The real "autogynephilia deniers"

[PaulaQ]

Although I haven't seen a thread talking about autogynephilia here in a while, it's pleasant to see Julia Serano drive yet another stake into this thing's heart so that hopefully it doesn't come back to its unholy life.

http://juliaserano.blogspot.ca/2015/07/the-real-autogynephilia-deniers.html

Some takeaway points:
1. Blanchard's data has always sucked, and never really supported his claims.
2. Sexual arousal while imagining one's image female, or otherwise fantasizing about being female just has nothing to do with whether or not someone will transition.
3. In fact, cisgender women frequently experience such fantasies too - they aren't a trans phenomenon at all.

Indeed, since a rather high percentage of women experience sexual arousals involving their own mental image of themselves as women, i.e. the same damned thing Blanchard says is the root cause of gender dysphoria for female attracted trans women, perhaps this is, ironically enough, further evidence that trans women are, in fact, just women!

I realize that some here identify with this theory - after all, many of us experienced sexual arousal in the manner Blanchard describes. The problem is that Blanchard's theory of Autogynephilia makes conclusions that simply aren't supported by any data - including that samples Blanchard himself gathered.

[Claire Cook]

Thanks Paula. I've always thought that the autogynophilia thing was, ummm, :BS:. Better to not worry about why we are and just enjoy what we are!

[kimdl93]

That's the great thing about science...it's (eventually) self correcting.

[CynthiaD]

That's the great thing about science...it's (eventually) self correcting.

Yes, it is self-correcting, but unfortunately the process often takes decades or even centuries. I could name a number of "accepted scientific truths" that are unsupported by any real evidence, but nevertheless have become the basis of public policy. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything one can do about it.

What is even more irksome is those who continue to cling to "scientific truths" that have been proven to be false.

[Pat]

Actually, he seems to be using a very traditional technique:

- take a sampling of subjects,
- perform carefully constructed interviews
- sort the subjects into two groups: (1) those that support my hypothesis (2) liars.
- Then evaluate the results. (or the "Hey! I was right!" phase)

;)

[LucyNewport]

I discovered the concept of autogynephilia when I first started researching my *condition* years ago. It was one the factors that convinced me I couldn't possibly be TS. I took the fact that cross-dressing was arousing to me to mean that I was "fetishistic transvestite". It has taken me years to unlearn this - that my turn-ons are not really linked to my gender ID. Such is the benefit of therapy.

[docrobbysherry]

Paula, maybe that's why many TG's and TS's have been denying any attraction to their image since I arrived here 7 years ago? I know some r being honest. But, others "protest too much"!:doh:

While labeling me a "fetish dresser" because I openly DO!:devil:

[Tracii G]

Why buy into someone's opinion just because they have stationary with their name on it?
Doesn't make them an expert by any means.

[cheryl reeves]

i kinda wonder how many tg's,cd's,and ts's are turned on by the image of their fem or male self..

[Katey888]

Why buy into someone's opinion just because they have stationary with their name on it?
Doesn't make them an expert by any means.

This is such a great reflection on the modern world Tracii, thank you... :)

Thanks for posting that Paula and getting us all riled up ag'in... ;)

Problem with Blanchard I feel is that he is one of few to have developed some source data that has a grain of truth in it - the damaging and dumb thing is then to try to extrapolate a further rationale on the basis of those observations and propagate it as proven fact... I think some of the observations are valid - but suggesting that AGP is the foundation cause is the first flaw for me; the second is probably trying to put TS and CDs on the same spectrum - we're just not.

One day someone will do some better research - and then the old stuff will be consigned to the recycling bin... :)

Katey x

[Tracii G]

Seeing myself all dolled up in the mirror does nothing for me sexually never has.
Maybe by Blanchard's model I am in denial.LOL I say I'm not and he doesn't know me but he says I am. Who am I to judge he has a fancy letterhead and I don't.

OMG I'm soo confused.

[Tristessa]

Katey, curious why you disagree with the assertion that CD and TS are on the same spectrum. My journey started as CD (mislabeled as TVF), but has trended TG over time as I have realized that my GID is part F. From your perspective, did I only register on the T spectrum once I started looking at the identity piece?

[Teresa]

Paula,
I think we've already had this conversation but when it was suggested I checked it out the meaning of Autogynerphilia , to love oneself as a woman I appeared to fit in that box ! I know I have thoughts of gender dysphoria and Blanchard was mainly looking at TSs so I don't know whether to add Transvestic to apply to me !

After reading your link I can see why his ideas are brought into question which is a shame because I think his idea is basically sound but just didn't research it enough and ignored too many factors ! I guess the point is he had a stab at a difficult subject , others saw his flaws and tried to correct his mistakes, in the process we all benefit as it revealed more factors to be considered and improved this sector of research .
The point is that you understand it more from the work being put into try and fully understand the subject and in the process are more able to help others who are struggling to come to terms with the whole spectrum of Cding/TG and TS problems.

Sherry,
Ever since I heard the term I knew it applied to me and I don't mind admitting it, if it were practical I would much sooner look like my avatar all the time than the guy hidden beneath ! I also admit that my dressing still has a sexual content , it started like that at the age of nine and has never gone away, I have always had a desire to share it with a woman which I know can happen because I had two Gfs that I did but if I can't then I'm content by myself . I don't have a choice now since my wife has lost all interest in intimate content, I have said before that she knows she's being substituted but it's a situation she's put herself in and not me !

[PaulaQ]

The problems with Blanchard's theory are numerous:
1. His sample size is quite small. He also excludes people who don't "fit" what he expects them to say!
2. He takes an observation "many female attracted trans women" - specifically crossdressers, sexualize their image as women, and uses it to conclude that the their gender dysphoria is caused by this sexualized, fantasy image of themselves as women. The conclusion doesn't really follow from the data. It's a conjecture based on the observation that many trans women are frequently sexually kinked. In essence, he assumes this is a fetish.
3. UNFORTUNATELY for Blanchard - many cisgender women also sexualize their images as women! Oops - this isn't unique to transgender women! So that pretty much shoots down that idea.
4. His theory that male attracted trans women are simply gay men who are afraid to come out is pretty obviously just idiocy given the state of the world today. I'd much rather have been born a cisgender gay man than a transgender woman.
5. He more or less ignores trans men.

NO ONE in current science cares whether or not you whack off while you crossdress. Lots of us who have transitioned experienced this. I did. Lots of us did not. It has no relevance about whether or not you are really transgender and in need of transition.

This theory sucks. It has served as a club that has been used to deny care to persons suffering from gender dysphoria.


the second is probably trying to put TS and CDs on the same spectrum - we're just not.


I disagree, but it remains to be seen. A good number of CD identified people end up transitioning. This has been beaten to death here, but there are plenty of prominent folks here who said "I'm just a CD - I'll never transition," who have transitioned. BTW, Blanchard doesn't really connect the two, except that most or all of the folks he surveyed were, in fact, CDs who ultimately transitioned. BTW, just because I think CDs and TSs are on the same spectrum doesn't mean I think that all of you will transition. Most of you won't, and those who don't often have quite a different identity than someone like me. I do think there is likely a relationship between the two, because so many of you report mild GD-like types of symptoms. I think it's simpler to assume it's "mild GD" rather than "Some other thing that we haven't explained yet, and is totally different from GD because, well, it makes our wives feel better, but that is indistinguishable from milder reports of GD that some who transition report." But we don't know anything for certain.

[Teresa]

Paula,
The points you raise about the theory shows how much you understand the subject and where the mistakes were made which is precisely my point about moving on from his ideas and in the process making more sense of it all. I can see the point of dropping the theory and stand corrected and I'm grateful for that .

Your comments about masturbation is slightly off with me as I knew nothing of sex when my first orgasm happened, as I've said before I was dressed but not knowing really why apart from subconciously thinking the swim suit was my GFs body and then having an involuntary orgasm, which was more scary than exciting because I didn't know what had happened ! I still think that's what finally hard wired the connections of women/clothes and sex in my brain, a feeling that has never gone away. I also feel that I was born with female traits because I know there's more going on than wanting to dress purely for sex , this idea has finally been accepted by the experts but was told twenty years ago that it was a load of rubbish by a therapist I consulted then .

[PaulaQ]

Your comments about masturbation is slightly off with me as I knew nothing of sex when my first orgasm happened, as I've said before I was dressed but not knowing really why apart from subconciously thinking the swim suit was my GFs body and then having an involuntary orgasm, which was more scary than exciting because I didn't know what had happened ! I still think that's what finally hard wired the connections of women/clothes and sex in my brain, a feeling that has never gone away.

There's no telling, but honestly, I doubt it. It doesn't really make any difference though whether or not this stuff sexually excites you or not. We make a big damn deal about sex in our culture. If we do something that involves sex - other than trying to make babies - it's automatically kind of suspect to many people. Being aroused by women's clothes simply doesn't matter.

What often does matter is that many of us who have transitioned, and who were sexually aroused by CDing report that our arousal dropped off and vanished VERY rapidly after we came out to ourselves as women. I experienced this.


I also feel that I was born with female traits because I know there's more going on than wanting to dress purely for sex , this idea has finally been accepted by the experts but was told twenty years ago that it was a load of rubbish by a therapist I consulted then .

This is what's behind what you are feeling, both the sexual and non-sexual feelings, in my opinion. And the therapist who told you differently is precisely why I am so against Blanchard's theories. In general any sexual feeling or experience that isn't heteronormative has been viewed as pathological by the psychological community in times past.

[Zylia]

Very interesting read, Paula, thanks for sharing. I also couldn't agree more with your own assessment in this thread.

I was afraid that this article would once again apply the following 'logic':


Blanchard coined the term autogynephilia
Blanchard's 'two type' theory is proven to be false
Autogynephilia is false as well

I'm glad that's not the case in this article.

The author rightfully brings up the social issues around AGP. It's very unfortunate that Blanchard's theories are used to marginalise transgender people or, worse, to deny them treatment and other basic human rights, mainly because his theories are proven to be false. However, I don't think that denying the existence on a scientific level of something he named is going to fix that problem. It really only takes a quick tour on this very website to see dozens of examples of AGP and, as the author points out, there's actual science to back it up as well. If coining a new term like the author does is going to fix this issue, I'm all for it.

[Katey888]

Katey, curious why you disagree with the assertion that CD and TS are on the same spectrum. My journey started as CD (mislabeled as TVF), but has trended TG over time as I have realized that my GID is part F. From your perspective, did I only register on the T spectrum once I started looking at the identity piece?

Tristessa (and Paula) - I don't think I explained myself well... or properly, in fact, so thank you for prodding me... :)

What I meant was, that Blanchard's findings are tending to put both CDs and TSs on an AGP-related spectrum - I don't think that's the case. Like Zylia, I do believe that aspects of AGP are prevalent across CDers - heck, I've admitted to it myself... I like the way I look when I'm transformed - a lot of the style and look is driven by what I find attractive in women and at the end of it all, I dress for me. :) What I find fundamentally wrong is that - even for CDers who exhibit AGP-type behaviour - it is the AGP that makes them do it... That is totally flawed, imho. If we were being driven to do something that had as simple a motive as just looking like a somewhat attractive woman, then wouldn't more men have a tendency to do this? And then why the complexities of behaviour and manners of presentation; why the need to pursue sometimes very mundane activities in a way that sometimes downplays attractiveness and exposure? It doesn't stack up - too many contradictions for me...

No - Blanchard was pursuing the 'right' data for a good idea he thought he had - I do think that CDs are deserving of being part of the TG spectrum; what I'm unconvinced of is that anyone really understands all of the various branches the spectrum exhibits, and has any sort of reliable way of identifying who will start as a CD (for example) who doesn't immediately identify as female, but will develop that feeling more strongly over time and eventually transition. I need to write more on this but not here as I don't want to hijack Paula's "let's kick seven barrels of shit out of Blanchard" thread as it's too much fun... :D

Katey x

[Teresa]

Katey,
Your comments reminded me of a TV program some years ago showing how many couples choose partners with similar facial features, I also think there is something in the partners we choose, on the basis of if I were a woman I'd like to look like you, possibly that extends to liking the clothes they wear and wishing you could share them !
I'm not sure if the same research has gone into women having the same thoughts along the lines of AGP ?

[LilSissyStevie]

I think Blanchard is probably wrong on both his two type taxonomy (is anything ever that simple?) and his concept of erotic target location error. He's absolutely right about the existence of autogynephilia but he didn't discover it, he just gave it a name. But just being wrong, and most scientific hypotheses turn out to be wrong, doesn't explain the hysterical extreme hate that he gets from sections of the trans* community. He, after all, generally supports transgender rights and has even argued for public funding of TG related surgeries. I suspect that the real reason has nothing to do with the quality of his science and everything to do with the fact that he doesn't buy into the feminine essence narrative favored by so many in the trans* world. They criticize his science and offer mysticism as an alternative.

[Michelle789]

Paula, thank you for this thread. It's really great informative thread on the true nature of "autogynephilia."

I have a few thoughts myself. The very fact that women masturbate and fantasize about themselves as sexualized women says a lot. This phenomena is one that truly is one that is common in women. It's truly a "normal", or I should say "common" trait of women, both cis and trans.

I will also add that not all women, cis or trans, experience this. But plenty of us do. It's not required that you experience autoeroticism to be a woman.


I also feel that I was born with female traits because I know there's more going on than wanting to dress purely for sex.



This is what's behind what you are feeling, both the sexual and non-sexual feelings

There are men out there are that are simply fetishists, and they experience autoerotic fantasies about being a sexualized woman. And there are men who don't have this trait either.

The difference between a fetishist and a woman in a man's body is, the fetishist has erotic fantasies without any underlying feminine core. Transwomen have a feminine core, and along with it feelings of feeling feminine even when not CDing, feelings that we are women. We're often more sensitive and possess other stereotypical female psychological or personality traits. These traits, while hidden, often do manifest itself in some way and have a profound effect on us even before we transition, and may be noticeable to others as well. When we transition and go on hormones, these qualities come out and become more pronounced in our lives, and more visible to others. Our feminine core, our female identities, in fact drive both the sexual and non-sexual feelings we have.




What often does matter is that many of us who have transitioned, and who were sexually aroused by CDing report that our arousal dropped off and vanished VERY rapidly after we came out to ourselves as women. I experienced this.


This happened to me too.

[Teresa]

Michelle789,
Thanks for that, I think it's the first time I've had the feelings I have explained to me !
I've finally had my gender therapy appointment confirmed so I have a little more information now to hopefully know which road I may be taking, I'm not particularly scared but more concerned my age is against me making the totally right decision .

[Mayo]

I think Blanchard is probably wrong on both his two type taxonomy (is anything ever that simple?) and his concept of erotic target location error. He's absolutely right about the existence of autogynephilia but he didn't discover it, he just gave it a name.
As someone who fits the 'autogynephile' label I can identify with this (but see below).


Problem with Blanchard I feel is that he is one of few to have developed some source data that has a grain of truth in it
It's also true that some gay men probably had dominant mothers, but many didn't. That doesn't mean that having a dominant mother causes male homosexuality.


The very fact that women masturbate and fantasize about themselves as sexualized women says a lot. This phenomena is one that truly is one that is common in women. It's truly a "normal", or I should say "common" trait of women, both cis and trans.
Men also masturbate while fantasizing about themselves as sexualized men (something I do as well as having autogynephilic fantasies).

Identifying a certain behaviour or personality trait and making it a diagnostic criterion ignores the fact that it's not (in this case) specific to trans people, though he's claimed that it is. I think Blanchard was looking too hard for the trees to see the forest and ended up ignoring a whole bunch of stuff that just wasn't convenient in order to make his theory fit (badly).

I love Julia Serano's work. I had the pleasure of seeing her talk about a year ago and she was great.

[pamela7]

Unfortunately most scientists I came across in over 25 years of R&D failed to observe then theorise, instead they would theorise and fit the world to the theory and find excuses to delete all the data that failed to fit. If the theory fails to account for any one single human being in 10 billion, then it's WRONG.

Paula is very right to challenge, criticise and debunk Blanchard, and I would go further with DSM as a complete travesty, with no underlying theory worth the name used to mischaracterise human beings and the wide diversity that is our nature.

As to auto-erotic pleasure, what does it matter how a person fantasizes, and how on earth is this supposed to link to one's sense of gender rather than sexual fantasies?!!!

enough, rant over!

[Lucy_Bella]

IMHO.

I thought Dr.Blanchard broke some serious ground in the subject ( although much of the data was flawed ) he at least made the attempt, in what I arguably consider daring at the time studies.. For one, many of those who volunteered for the studies were all over the spectrum ( and at that time the chances of getting a closeted CDer was slim due to the volunteers not wanting to be exposed ).....

So , as flawed as the studies may be ( because of the data used and how it was applied to individuals ) Dr. Blanchard was to many a pioneer and he set the bar ..The Wright brothers didn't fly a jet, Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile but they did have the "first" in their respectful fields that made them pioneers and I am 100 percent positive that they made plenty of err's in their journeys.. I'm not saying in any way Dr. Blanchard was an expert ..

[Eryn]

...Indeed, since a rather high percentage of women experience sexual arousals involving their own mental image of themselves as women, i.e. the same damned thing Blanchard says is the root cause of gender dysphoria for female attracted trans women, perhaps this is, ironically enough, further evidence that trans women are, in fact, just women!...

Our society is much more tolerant and encouraging of women deriving intimate pleasure from their own actions. Women are continuously admonished to "feel sexy" and "pamper yourself" and are often depicted with rapturous, near-orgasmic expressions while using products in advertising and other media. Men are not encouraged to be so self-involved. It is no surprise that transwomen follow the path of ciswomen in this regard.

[Mayo]

I thought Dr.Blanchard broke some serious ground in the subject ( although much of the data was flawed ) he at least made the attempt, in what I arguably consider daring at the time studies..

So , as flawed as the studies may be ( because of the data used and how it was applied to individuals ) Dr. Blanchard was to many a pioneer and he set the bar ..The Wright brothers didn't fly a jet, Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile but they did have the "first" in their respectful fields that made them pioneers and I am 100 percent positive that they made plenty of err's in their journeys.. I'm not saying in any way Dr. Blanchard was an expert ..
This is certainly true - to a degree. Freud, Krafft-Ebing, Ellis, Kinsey and others were all pioneers in human sexuality. But problems occur when the theories are retrogressive or when they cater (deliberately or otherwise) to a particularly damaging world-view - look at the 'racial theories' of the 17th - 20th centuries that were used to justify colonialism, discrimination and genocide by whites toward people of colour, and the eugenics movement that grew out of those theories. Freud's views are terribly sexist. John Money has been criticized for his views on intersex people. Blanchard's typology has denied many people the opportunity to transition and compelled others to falsify their experiences in order to pass the 'gatekeepers'. Et cetera.

Science is (fortunately) self-correcting, but harmful theories can stick around for quite a long time before they are finally overturned. Yes, it's good that someone is doing research on these topics, but when theorists become so wedded to their ideas that they become overly invested in them despite evidence to the contrary then that becomes a problem.

[Lucy_Bella]

True Mayo,

To a point as well..

Just like the Wright Brothers ,who never dreamed airplanes would be jet powered and because of that helped us explore outer space..Do you think that at the time they flew those short few seconds at Kitty Hawk they knew that they actually could have helped pave the way to space exploration? Maybe ...But it took years of other people contributing to what they started to make that happen....

Dr. Blanchard , was only as good as what he had to work with..Now had Dr. Blanchard been T/G T/S or T/F he may have understood at the time during his studies that there was an actual spectrum ( he kinda did to his credit) .. But as the "Transgender" movement continues to become some what acceptable Dr. Blanchards theories become more flawed ..Because a broader spectrum is exposed..Leaving Dr. Blanchards Theories original would be like flying the Wright Brothers plane to the moon..:)

[PaulaQ]

But just being wrong, and most scientific hypotheses turn out to be wrong, doesn't explain the hysterical extreme hate that he gets from sections of the trans* community. He, after all, generally supports transgender rights and has even argued for public funding of TG related surgeries. I suspect that the real reason has nothing to do with the quality of his science and everything to do with the fact that he doesn't buy into the feminine essence narrative favored by so many in the trans* world. They criticize his science and offer mysticism as an alternative.

Does this guy sound like an ally?

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/heres-how-the-guy-who-wrote-the-manual-on-sex-talks-about-sex

You'll note he doesn't seem to believe trans men exist.

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

Blanchard's work has done enormous harm to the trans community, pathologizing our condition, and giving ammunition to those who believe we shouldn't receive treatment because we are delusional. This guy's ideas have almost certainly killed people.

Look, the guy believes those of us who are attracted to men are really gay men in the closet, trying to increase our pool of partners by attracting straight men. Does anyone here not see the glaringly obvious stupidity of that idea? Is it even worth seriously discussing the rest of his crap given that idiocy? (Hint - I wish I was just a gay man, it would be so much easier.) He believes that the rest of us are paraphiliacs suffering from extreme delusions and chronic psychological disorders.


Do these articles on the observed physical similarities between the brains of trans women and cis women seem like mysticism to you? Our brains are wired like cis women's in some crucial respects. What is difficult to understand about this? The other sexually dimorphic organs of the body can and sometimes do develop in inconsistent ways. So it is with the brain.

http://transascity.org/the-transgender-brain/