenly thought we were attracted towards women. I have met some late transitioners who were married to women, who told me that when they had sex, they had to imagine themselves as a woman having sex with a man. If the wife found out, there would be no sex at best and likely a divorce.

5. There are, many more than we think, "classical" transsexuals, who engaged in autoerotic behavior.

6. So-called fetish behavior is actually autoerotic behavior, which is basically an expression of a normal female sex drive, possibly twisted due to the influence of testosterone and male socialization.

7. The phrase "late onset" is actually a misnomer. He really means late transitioning TSes. Most late onset TSes actually discovered their gender dysphoria began during childhood, just like those who transition early. What is different is that many of us can repress our gender identities so much and so far, that we over-compensate, living seemingly normal male lives. This is a survival mechanism that enables many of us to live 50 years as men before we realize we need to transition. Without it the ability to "man up", we would not be able to make it to such a late age in life living as males; we would reach the suicide or transition point at a much earlier time in our lives. Early transitioning TSes were unable to hide their true gender identity for very long and reached the "suicide or transition" point in their teens or 20s. Some reach that point in elementary school.

8. Don't forget that there are actually people who transitioned in their 30s. Blanchard seemed to think that everyone either transitions before 30 or after 40. He completely forgot about the 30 something transitioners, many of whom Virginia Prince would call "socially inadequate men" or "failures as men". My belief is that many of us who transition in our 30s were able to repress our gender identity better than someone who transitioned at the age of 20 or 15, but not as well as someone who transitioned at 45 or 50.

9. Blanchard also forgot about transmen and people who identify outside the binary.

10. In spite of evidence showing that Blanchard has been proven false, Blanchard himself still holds on to his archaic ideas.

Now am I afraid of Blanchard?

I am not personally afraid of Blanchard. But do his ideas scare me? Yes. It scares me that I see people who even on this forum still, at least through their words, or on a subconscious level, still believe in Blanchard. I see it in the trans community, although most people on this forum and most in the trans community believe that Blanchard is full of bunk.

However, believing his ideas literally can cause us to believe we aren't women, but rather men who are gay or fetishists. If we believe Virginia Prince literally, some of us may believe we're just failures at being men. Some of us might not transition, or might have difficulty in our transition, because we hold onto Blanchard's ideas. Certainly, if you don't fit neatly into Blanchard's binary, you might start thinking that you aren't really TS, right? How about someone who is

1. Transitioning at 34 (neither early nor late)

2. Never been married nor in a relationship (early)

3. My behavior before I transitioned wasn't overly feminine but wasn't overly masculine either, people mistook me for being gay. Maybe my behavior was more feminine but on a more subtle level before I transitioned. (leans more towards early with characteristics of late)

4. Engaged in autoerotic behavior. (late)

5. Cross-dressed. (late)

6. Thought I was attracted to women (late)

7. Wasn't aggressive nor chased after women (early)

8. Secretly fantasized about being with a man (early)

9. People, especially those who knew me since childhood, thought I was gay, because something about my behavior was obviously or subtly feminine (early)

10. In a male dominated profession (late)

So according to Blanchard, I must not be a TS, because I don't fit neatly into his binary. According to Virginia Prince, I am a failure as a man, but at least according to her I would also be a good candidate for transition.

So there we have it, thank you Blanchard for opening up a door that allows GD to manifest itself in more than one way. Thank you Virginia Prince for opening up a door that allows GD to manifest itself in more than two ways. Sure, Blanchard opened up a door that was useful for it's time, a door that allowed TSes who didn't fit into the "classical" narrative to actually have access to medical transition.

However, Blanchard, you're ideas are archaic. Like every other bit of science, you're ideas served a good purpose, but we have moved far beyond the early theory. You're ideas are now archaic. Sorry Blanchard. Once upon a time, we believed that the earth was flat. We then discovered that the earth was round. This was a good gateway from moving away from the flat earth belief, but further science discovered that the earth isn't perfectly round either, that it's elliptical flattening at the equator and bulging at the poles. But a round earth is a lot closer to an elliptical earth than a flat one is. But the round earth theory is incorrect or at least outdated at it's best since the earth is elliptical.

Pre-Blanchard belief was like saying the earth is flat. Blanchard's ideas are like saying the earth is round. But we have moved on to the elliptical earth belief. Blanchard and the round earth are both going the way of the Dinosaurs, flat earth belief, and pre-Blanchard beliefs.

[Rianna Humble]

Your dismissal of AGP as a sexual behaviour though I think is unwarranted based even on the experiences of members here on these forums..

Sorry, Adina, you shoot yourself in the foot here. Blanchard's invention of so-called autogynephilia as the primary reason for the "desire" to transition is not validated by Transsexuals on this forum, it is dismissed by them but adopted by crossdressers who have no interest in transition. His pseudo-science will never be enough to elevate his hypothesis to the level of a scientific theory.

I will confess that to an extent I am afraid of Blanchard and his cohorts of TERFS and other supporters because of the very real harm that they do to transsexuals.

[Kate T]

Perhaps we are talking across purposes Rianna. I am differentiating AGP as a SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR as opposed the AGP as a THEORY OF DESIRE TO TRANSITION. The latter, I agree, is flawed. AGP as a sexual behaviour ONLY should be acknowledged and accepted as not only real but a non harmful sexual expression.

[sandra-leigh]

Who's afraid of Blanchard? Well I, for one, am considerably dissuaded from moving "back home" to Ottawa, Ontario, by the prospect of being forced to go through Blanchard & company for continued trans medical care. The province I live in now is smaller but I know the trans care gatekeepers and they are actively doing what they can for me.

In the "Not My Story To Tell" department: One transwoman I know was pushed through reparative therapy for years because of Blanchard's theories. I would like to quote some of what she wrote about her horrible experiences in that therapy but her writing was not public.

[whowhatwhen]

To be fair though, I've read that CAMH is nowhere near as gatekeepy as it used to be.

[Brooklyn]

The notion that some started out gay and the others started out straight always seemed unhelpful to me. It's like saying that some are right-handed and some are left-handed. Many of the young MTF's I know don't seem to fit into either category, and almost every TS I've chatted with knew something was amiss well before puberty and the onset of sexual emotions. When I came out to my dad, for example, he said he knew when I was about three. Was I suffering from "paraphilia" back then? The most irritating thing about Blanchard's pseudo-science is that it persists, despite being widely discredited.

[Starling]

The persistence in the memory of even good people, of these sort of theories continues to wreck damage in the lives of individuals and to create divisions in society.

How many otherwise sane citizens believe transsexuals dress as their true gender because they are too cowardly to admit they're gay, or in order to molest children in bathrooms? Too effing many.


The notion that some started out gay and the others started out straight always seemed unhelpful to me...almost every TS I've chatted with knew something was amiss well before puberty and the onset of sexual emotions...

Same with me, although I didn't know what it was until much later. I knew I was horrible though, and I wasn't about to share it; for if anyone else found out, I would be shunned by all decent folk. Mama!

What a solitary nightmare every TS went through in the days before the web! I know it's still not easy to gain acceptance even now, when so many cis-people believe we are simply perverts. How lovely it would be to be able to inform a prospective lover of your gender identity while you're still in the early stages, without having to worry that being outed could destroy your life chances? How many heart-wrenching events down the line could be prevented?

:) Lallie

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Beth-Lock I totally agree.



I am hoping to put forward a discussion regarding Blanchards Autogynephilia (AGP) theories as they pertain to transsexualism, particularly "Late onset" or "non classical" transsexualism. ............

...........As much as Blanchard's conclusions regarding AGP and transsexualism are at best not descriptive of a large number of TS and at worst may be stigmatising, it is worthwhile considering where TS gender and sexuality theory and even treatment access would be today without his original work. So he didn't get it quite right in the interpretation, neither did Newton on gravity. It does not mean that we should necessarily throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak and ignore the contribution to understanding gender nonconformity that AGP can make.

So let me get this straight... there is a debunked poorly researched "theory" that is at best not descriptive of us and worst stigmatizing.... but hey lets discuss these theories because they contribute to understanding us??

and all in the context of the beloved topic "late onset transsexualism"....I yi yi yi

[Starling]

Let's even try to discredit the term "late onset transsexualism," because what it poorly attempts to label is really "gradual overcoming of half a lifetime of denial transsexualism."

:) Lallie

[LeaP]

Blanchard was a member of the DSM-5 Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders workgroup. It was chaired by Kenneth Zucker. Blanchard chaired the paraphilias sub-group, and is responsible for the criteria listed for Transvestic Fetishism, which he tried to label Transvestic Disorder.

For an interesting take on Blanchard's ties to Bailey, see Lynn Conway's commentary:

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/BaileyAssociates/BlanchardResigns.html

[Jorja]

Who? He does not sign my pay check nor have any direct bearing on my life. Why should I be afraid of this man? He simply has his own beliefs. They may be wrong but they are what he believes. I have my own beliefs. They may be wrong but they are what I believe. We can agree to disagree.

[Rianna Humble]

AGP as a sexual behaviour ONLY should be acknowledged and accepted as not only real but a non harmful sexual expression.

The problem is, you quote Blanchard as a source yet contradict his definition of this non existent condition. He defines this term that you seem determined to thrust down our throats (but that no other respected sexologist accepts) as a paraphilia (a harmful sexual deviation).

Blanchard tried to bully the Harry Benjamin association (now WPATH) into accepting his rejection of Gender Dysphoria and into using his classification of us as sexual deviants. When that didn't work, he thought that resigning from the association would cause immediate concern amongst the medical and scientific community. Instead it was met with silence from respected scientists and clinicians.

Despite that, I am still afraid of Blanchard because of the ammunition he gives to TERFS who attempt at every turn to cause harm to Transsexuals.

[Zylia]

The beauty of science is that it's about what's true, not about what some person thinks is true. A scientific theory is based on evidence and can be tested by anyone by performing experiments and collecting data in a reproducible manner. Blanchard's theory on transsexualism typology may or may not fail in that last department, that's beside point here in my opinion. The point is he cannot decide what's true, only empirical evidence can. I can question scientists' motivations, for example because they're an asshole or transgender themselves, but I cannot question the scientific method. No need to be afraid of individual scientists.

AGP seems fairly common for men who cross-dress for some sexual motivation. Whether or not it persists when such a cross-dresser turns out to be a "late onset transsexual" is not really something I can decide.

By the way, Blanchard didn't 'try' to relabel Transvestic Fetishism in DSM 5, it IS relabelled Transvestic Disorder. This obviously makes sense, because not everyone who is a transvestic fetishist has a transvestic disorder. Do you get sexually aroused from cross-dressing? Fine. Does it cause clinically significant distress or impairment? Sorry, but you have a disorder. Are you sexually aroused by thoughts or images of yourself as female? You're autogynephilic as well. Bottom line: DSM is not the book of human variances, it's a tool to diagnose people who actually need a clinical diagnosis.

[Angela Campbell]

"Transvestic Fetishism" as described has no relation whatsoever to a transsexual. Two completely different things. Only similarity is the wearing of women's clothes, although with completely different reasons to do so.

It is the result of someone with a particular bias attempting to explain something they don't understand.

[Zylia]

I don't see why they wouldn't be two completely different things. Who said they weren't?

[Angela Campbell]

Blanchard....


In the late 1980's, Blanchard began teaching that all transsexualism is either (i) an extreme form of homosexuality, in which men acquire female physicality in order to be able to have sex with large numbers of other men, or (ii) a sexual paraphilia ("autogynephilia"), in which men acquire female physicality in order to heighten their masturbation experiences (by being in love with their own bodies). In a sweeping claim of having discovered the cause of transsexualism, Blanchard eliminated inner gender identity or gendered feelings (GID) as factors or mechanisms in transsexualism, replacing them with a model of transsexualism as a pathological male sexual disorder.

[Kate T]

The problem is, you quote Blanchard as a source yet contradict his definition of this non existent condition. He defines this term that you seem determined to thrust down our throats (but that no other respected sexologist accepts) as a paraphilia (a harmful sexual deviation).


Do you assert that sexual arousal in a male imagining themselves either as a woman or with the body parts of a woman is non existent? I'm genuinely confused as to whether this is what you are saying or not?

[Kaitlyn Michele]

No one is saying that. What don't you understand??
It is the TERM (AGP) that is being thrust down throats... it is the TERM that is the problem. of course some folks have this arousal being talked about... but there is no constructive meaning to the TERM AGP

"AGP" is a crazy worthless theory....poor research, bias, ignorance, politics and history have conspired to make this idea something that has no value at best and causes harm at worst (Your words)...the term itself has past meaning that eliminates the possibility of any reasonable discussion.

btw...MTF transsexuals are female...so your idea that males imagining themselves as women does not apply to transsexuals at all
(although the way you said this highlights your obvious point of view that "late onset transsexuals" are crossdressers)

Many of us have felt sexual arousal when imagining being female which btw includes that you would dress and present as your proper gender. Nobody denies it, there is nothing to deny. And what's more , it doesn't get cured, it doesn't get fixed, it may become less or go away over time like any type of sexual arousal (is every SO sexually attracted to each other forever??)... you cant control what makes the tingle tingle..

The truth is that sexual arousal is messy...it is what it is... fetishes, philias, "normal"...whatever...it can evolve and devolve... its something to consider and talk about if you experience sexual attraction to presenting female...its each person responsibility to live their best life and figure out for themselves whether the arousal means anything at all. It's so messy for transsexuals that many feel attracted to females and then "change" to attracted to male when they transition....it doesn't mean anything with regard to being ts, and this sexual feeling doesn't mean anything either..



I ask you. What is there to gain from the discussion? What specifically are you trying to figure out for yourself and what do you personally hope to gain from it?? Or are you trying to communicate your own point of view?? If so, what is it?? What's your point??What does any of our points of view on this do for you?

[Rianna Humble]

I have been persuaded to re-open this thread, but will be keeping a close eye on it.

[Michelle.M]

Do you assert that sexual arousal in a male imagining themselves either as a woman or with the body parts of a woman is non existent? I'm genuinely confused as to whether this is what you are saying or not?

Nobody is saying that. The DSM-5 describes autogynephilia within the context of Transvestic Disorder (Section 302.3), which may exist “with fetishism” (arousal by fabrics, materials or garments) or “with autogynephilia” (arousal by thoughts or images of self as female).

But your original position was:


I am hoping to put forward a discussion regarding Blanchards Autogynephilia (AGP) theories as they pertain to transsexualism, particularly "Late onset" or "non classical" transsexualism.

Blanchard tried desperately to establish a causal link between his concept of autogynephilia and transsexualism, and for a while it was accepted. However, research and study of transsexual patients quickly outpaced Blanchard’s theories, which he has maintained and failed to update. In other words, autogynephilia and transsexualism are not specifically linked, although there may be a “comorbidity” (i.e.: the simultaneous presence of two conditions in a patient).


Like it or not, Blanchards theories on AGP were an important milestone in the development of our understanding and treatment of transsexualism particularly in adult MTF TS.

Not nearly as much as Blanchard and his followers would like everyone to believe.


. . . if AGP is a causative agent and TS the symptom then it does not explain why gender reassignment treatment of any type from HRT through to GRS, will generally resolve AGP

Transgender therapies, to include GRS, are not designed to resolve AGP any more than open heart surgery will resolve lung cancer. Trans therapies are administered to resolve Gender Dysphoria, and as we have already discussed AGP is not a cause of Gender Dysphoria.


It does not mean that we should necessarily throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak and ignore the contribution to understanding gender nonconformity that AGP can make.

An understanding of AGP does very little to help us understand gender nonconformity, except as a paraphilia as described in the DSM section I alluded to and not as an expression of gender identity. AGP will be present in a very small and specific subset of the population who are subject to a paraphilia and who may or may not also have gender identity issues. Two entirely separate issues.

[LeaP]

... Blanchard didn't 'try' to relabel Transvestic Fetishism in DSM 5, it IS relabelled Transvestic Disorder. This obviously makes sense, because not everyone who is a transvestic fetishist has a transvestic disorder. Do you get sexually aroused from cross-dressing? Fine. Does it cause clinically significant distress or impairment? Sorry, but you have a disorder. Are you sexually aroused by thoughts or images of yourself as female? You're autogynephilic as well.

Yes on Disorder vs Fetishism in the DSM5. I don't have a current copy of the DSM-V and I'm still using working copy revisions. Both the ICD-9 and ICD-10, however use the older language, and the latter does correspond with DSM5 302.3 directly.

Your point on disorder versus fetishism is valid, of course. One of the major approach differences in the DSM5 is the move to criteria specifiers supporting diagnoses of disorders (i.e., only, and not non-disordered "conditions").

Whether the presence of significant distress and impairment really constitute disorder is a much longer discussion. The short version of the discussion is that it depends on intrinsic versus extrinsic views of the source of the distress, that there are cultural, social and even political aspects in play, and that all of this is rather beside the point of the thread anyway.

I probably should not have introduced 302.3 into the discussion. It is not appropriately used for transsexuals. I introduced it because of the relationship to Blanchard and because autogynephilia made it into the specifiers. The DSM, in the discussion of the specifiers, makes the statement that: "The presence of autogynephilia increases the likelihood of gender dysphoria in men with Transvestic Disorder."

The outrage isn't over the idea that someone might be aroused by picturing themselves as a female. That obviously does happen. There are people who freely and openly admit to it. No problem. The term, however, and Blanchard's typology is all encompassing. One is either a homosexual or non-homosexual (autogynephilic) transsexual, and that is that. It takes identity almost completely out of the picture and substitutes sexual motivation. That theory has been thoroughly and completely discredited. (Again not the idea of self as female arousal per se.) The sexism in the typology continues, as the concept and the term only apply to males. And it is overbroad, attempting to cover all types of so-called gender issues, including fetishes, simple cross-dressing, as well as transsexuality.

The new DSM further confuses things in some regards. On one hand, the GD diagnosis is something of an improvement. The text clarifies dysphoria as distress over incongruence. It removes identity itself from the list of concerns. On the other hand, I think it continues – if it doesn't actually make worse – the conflation of transsexuality with other gender conditions. Blanchard wasn't involved in the workgroup responsible for the GD diagnosis. And the Transvestic Disorder diagnosis is more stigmatizing than the old diagnosis. The inclusion of autogynephilia language as well as the reference to gender dysphoria is a rather backhanded way of attempting to tie the two together.

There is some confusion in the thread over Blanchard versus Bailey, specifically in some confusing Bailey's book being discredited versus Blanchard's underlying work being discredited. Bailey and Blanchard were joined at the hip, however, with Blanchard regarding the publication of Bailey's book as support for his theory as well as perhaps a revivification. Blanchard has not been discredited so much as his theory has become regarded as an odd footnote in the history of gender. Blanchard (who resigned from WPATH a decade ago) is pretty well ignored by the gender therapy community. I'm tempted to say he has become marginalized, but his DSM role obviates that.

[Michelle.M]

Lea, this is a brilliant summary, and entirely accurate in my opinion. Well done!

[Michelle789]

(i) an extreme form of homosexuality, in which men acquire female physicality in order to be able to have sex with large numbers of other men

I am monogamous, so I do not wish to have sex with large numbers of men (nor women). Cody, I hope you're reading this :)


(ii) a sexual paraphilia ("autogynephilia"), in which men acquire female physicality in order to heighten their masturbation experiences (by being in love with their own bodies).

I used to CD 4-5 times a week, with 75% of it being masturbatory, before I transitioned. Since I started transitioning and accepting myself as a woman, the amount of masturbatory CDing dropped to 25%. My desire to masturbate is practically disappeared since starting on hormones. And I see no great loss, but only relief that I don't need to masturbate regularly, and I can focus my energy on actually living life.

So called "fetish" behavior in a transsexual is a normal female sex drive trying to claw it's way out, possibly being twisted by years or decades of (1) testosterone, and (2) male socialization. Being born in the wrong body carries both penalties, and during transition we try to break down both of those.

[PaulaQ]

Blanchard tried desperately to establish a causal link between his concept of autogynephilia and transsexualism, and for a while it was accepted. However, research and study of transsexual patients quickly outpaced Blanchard’s theories, which he has maintained and failed to update. In other words, autogynephilia and transsexualism are not specifically linked, although there may be a “comorbidity” (i.e.: the simultaneous presence of two conditions in a patient).

I really suspect that Blanchard mistook a common symptom of our condition for a cause of our condition. I think this is why the term autogynephilia, linked as it is to his theory, is so problematical.

In the end, Blanchard is just another straight, cis guy trying to control women by shaming them because of their sexuality.

[Angela Campbell]

" In the end, Blanchard is just another straight, cis guy trying to control women by shaming them because of their sexuality. "

Except that he considered a transsexual to be a man.....more like he didn't understand and rather than try he allowed his biases to dictate the outcome of his studies.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Adina your mailbox is full..

I was going to post this to you

Nobody with any credibility asserts that people born biologically male with penises and testosterone don't have arousal in some cases from imagining themselves as female. Nobody.
In fact, its quite common!!! And what has happened over time is that people realized it doesn't matter with regard to gender identity... What happened in the past is many transsexuals were devastated by Blanchards so called "findings", they were denied the care they needed, plus they were told they could not possibly be transsexual...what a terrible thing.

The TS people in the forum know this intimately. It's discussed in therapy, in groups and in private. Do you really not know this??

We share our experiences and all realize that this arousal is more like a sad side effect of testosterone, confusion and frustration...perhaps anxiety too....
It actually turns out that its not a big deal..

Your persistent use of "AGP" and "Blanchard" loses any chance to talk about It with any type of trust and compassion


Your insistence that somehow this is denied is uninformed at best. So many people on the public thread including me have said the same thing.

this is not a case of science just missing the mark and good things growing from the effort..
this is a case of a bad doctor and his buddy, doing very little or no real research and then making up biased and phobic assumptions and feeding them to a world that is already biased and phobic...
It's not about being afraid of Blanchard. We just don't need him.
We can understand ourselves without the likes of incompetent people like Blanchard and Bailey and understand ourselves without people bringing their flawed ideas up and talk about them instead of what's real.

====

[Michelle.M]

I really suspect that Blanchard mistook a common symptom of our condition for a cause of our condition. I think this is why the term autogynephilia, linked as it is to his theory, is so problematical.

In the end, Blanchard is just another straight, cis guy trying to control women by shaming them because of their sexuality.


Except that he considered a transsexual to be a man.....more like he didn't understand and rather than try he allowed his biases to dictate the outcome of his studies.

I believe there’s an element of truth to both of these statements.

Blanchard got his start working in the Canadian prison system with hardcore sexual offenders whose criminal behaviors were often expressions of their own various paraphilias. Many of these incarcerated patients had comorbidities of pedophilia, voyeurism, sadism, etc. And many engaged in homosexual behavior (whether they identified as homosexual or not), and this was also considered a paraphilia at that time.

This was Blanchard’s background when he began his practice as a sex therapist, and his methodology and biases informed his faulty research in transsexual behavior (with little, if any, recognition of trans identities).

Paula, you’re right. Blanchard’s cisgender privilege made him an excellent gatekeeper, but that was the norm for therapists involved in treatment of transgender patients during that era. He was operating in an environment that tolerated his haphazard and short-sighted views. Unfortunately for him, the trans health community grew up and moved forward, and he did not.

Angela, you’re right. He didn’t understand and he allowed his biases to dictate the outcome of his studies. This is what has made his theories irrelevant. By using the scientific method to properly conduct his research in the first place and to further refine and develop it as new data became available he could have overcome his own errors. He then might have claimed his legacy as a pioneer of transsexual studies instead of being discarded as a footnote of trans history.

[LeaP]

For a non-activist review and commentary on Blanchard's theory, see the following article from The Journal of Homosexuality, July, 2010. The author, Charles Moser (PhD) belongs to the Department of Sexual Medicine, Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, San Francisco.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2010.486241#tabModule

[elizabethamy]

"Late onset"remains a tremendous mystery to me, 5 years after it set upon me. I've read just about everything available on it, and it's either, as has been said here, a half-lifetime of denial and/or lack of self knowledge, or, perhaps, some kind of chemical/hormonal change or psychological trauma that causes and/or reveals gender identity issues late in life. All I've learned is how little we truly know about how this phenomenon works; what to do about it is the question every late-onset person has to deal with alone. The longer I read (and write) research, the more suspicious I become of glib typologies and presumptuous, sweeping readings of datasets.

[LeaP]

No-one has really dissected the term itself. AutogynePHILIA denotes a paraphilia, i.e., an abnormality. The chair of the Paraphilias sub-group for the DSM5 was ... Ray Blanchard. So the term, far more than merely connoting attraction or arousal of oneself as a woman, defines an abnormal sexual preference (politely, and "perversion" in much of the literature). As such it also carries implications for self-absorption, and because it assumes male identity - female identity being a delusion - further supports the notion that we poor, deluded men reinforce gender stereotypes and the oppression of women. Fun stuff the more you dig!

[Frances]

Philia means love. Para means abnormal.

I received a PM because of this posting.

There seems to be a misunderstanding based on equivocation. The prefix para means different things depending on context.

•Medicine
denoting a disordered function or faculty.
"paresthesia"

Origin
from Greek para ‘beside’; in combinations often meaning ‘amiss, irregular’ and denoting alteration or modification.

[Zylia]

So PHILately is a paraphilia too? What about the gender-neutral terms gynephilia and androphilia?
I do not really get your point. I mean, we can all agree that "sexual arousal (in males) by thoughts or images of themselves as female" is a real thing, right? The word autogynephilia aptly describes that concept. All the rest (the parts where you call it a perversion) is just interpretation. Again, I'm not suggesting that Blanchard is right with its typology and I recognise the ramifications of his work, but arguing about the word autogynephilia or it's 'creator' doesn't change the fact that it exists.

By the way, according to the article you linked to previously (good read, thanks for that), Blanchard himself suggests that “autogynephilia might be better characterized as an orientation than as a paraphilia”

[Michelle.M]

So PHILately is a paraphilia too?

Zylia, please! Let’s not get silly and derail this thread. “Philately” comes from the combination of 2 Greek words, “phil” (loving) and “atelia” (tax exemtion, a reference to the use of a stamp). Now if the word was “philateliphilia” then you might have a point. As has already been pointed out, a paraphilia is an ABNORMAL attraction.


I do not really get your point.

The point, again already explained several times, is that there is no causal link between autogynephilia and transsexualism. The problem is that the influence of Blanchard’s hapahazard studies persists and inappropriately categorizes trans women (not men) as confused homosexuals. The ramifications of that miscategorizing of trans women for health care, civil rights, open access to society and personal safety are significant.


I mean, we can all agree that "sexual arousal (in males) by thoughts or images of themselves as female" is a real thing, right? . . . arguing about the word autogynephilia or it's 'creator' doesn't change the fact that it exists.

Sure, it exists. But the reason it is (again) being discussed here is because the OP made the assertion the AGP pertains to transsexualism, particularly "Late onset" or "non classical" transsexualism. It does not, and “late onset transsexualism” is an idea that inherently discredits trans identities and experiences by relegating it to a mere behavior of confused old men.

The OP also asserted that Blanchard’s theories on AGP were an important milestone in the development of our understanding and treatment of transsexualism. They are not. Blanchard’s theories have only served to confuse the issues associated with transgender identity, and some of the posts in this thread are examples of that confusion.

[LeaP]

Terminology is important. One can make a case for reclaiming problematic terms – it's certainly been done before. I see no benefit in doing so in this case.

Hopefully the last return to etymology re the prefix "para":


... a prefix appearing in loanwords from Greek, most often attached to verbs and verbal derivatives, with the meanings “at or to one side of, beside, side by side” ( parabola; paragraph; parallel; paralysis), “beyond, past, by” ( paradox; paragogue); by extension from these senses, this prefix came to designate objects or activities auxiliary to or derivative of that denoted by the base word ( parody; paronomasia), and hence abnormal or defective ( paranoia), a sense now common in modern scientific coinages ( parageusia; paralexia). As an English prefix, para- 1, may have any of these senses; it is also productive in the naming of occupational roles considered ancillary or subsidiary to roles requiring more training, or of a higher status, on such models as paramedical, and paraprofessional: paralegal; paralibrarian; parapolice.

It is important to understand the importance of Blanchard's resignation from WPATH ( at that time still HBIGDA). It was triggered by the Association's open letter questioning the science, ethics, and effects of Bailey's book. While nominally his resignation letter is a protest against biasing Northwestern University's investigation, it is clear that he took the Association's challenge as a personal affront.

On the importance of the concept, terminology, and even Blanchard himself, Michelle is right on the mark. Blanchard is cited relatively frequently. That plus his role on the DSM has given his work continued life beyond any relevance it has in current research and clinical practice. In essence, what has been created is the appearance of competing theoretical factions in the science community. The reality is that Blanchard's views are held and defended by only a tiny minority who are not leaders in current research or practice. The situation is comparable to the few in the scientific community who defend intelligent design – not as a religious concept, but as a scientific concept. They, too, are largely ignored. These ideas will likely go the same route as did scientific racist theory as their proponents drop out of their positions of influence and die off.

[Kathryn Martin]

The real issue with Blanchards so called research was that it was based on so called self reporting quiestionaires of 362 people which had come through his clinic over a 10-15 year period. The Questionaire was entirely sexual arousal focused, which meant that no answers such as "no" but rather degrees of arousal. His research resulted in a hypothesis not a theory, it has never been proven. His research methods have been discredited because of they were constructed to effect a result to confirm his anecdotal impressions as a clinician.

That does not mean that sexual arousal, fetishism etc may play a part in the medical history of persons that may include becoming aroused by the thought of being a woman and all resulting fantasies.

Being transsexed is something quite different.

[becky77]

'Who's afraid of Blanchard?'

More like 'Who is Blanchard?'

I think we are (TS that is) better off ignoring the guy, i'm not wasting my time pondering his idiocy.

[Frances]

[He should not be ignored] If only because he is a leader of the team writing the diagnostic section of the DSM pertaining to you. Ignoring him will not make him go away.

[Jorja]

In my opinion Blanchard should not be ignored because he is one of the people writing the diagnostic section of the DSM pertaining to transsexuals. Fearing him is not an option though. Right here on this forum, we have several young TS women who need to get involved in the discussion. Go to school and become the person that is writing the diagnostic section of the DSM. Stand up when a study is being done. Fighting and proving wrong is the only way things are ever going to change. If you allow an a**hole like Blanchard to continue to control things it will never get better. If it is not Blanchard it will be some other moron pushing his will and agenda.

[becky77]

The DSM isn't used in the UK.
But yeah it's a sorry thing if this guy has any influence over TS diagnostic policy.

[whowhatwhen]

He's pretty old isn't he?
You might not have to wait long before nature gives a helping hand.

[Frances]

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/08august/pages/controversy-mental-health-diagnosis-and-treatment-dsm5.aspx

Why the DSM-5 is important for the NHS

Although the NHS uses the World Health Organization system of diagnosing mental health conditions called ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases), the previous version of DSM, (DSM-IV-TR) has a major influence on how mental health is thought about and treated in this country...


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/02/aspergers-syndrome-dropped-psychiatric-dsm

The DSM is used in a number of countries to varying degrees. Psychiatrists in some countries including Britain use the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) published by the World Health Organisation or a combination of both handbooks.

Blanchard may be old, but DSM revisions last a long time (years).

[LeaP]

The ICD10 already had an essentially equivalent diagnosis in F65.1 - Transvestic Fetishism. The fact that one healthcare system might use a different classification scheme (more accurately, use it for different purposes, as the ICD is also used in the US.) doesn't change the fact that there is a worldwide body of influential practitioners and the theorists. The NHS doesn't exist in a vacuum any more than the APA does.